No, I'm speaking in medical terms, unlike you who just seems to throw around words to try to make a point that can't be made. Abortion is considered an elective procedure by the medical profession. There are abortions that are considered medically necessary, but this woman's situation isn't one of those.

Please learn the difference between medical fact and opinion.



Would you be for requiring abortions of prison inmates? Are you for or against mandatory vaccinations for public schools? Are you for or against mandatory Schipping of convicted sex offenders? Should the military be able to give medication to servicemembers against their will?

Notice I did form all of these as questions since we've moved from me merely speculating about your position to actually discussing them.



But decisions aren't made in a vaccuum, nor is abortion the only right recognized by law. What galls me is that you and those activist judges make special accomidations for abortion under the guise of "rights" yet abortion is the only right you want it to apply to.

The woman does not get special "rights" just because she chooses to have an abortion.

I swear abortion has become a religion to a lot of Americans.

A medical want, you are totally being selfish if you have an abortion simply because you choose to. There is no justice in allowing any woman to have an abortion for convenience.

Given your viewpoints, lobotomy.

I'm saying that the sheriff is doing the right thing.

The sheriff's job is to ENFORCE the law, not UPHOLD the law. He doesn't need to do more than that. To tell you the truth, he can deadlock it.

So if your parents had killed you at that stage, you wouldn't have cared? Good.

Nope. I'm just saying that Sheriff Joe can do whatever he wants and play by his rules with his prisoners.

This is relevant because Sheriff Joe is a nice guy, just tough on crime.

Is too. It's a living creature, at the least.

There's nothing you can say or do
To justify the fact

That there's a living breathing baby inside of you

Where are you getting this idea?

There's so much wrong with that statement I wouldn't even know where to begin. I mean, it's one thing to find the law to be unjust, but to advocate that a sheriff can and should do whatever he wants and "play by his rules" with his prisoners...Wow.

PS - babies don't breathe in the womb, LOL.

Brandie:

I agree with you here, no sheriff has the right to do anything he wants to the people in his jail. However, no judge has the right to create rights out of thin air either. Unfortunately for us, incompetent judges have been doing that for a long time.




Um, actually they do. They don't do it through lungs, but they do take respiratory gasses in and expel them (which is what breathing is).

I wouldn't have been cognizant. I wouldn't have breathed air.



Yes, he is a very nice man who routinely denies his prisoners their constitutional rights. What a great guy!



Fine - it's elective but still a right.

I would say no on requiring abortions, schipping of convicted sex offenders and military medicating against servicememebers will. I am on the fence on vaccinations.

The only reason that reproductive rights are the issue is because people are always trying to take them away. I would be glad to stand up for other rights violations but in this instance we are talking about a sheriff enforcing his personal beliefs instead of fulfilling his duty.

That is your opinion. Your opinion doesn't trump other people's rights.

I'm sure you think that anyone who disagrees with you should be lobotomized. Way to lower the level of the discussion.



How? He is violating a court decision that has been upheld on appeal. He does not have the right to make up the rules or choose which laws to follow and which to ignore.

And you think that is okay? That is absolutely ridiculous. His job is to transport the prisoners like the court decision mandated.

I hope you end up in his jail someday so he can do whatever he wants with you. Poof, you waived all of your civil rights.

ParaTed: A fetus doesn't breathe air. They take their first breath after their birth.

Let's not play word games.

I'm not playing word games, I'm using the meanings of words to make a point. Fetus' do take in gasses and expell them, that is a fact. I already said that they don't use their lungs to do it, but the metabolic function still occurs.

The fact that they have a metabolism at all proves they are alive. Something that is a scientific fact, but is conveniently forgotten by people who defend abortion. Of course, we have been through all this before.

Boudica:

LOL You agree that is it not medically necessary, yet you refuse to acknowledge that it means Arpaio isn't required to provide transportation. The fact is NO ONE has the right to transportation for an elective medical procedure. Not even ambulances are required to transport patients for elective medical care.

Abortion (sadly) is a right in the US. It was made a right when activist justices refused to do their jobs and uphold the US Constitution. The majority didn't even bother finding Constitutional backing for their decision. They simply went on what they wanted to see happen. This is called incompetence at best and pissing on the US Constitution at worst.
They had no more reason to decide the way they did than the "justices" in the Dredd Scott decision. Both are crimes against the US Constitution.

Quote format. Second off, they have entire circulatory function.

You refuse to acknowledge that a court decision upheld on appeal REQUIRES him to provide transportation. What is so hard to understand about this?

No, better go reread the ruling (and the 14th amendment says nothing about reproduction). You have been caught up in the rhetoric without studying the actual case ruling.

First, the Roe vs. Wade did not define an absolute anything. It set up an arbitrary system of trimesters. Did you know that? yep! The actual ruling still allowed states to ban abortions in the 3rd trimester! Arbitrarily (and why it is bad law).

Second, the ruling was based upon the right of PRIVACY - not the right of reproduction. There is no statement in any SCOTUS ruling at any time that states the Right of Reproductin. Period. You are wrong.

Third, your rights cannot enslave another. If it does, then it is not a right. But Abortions are not a right (privacy is). You cannot force a doctor to perform one. That is slavery and was outlawed by the 14th amendment. The court has never ruled you have an abortion RIGHT because they cannot without enslaving part of the population, which is CLEARLY in the constitution that you cannot. So even Buzzy and crew can read that (understand it is another matter).

And you have scientific proof of this? No, so your statement is false. It is your opinion. Not a fact.

And that is the whole debate of abortion. You "beleive" it is not a child. I "believe" it is.

The whole abortion debate is no different than the slavery debate in the 19th century. Both are based on denying that someone else is not really human. The fetus inside a human mother fits every biological definition of life and of being a human being, just like Africans do. The Dredd Scott Decision and Roe Vs Wade are both examples of judicial activism that Unconstitutionally denied inalienable human rights to people simply based on what they look like. Roe Vs. Wade was just as unconstituitonal and bigoted as Dredd Scott was.

Boudico:

True, the bigots on the court did order Arpaio to do something that they had no authority to do. Yet, they did issue the order. My question to you is, if they ordered him to transport her to exercise one of her rights, why shouldn't he have to transport people to exercise any other right? The answer is... rights had nothing to do with the court order. Abortion did. When those judges say they are about rights, they are lying.

Why do they have no authority? Because you don't agree with them? This went on to the appeals court and was upheld. Did they also not have the authority? Who does have the authority? The sheriff? Congress? The President? The Supreme Court? And how are they bigots by allowing a woman to have her rights, that makes them bigots? I think the bigot would be the one denying her her rights.



A fetus cannot live apart from the mother. I don't buy the comparison of in utero and actual people - sorry. It's not the same by any measure.

Sorry I'm a little confused.  If the supreme court has said abortion is a right why isn;t it?

If every court it has been tested in says that she has a right to be taken to have an abortion why isn't it a right?

Oh - people/children/benign tumours or whatever you want to call them don't breathe they respire.  Breathing requires air to go into and out of the lungs, using dissolved gases is respiring.  In the same way that every cell in adults respires but only the whole body/lungs (depending on exact viewpoint) breathes.

Boudica:

Their authority is to interpret the laws as they are written, not make things up as they go. If they go beyond that authority, they are breaking their oaths of office and the law. The fact that no one seems to care does not mean they aren't wrong for doing it.



They are bigots because they put their bigoted pro abortion stance ahead of their oath of office.



And slavery was legally because people didn't buy the comparison of a slave with an actual person.

True, a fetus cannot live apart from the mother, but a neonate is no more able to survive than a fetus.

Why do you try to define life and humanity by how it interacts with others? An organism is either alive or it isn't, it is either human or it isn't. Since the fetus and the neonate both fit the biological definition of a living organism and a human being, it is only bigotry that allows us to deny it.

Basmas:

The Supreme Court said that Slavery was ok... so by your own logic, are you saying we should still practice it?



What other rights have they ordered anyone transported to be exercised? None. It was about abortion, not rights.

It's ironic, people fault Sheriff Arpaio for acting on his own feelings about abortion, but praise the judges for doing the same thing.



True, but Breathing is the common term for repiration. It's a moot point anyway really, since breathing isn't what defines life or human being in the first place. A fetus has a metabolism that it regulates itself, it has DNA consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings). So there is no biological backing for the myth of "viabilty" or the concept that the fetus can be anything but a living human being.

How does that make it less human?

because they have not. Read the ruling (and all subsequent rulings dealing with it).



no court has said it was a right. Again read the rulings.

The rhetoric about abortion is rampant, and in the end, it appears that most people do not know what they are talking about. If nothing else, I think the ruling should be taught in school as part of the history and that everyone who speaks on the issue should at least read it to understand exactly what is being said. To make such inane statement as "Reproduction RIGHTS" or the "RIGHT of Abortion" clearly shows that most people get their information from the propaganda of Planned Parenthood, and do not have a clue what they are talking about.

So when a fetus CAN live outside the womb, is it alive?  My little grandson, born several weeks early and weighing in at a stout four pounds, is a robust four year old now who weighs a ton.  At what point does he figure into your calculations.  Even just 30 years ago (Roe v Wade time frame) he would have never survived.  The point of "viability" recedes every year.

This has been a fun read.  There are some FACTS that should be recognized for fact and not opinion, though.  Whether you agree or disagree...don't matter.

- Transporting women to medical facilities for treatment that cannot be received in their place of incarceration (sp?) has been upheld as a requirement (yes, abortions included).  And this at taxpayers expense.  Is it right?  Doesn't matter, it is UPHELD. (Because abortions are illegal in many European countries, female military members who desired abortions were routinely transported - at government expense, including medical TDY- to military hospitals in the USA for those procedures).

-Jailers are NOT allowed to do whatever they please with their prisoners.  Prisoners do have rights and they must be recognized.  Sheriff Joe is a master at stretching the envelope, has been challenged many times and usually comes out on top.  In this case he may have overstepped, but you can be assured it wasn't blindly.  He has an amazing legal staff backing him up.

Roe v Wade was about privacy rights (never once mentioned in the Constitution) not abortion rights.  However, later supplemental decisions have established rights that were never intended in the Constitution...same as separation of Church  and state.

- For the record, I am against abortion as a convience, some legitimate MEDICAL reasons may cause it to be necessary.. to protect the life of the mother, for example.  There are limits to what we have a right to do to our bodies, or the unborn bodies.  The argument that a fetus is not a child is patently stupid.  If left to grow to term, almost all fetuses (feti?) will be born a human child.  Some will sponteanously abort, some will die before birth, but those who make it will certainly not be a puppy or a giraffe...they will be children.

- Aside from the damage done to the fetus, abortion is a heavy burden to carry for the wouldabeen mother.  We have heard poignant testimony of such from a dear lady who haunts these pages...I will leave it to her to share again or not as she chooses.

- As for activist judges and their rulings:  the only answer is to elect officials with the stones to impeach lifetime judges who rip up the constitution in an effort to form social reform.  They can't do it in congress so they continue to work through the courts.  In the meantime, whining about it is unworthy. 

- oh yeah, the other thing about prisoners' rights...they do not have all the rights guaranteed outside the wall.  In most states, Felons cannot vote, own guns, property, and in some cases, get a business license.  Prisoners are not free to walk out the door, change cells if they don't like the neighborhood, drive down to the 7-11 for smokes or a robbery, most prisons now do not allow smoking, unhealthy foods, etc.  To pretend that prisoners do not give up certain rights is silly.  They do.  Hell, even members of the military give up some of their civil rights. 

- You have all done a pretty reasonable job of defending your views, some things got me to reconsider my own views (not necessarily CHANGE them, though ) These are inflamatory topics.  But the common mistake (one I have been very guilty of) is confusing opinion with fact.  Just cause we don't like it, don't make it go away.

 

 

Right, and how much does a kid on welfare for his lifetime cost us all ??? And all you born-agains, evangelists and other such (lazy types that let someone else do your thinking for you)... You are entitled to live any way you please, BUT... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT entitled to shove that stuff on ANYONE ELSE ! I'll go you one better: provide abortion services AND require permanent sterility (removal of either uterus or ovaries) AND when the father is found and identified, make him pay for the proceedures AND have his plumbing altered. In case you haven't heard, your pope in Vatican City has stated that we (humans) are destroying the planet by over consumption. This from a person and an organization dedicated to INCREASING human population (religious adherents?) to consume even more of this planet's resources, by any means possible ! His hypocracy is of monumental and historic proportion. It rises to the level of evil arrogance. Which, BTW, by the basic tenents of his own religion guarantees him a place in the lowest depths of the hell his religion says exists, and where ALL religious proselitizers and terrorists belong and all I can hope for is that indeed such a hell exists! Belief in God is NOT a religion, until you con(vince) someone else to belive that same way.

Late to the debate and irrelevant. Your logic dictates that we euthanize everyone not contributing since they are a "burden". Now when you backtrack on that, you need to then decide who gets to decide when someone can be euthanized, and when someone cant be. SO are you going to play god and decide? A committee? The president?

The issue here is not about having an abortion. It is about who pays (or as the case then became - once the pay issue is revolved, can a woman be denied access to. Not denied the procedure itself.)

Who talks about putting him on welfare for his entire life? He could grow up to be the next brilliant genius. There's nothing about him being incapable to live. How are you so bigotted that you believe that anyone who is born into a rough situation can't live nonetheless? How do I let other people do the thinking for me? I write theological articles myself, and even lay members like your precious Obama do thinking for themselves, do they not? Your "need others to think for you" accusation doesn't work. Second, excuse me, but the "don't shove stuff on others" opinion is getting shoved on me way too often. You are an example of how the left cannot fight an arguement, but instead resorts to slander campaigns by suggesting things that the mere idea of is offensive to us who actually believe. Also, you seem to have, at best, a mediocre, insufficient grasp of the religious hierarchy. Why do you blame the pope for everything, when nobody who is a Catholic (As far as I know) has posted here yet? You are nothing more than a spreader of hatred of religion. Spreading a religion and terrorism are not the same, and I can see now how people can be so stupid to set up states like those of Communist Russia and early Communist China. Your accusations are just plain insanity, and you cannot even stay on topic. Why do you spread hate in a debate, if you make such a bigotted atempt at an attack again, you are tempting fate.

REQUIRE?!?