Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Okie, you remind of Bill Bennet and Rush Limbaugh, people who are great at judging others and setting standards for others to follow. We now know what feet of clay these two have. Personally, I am for individual freedom to the extent others are bit injured. It doesn't matter that the feelings or beliefs of others are offended. Thus, a woman has an absolute right of choice, and a bunch of old men must not be allowed to limit this.

0 Replies

No, Mr. Advocate- A woman does not have an absolute right of choice.

According to Roe Vs. Wade, a woman may terminate her pregnancy only in her first two trimesters not the third, except where by medical judgment it is necessary to preserve the mother's life or health.

There are states in which A woman who is not eighteen may not be transported across state lines to get an abortion and there are states in which a woman under eighteen must get parental permission to get an abortion.

That hardly translates to an ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF CHOICE.

Furthermore, most of this post has devolved around the RIGHT of a group to counsel women with regard to abortion. Now, you and Keltic Wizard may fulminate and groan about that but even some of the members of the ACLU state that you cannot take away the right of such a group to do such counseling.

0 Replies

I don't think that Roe went far enough. Someday, I hope, the court will recognize the woman's right to terminate at ANY time during pregnancy. Regarding the other restrictions, I think they are unconstitutional. I hope that the courts will so hold.

I think I mentioned before that organizations that mislead pregnant women may have committed a tort. If the misinformation caused the woman to suffer a detriment, she has a right to recover monetary damages.

0 Replies

Bernard's mother could be in for big bucks.

0 Replies

Good god!

Woman have the right to decide what will or will not take place within their own bodies. Period! Abortion isn't a happy event, guys.
Woman do not take the reponsibility of carrying a child to full term lightly.

RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Good god!

Woman have the right to decide what will or will not take place within their own bodies. Period! Abortion isn't a happy event, guys.
Woman do not take the reponsibility of carrying a child to full term lightly.

RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!

So then a woman has the right to sell her body to the highest bidder,just so they can have sex,right?

0 Replies

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, you remind of Bill Bennet and Rush Limbaugh, people who are great at judging others and setting standards for others to follow. We now know what feet of clay these two have. Personally, I am for individual freedom to the extent others are bit injured. It doesn't matter that the feelings or beliefs of others are offended. Thus, a woman has an absolute right of choice, and a bunch of old men must not be allowed to limit this.

Advocate, in light of your argument, lets get rid of all laws. After all, laws are nothing more than a bunch of rules set up by a bunch of judgemental old men.

0 Replies

Okie, that is hardly an extension of my logic.

Mystery, I agree that women should have the right to sell their bodies. I am against victimless crimes. This is not to say that there should not be reasonable regulation.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, that is hardly an extension of my logic.

Mystery, I agree that women should have the right to sell their bodies. I am against victimless crimes. This is not to say that there should not be reasonable regulation.

Advocate, I think the debate can finally identify the real bone of contention here. We can all agree, I think, that laws are to protect people from harm by other people. However, there are many laws that enter a gray area, wherein you perhaps may think the crime is victimless, while others do not see it that way.

Lets take prostitution. You think it is victimless. Others do not. I think a majority do not.

Lets take drugs. Do you think it is victimless if only the user does the drugs. Many people think not. For illustration sake, let us look at heroin or crack cocaine, wherein the act of being a user may at first appear to be victimless, but eventually that person is unable to perform a job, and both him or her and possibly their family now become the responsibility of the state because they become unable to function well enough in society to support themselves. Drugs therefore harm other people. There are many victims to drug use, including the family, the employer, customers of the employer, and all of society if that person has to rely on the government to support them because of the drug habit. Drug users habitually endanger or cause bodily injury to others before their problem is discovered or treated.

Gambling is another vice wherein society deemed it advisable to outlaw, perhaps to avoid having to build more poor houses to house the indegent as a result of chronic gambling habits infecting society. Again, many victims to such activity. Legalized gambling has become more commonplace, but again, it is not allowed everywhere and studies do show this is not a victimless activity.

Other vices, such as prostitution, have also been traditionally viewed as having victims.

The same can be argued for abortion. And we know for a fact the unborn child is a victim. And the father is a victim. Siblings are victims. And the rest of the family, including potential grandparents are victims. This debate still is to be settled by our society, but in no way is it a given that abortion can automatically be labeled victimless without an argument.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Lets take drugs. ....

Sure ... let's take drugs. Let's ALL take drugs. You'll take drugs, I'll take drugs ... pretty soon everyone will be taking drugs. It'll be anarchy! Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, that is hardly an extension of my logic.

Mystery, I agree that women should have the right to sell their bodies. I am against victimless crimes. This is not to say that there should not be reasonable regulation.

You contradict yourself.

If women have the right to sell their bodies,then there can be no regulation of any sort.
Any regulation would violate their right,wouldnt it?

0 Replies

Okie- You must pardon me, but I think it would be beat to again note what the left wing Abortionists want to do. They are in favor of making it a TORT when an organization counsels a woman not to have an abortion.

The ACLU has been referenced as itself having an internal struggle concerning their desire that women seeking abortion should not be dissuaded from their goal against the right the ACLU has always worked to defend--Freedom of Speech.

I view the charge that the organizations which counsel a woman against abortion are committing a TORT as an idiocy and am asking that a legal source which holds that incredible position be cited--preferably a judicial source!!!

0 Replies

Bernard, liberals love to use terms that sound pro-freedom, pro-this, pro-that, great example being pro-choice. They are not about freedom of choice at all. ACLU is not about civil liberties. And as I've pointed out, Planned Parenthood is not about parenthood. People for the American Way are not about traditional American ways, anything but. The list could go on. Talk about false advertising, its enough to make ya gag.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Bernard, liberals love to use terms that sound pro-freedom, pro-this, pro-that, great example being pro-choice. They are not about freedom of choice at all.

Let's see-the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a woman has the right not to carry her pregnancy to term if she chooses not to. Sounds like a choice to me.

The anti-choice people such as Okie have spent all thread defending deceptive advertising, where centers full of anti-choice convincers advertise themselves as providing Abortion Services.

This deception would not be allowed in any other endeavor. If a car dealer advertised, "Interested in a Chevy? Come on down to Smith's Car World", and it turned out that Smith was a Ford dealer, he would have to remove the ad immediately and very possibly face criminal charges for deceptive advertising.

Yet, these anti-choice centers do the same thing Smith the car dealer is doing, and they try to claim it is okay.

When making a decision, everyone has the right to know the nature of who they are dealing with before they walk through the front door, whether the decision is about purchasing a car or terminating a pregnancy. But Okie and the other anti-choicers have so little respect for women that when a woman seeks to get a legal procedure, they say she is not entitled to the same protection against deceptive practices as she would get if she was purchasing a car.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
Bernard, liberals love to use terms that sound pro-freedom, pro-this, pro-that, great example being pro-choice. They are not about freedom of choice at all.

Let's see-the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a woman has the right not to carry her pregnancy to term if she chooses not to. Sounds like a choice to me.

The anti-choice people such as Okie have spent all thread defending deceptive advertising, where centers full of anti-choice convincers advertise themselves as providing Abortion Services.

This deception would not be allowed in any other endeavor. If a car dealer advertised, "Interested in a Chevy? Come on down to Smith's Car World", and it turned out that Smith was a Ford dealer, he would have to remove the ad immediately and very possibly face criminal charges for deceptive advertising.

Yet, these anti-choice centers do the same thing Smith the car dealer is doing, and they try to claim it is okay.

When making a decision, everyone has the right to know the nature of who they are dealing with before they walk through the front door, whether the decision is about purchasing a car or terminating a pregnancy. But Okie and the other anti-choicers have so little respect for women that when a woman seeks to get a legal procedure, they say she is not entitled to the same protection against deceptive practices as she would get if she was purchasing a car.

keltic, I have never defended deceptive advertising. I have only pointed out your hypocrisy and that misleading advertising and misleading names are common, and that if you were truly interested in wiping out deception, you would apply your rules equally and across the board. I have pointed out that Planned Parenthood would be a good place to apply your rules along with the abortion services people. You aren't interested.

And do you have evidence of somebody like Smiths Car World being prosecuted for what you describe? I would be interested if there has been, because if so, then what law would apply? If applicable, then why not prosecute the abortion services people under existing law? You see, I do not think specific laws singling out specific businesses that you do not agree with is the correct way to approach the problem you perceive. You need to be fair instead of furthering your little pet agenda, which is abortion.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Mystery, I agree that women should have the right to sell their bodies. I am against victimless crimes. This is not to say that there should not be reasonable regulation.

You contradict yourself.

If women have the right to sell their bodies,then there can be no regulation of any sort.
Any regulation would violate their right,wouldnt it?

Nice strawman there, mysteryman. Who do you think would argue that regulation equals prohibition?

See, even the right to free speech is regulated. As is the right to assemble peacefully, or the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.

Would you argue that, because freedom of speech is regulated, you might as well prohibit free speech because any regulation violates that right? I don't think so.

You might not support legalized prostitution, but you'll really have to build a better case than that.

0 Replies

The worst drugs out there by far relative to damage to people and society are alcohol and tobacco. Criminalizing the former was a disaster, and there is no effort to ban the latter. However, both are, properly, regulated.

If we legalized other banned drugs, people would not have to rob, steal, and do business with criminals to get resupplied. This would drastically reduce the burden on our criminal-justice system. Moreover, it is shown in parts of Europe that addicts can then live relatively normal and dignified lives, hold jobs, get treatment, etc. This, of course, reduces the cost of the criminal-justice system. There is no doubt that legalization is the way to go.

The same rationale would apply to prostitution. There is legal prostitution in Nevada, and the people there see the value of legalization.

Regarding abortion, there is no such thing as an unborn child. A fetus is not a person, and the woman should not be made to carry it.

Should an organization mislead a woman into thinking that it will provide an abortion, and this causes the woman to reach a point in time at which one can't be obtained, the organization is probably liable in a tort action. For instance, the organization might be required to provide monetary support for the resultant child.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

keltic, I have never defended deceptive advertising.

You have spent all thread defending the practice of centers full of nothing but anti-choice convincers advertising themselves under the heading of Abortion Services. Obviously, that is false advertising, as they provide nothing toward facilitating an abortion.

olie wrote:

....if you were truly interested in wiping out deception, you would apply your rules equally and across the board. I have pointed out that Planned Parenthood would be a good place to apply your rules along with the abortion services people.

How much longer do you plan to embarass yourself with this claim that Planned Parenthood is a deceptive name? Planned Parenthood is an organization which is dedicated to providing information about and preventing unwanted preganancies, through contraception and abortion. Since most people do become parents eventually, if you eliminate the unplanned parenthood, obviously what is left is planned parenthood.

Your gambit has been exposed over and over, yet over and over again you try it. You attempt to equate using the accurate name Planned Parenthood to being deceptive, so the deception these anti-choice centers are engaging in is not so bad. What hokum.

If you call up Planned Parenthood and ask what they do, you will get an honest answer. If you call up one of these anti-choioce centers and ask what they do, you will NOT get an honest answer. They exist only to deceive the woman into coming in the door, so they can pound away with their anti-choice message.

okie wrote:

You see, I do not think specific laws singling out specific businesses that you do not agree with is the correct way to approach the problem you perceive.

So you would be against the laws which prevent car dealers from rolling back the odometers on the cars they sell? That law targets a specific business. Would you be against all the laws which target deceptive practices in lending? Those laws target specific businesses. How about all the other laws specifically written to prevent deceptive practices in home selling and securities selling?

Your argument is nonsense. Of course you can write a law which targets a specific deceptive practice in a specific industry. Most anti-fraud laws are written to do just that-prevent a specific deceptive practicve in a single industry.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Regarding abortion, there is no such thing as an unborn child. .....

Confirmation some people just aren't very nice people.

kelticwizard wrote:

How much longer do you plan to embarass yourself with this claim that Planned Parenthood is a deceptive name? Planned Parenthood is an organization which is dedicated to providing information about and preventing unwanted preganancies, through contraception and abortion. Since most people do become parents eventually, if you eliminate the unplanned parenthood, obviously what is left is planned parenthood.

keltic, Abortion Services can be a service dedicated to providing information about and preventing abortion, just as Planned Parenthood provides information about preventing parenthood, whether planned or not it makes no difference, they are not about parenthood, they are about preventing it.

keltic, I am tired of arguing the same old stuff. The bottom line is if providing counseling against abortion under the heading of abortion services does not rise to the level of fraud under current fraud laws, then it is nothing more than misleading advertising to some people, same as lots of other things. As I've said before, I would not advocate such myself, but unless people are actually bilked out of money or forced to spend money on something they did not want, then it does not rise to the level of fraud. I am against creating pet laws to address your little pet agenda, abortion. If it is truly fraud, it could be prosecuted now. Same with Planned Parenthood, misleading in my opinion, but I have never advocated, nor would I advocate now some special law to make them change their name to something more descriptive of what they actually do, which I think could be "Abortion and Contraception Clinic" or "Parenthood Prevention Clinic" or some such thing.

keltic, if the businesses you don't like changed their advertising to "abortion counseling services," would that pass in your judgement?

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know