NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one of the more fucked-up situations I've ever read about, and a perfect example why people's religious beliefs should be forcibly left at home and not allowed into the workplace.

Here's the story (http://sptimes.com/2007/01/30/Tampabay/Police_jail_rape_vict.shtml):
TAMPA - First, police say, a 21-year-old woman was raped at Gasparilla. Then, she was handcuffed and jailed - for two nights and two days.

A jail worker with religious objections blocked her from ingesting a morning-after pill to prevent pregnancy, her attorney says, keeping her from taking the required second dose for more than 24 hours longer than recommended.

The Hillsborough Sheriff's Office wouldn't talk about her medical treatment in jail. But Tampa police are investigating why more compassion wasn't shown toward the woman after she reported her sexual assault to law enforcement.

"We may need to revisit our policy," police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said....

Attorney Virlyn "Vic" Moore III of Venice said his client was seated in the front seat of the police cruiser, on her way to the scene of her attack when the officer learned of the warrant, cuffed her and placed her in the back seat.

"To stop the rape investigation and instead victimize her again," Moore said. "I'm aghast, astonished and outraged. I have never, ever heard of this happening."....

Jail records show the woman was booked about eight hours after the reported rape.

A doctor had given her Plan B, the so-called "morning-after pill" approved by the FDA, to prevent pregnancy. But Moore said a medical supervisor at the jail refused to let her take the second of the two pills on Sunday.

For the emergency contraceptive to work, the first pill must be taken within three days of unprotected sex and the second 12 hours after the first. The woman had already taken the first pill soon after the assault Saturday, Moore said. She was unable to take the second pill until Monday afternoon. The jail allowed it, he said, after media inquiries.

Debbie Carter, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Office, which runs the jail, said she couldn't comment on the situation because medical information is private. But she said medical service policies are set by Armor Correctional Health Services, which contracts with the jail.
Here's how stupid that worker is--you would think a person with religious objections to the morning-after pill also objects to abortions, but she just basically forced this rape victim into one. It's obvious the victim doesn't want to be pregnant in this situation or in this manner, but this asswipe of a jail worker just decided that his or her (the worker's gender is not given) religious beliefs outweighed this rape victim's desire to not be made pregnant by a rapist.

You anti-abortion people want to know why I get so pissed off at you sometimes? It's shit like this that does it. You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes.

that is insane......this stuff makes me sick. :(

This planet disgusts me.

I hate when this happens. You are not supposed to force your religious beliefs on anyone, even the religions themselves state this!

I hope to hell the jail worker was fired and the victim sues the shit out of the city of Tampa. Perhaps that will keep it from happening again.

And what the hell type of warrant was so important that the cop had to arrest her right after her rape? That's heartless unless she was wanted for murder or something.

What a piece of crap. I hope the officer who prevented her from taking the pill gets raped. Preferably by someone with HIV.

wow, that's very bad.

i hope that her attorny, Virlyn "Vic" Moore III, sues the ass of the medical supervisor.

I hate when this happens. You are not supposed to force your religious beliefs on anyone, even the religions themselves state this!

yep. what happen here is not right, in any way.

So much for "only in case of rape or to save the mother's life".

Why was she arrested, again?

I hope to hell the jail worker was fired and the victim sues the shit out of the city of Tampa. Perhaps that will keep it from happening again.

And what the hell type of warrant was so important that the cop had to arrest her right after her rape? That's heartless unless she was wanted for murder or something.

The student had failed to pay $4,585 restitution after a 2003 juvenile arrest, McElroy said.

"We may need to revisit our policy," police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said....:rolleyes: Y'think?

And I agree, the "jail worker" who kept her from receiving the morning-after pill should be fired. That sounds so inadequate. Perhaps that person should be required to support the child conceived from the rape, if the victim carries it to term, or to pay for the abortion, if that's what she wants. Sheesh.

Here's how stupid that worker is--you would think a person with religious objections to the morning-after pill also objects to abortions, but she just basically forced this rape victim into one. It's obvious the victim doesn't want to be pregnant in this situation or in this manner, but this asswipe of a jail worker just decided that his or her (the worker's gender is not given) religious beliefs outweighed this rape victim's desire to not be made pregnant by a rapist.

Anti-choicers don't understand that Plan B prevents pregnancy (and, therefore, can prevent abortion). They just know that sluts deserve to be punished for fucking, and anything that allows a woman to escape this punishment is wrong.

Of course, they also know that if you go around saying that sort of thing in the open then people will notice you're a crackpot, so they start gabbling about saving teh bay-bees to gain sympathy. But crap like this just proves that they couldn't care less about babies or fetuses, much less women; they're more than willing to increase the number of abortions that occur, as long as they can make sure they're hurting women in the process. It's about controlling women. That's it.


You anti-abortion people want to know why I get so pissed off at you sometimes? It's shit like this that does it. You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes.
Yeah, in case it didn't come across, I'm ever so slightly miffed as well.

That's absolutely shocking.

people make me sick. Even as a pacifist I want to beat that persons ass.

The student had failed to pay $4,585 restitution after a 2003 juvenile arrest, McElroy said.Heavens forfend that petty criminals be able to report a rape. I guess that's just their tough luck if someone rapes them.

That's beyond disgusting. God, people make me sick sometimes.

:(

Grud alive, that's just not right. In any way.

As Fred Woodworth says... stay away from the Police, people!

What a piece of crap. I hope the officer who prevented her from taking the pill gets raped. Preferably by someone with HIV.

better yet, pays for the abortion, or pays for the bill and takes care of the baby themselves.

I wondered what kind of backward hyper religious third world country would do this. Go figure it's Florida. Can we ditch them? Just slice the country off at Georgia?

She did have a warrant outstanding, so in theory, arresting her was within the rights of the police.

That said, even a prisoner has a right to medical treatment and all perscribed medication (I'm pretty sure the morning after pill is perscribed right)?

Even if the police were within her rights to arrest her, they violated her rights when they refused to give her access to her medication.

I hope someone gets sued, badly.

better yet, pays for the abortion, or pays for the bill and takes care of the baby themselves.

You want them to care for a child?

This is horrible.
:( Sadness.

You want them to care for a child?

1) it'll keep them busy

2) do it enough times and they have to choose between their beliefs and their financial abilities

3) Do it enough times and they'll have an army of Teenagers on their hands.

She did have a warrant outstanding, so in theory, arresting her was within the rights of the police.

That said, even a prisoner has a right to medical treatment and all perscribed medication (I'm pretty sure the morning after pill is perscribed right)?

Even if the police were within her rights to arrest her, they violated her rights when they refused to give her access to her medication.

I hope someone gets sued, badly.Maybe within their rights, but it's still ridiculous. The safety of the community would have hardly been compromised by delaying picking her up for the warrant. The law is not required to be heartless.

Maybe within their rights, but it's still ridiculous. The safety of the community would have hardly been compromised by delaying picking her up for the warrant. The law is not required to be heartless.

not required no, but the problem is when you talk about these things, we can discuss whether it was morally wrong, and i think we can all agree on that. No real discussion.

The problem is whether it was LEGALLY wrong, and as a matter of law, the police need not ensure that someone is arrested at a time convenient for them.

I am sorry to have to live in the world where things like this take place... What makes it worse is that I am quite certain that jail worker will get away with it just because he is supposed to be "on the side of the Law" (a small sue is as much as he/she will get, I believe), while he is in my opinion as bad as rapist.

And why was a rape victim jailed in the first place? For taking the first pill?

not required no, but the problem is when you talk about these things, we can discuss whether it was morally wrong, and i think we can all agree on that. No real discussion.

The problem is whether it was LEGALLY wrong, and as a matter of law, the police need not ensure that someone is arrested at a time convenient for them.
I never intended to say they weren't within their legal rights to arrest her. But policy obviously needs a change here. And I totally agree she needs to sue the crap out of the city for denying her medical treatment.

I am sorry to have to live in the world where things like this take place... What makes it worse is that I am quite certain that jail worker will get away with it just because he is supposed to be "on the side of the Law" (a small sue is as much as he/she will get, I believe), while he is in my opinion as bad as rapist.

And why was a rape victim jailed in the first place? For taking the first pill?

The victim had an outstanding warrant on an unrelated matter which was revealed when she went to the police.

The problem is whether it was LEGALLY wrong, and as a matter of law, the police need not ensure that someone is arrested at a time convenient for them.

Yes, but they DO have to make sure she gets the treatment she needs, or access to documents regarding that treatment - like calling her family or whatever to get the perscription.

This is why God and state do not mix.

You anti-abortion people want to know why I get so pissed off at you sometimes? It's shit like this that does it. You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes.

This is the goofiest post I've seen all day.

By your logic:

-Religious belief should be kept sequestered in homes because this one idiot police officer (and remember cops are known for enjoying their power anyway) did something idiotic?

-Pro-life advocates generally would support this kind of nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Yes, but they DO have to make sure she gets the treatment she needs, or access to documents regarding that treatment - like calling her family or whatever to get the perscription.

This is why God and state do not mix.

I said that already above. There are two issues here: 1) arresting her at the time they did and 2) denying her medication.

The first, while assholey and immoral, was not illegal.

The second was.

What amazes me is the people who are shocked at this. I'm disgusted, but hardly surprised about it. This is the sort of thing that religious people do.

Disclaimer: I know that not all religious people are crazy fundies, but in America (Or, at least the Southeast), this sort of religious believer is the standard, not the exception.

Crucify the fucker.

The victim had an outstanding warrant on an unrelated matter which was revealed when she went to the police.

Thanks for clarifying this (I don’t have enough time to read through entire article). This makes total sense in that case, though the jail worker’s behaviour is still inexcusable, in my opinion.

Thanks for clarifying this (I don’t have enough time to read through entire article). This makes total sense in that case, though the jail worker’s behaviour is still inexcusable, in my opinion.

Really, if it were possible I'd pass a law making it a crime with the same penalty of rape to deny treatment to rape victims.

This is the goofiest post I've seen all day.

By your logic:

-Religious belief should be kept sequestered in homes because this one idiot police officer (and remember cops are known for enjoying their power anyway) did something idiotic?

-Pro-life advocates generally would support this kind of nonsense.

:rolleyes:

1) Religion should be a private matter, not a public one. Sorta like sex.
2) They do, or have you completely ignored all the whining bitching and threats of death and eternal hellfire around Plan B and the HPV vaccine?

They do, or have you completely ignored all the whining bitching and threats of death and eternal hellfire around Plan B and the HPV vaccine?

More: The many conservative people that defend the idea of pharmacists not giving the morning after pill.

1) Religion should be a private matter, not a public one. Sorta like sex.
2) They do, or have you completely ignored all the whining bitching and threats of death and eternal hellfire around Plan B and the HPV vaccine?

1)Religion is a private matter but that doesn't justify locking it away in the closet. By that logic every church, synagogue or mosque with an identifiably religious emblem on it (like a cross, star of David, crescent moon) should be demolished and replaced by some nondescript replacement.

Hold you flame. I'm not advocating pushing it on others, only refuting Nazz and Khadgar's apparent stance that religion should be locked in the closet.

2)You're going by a vocal minority. Most pro-life advocates are ambivalent on the use of the morning after pill.

1)Religion is a private matter but that doesn't justify locking it away in the closet. By that logic every church, synagogue or mosque with an identifiably religious emblem on it (like a cross, star of David, crescent moon) should be demolished and replaced by some nondescript replacement.

Hold you flame. I'm not advocating pushing it on others, only refuting Nazz and Khadgar's apparent stance that religion should be locked in the closet.

2)You're going by a vocal minority. Most pro-life advocates are ambivalent on the use of the morning after pill.



So the religious sorts are closet cases? I agree!

Crucify the fucker.

Give us Barabbas!

Seriously, this is ridiculous. That jail worker should be fired at the very least.

This is one of the more fucked-up situations I've ever read about, and a perfect example why people's religious beliefs should be forcibly left at home and not allowed into the workplace.

Here's the story (http://sptimes.com/2007/01/30/Tampabay/Police_jail_rape_vict.shtml):

Here's how stupid that worker is--you would think a person with religious objections to the morning-after pill also objects to abortions, but she just basically forced this rape victim into one. It's obvious the victim doesn't want to be pregnant in this situation or in this manner, but this asswipe of a jail worker just decided that his or her (the worker's gender is not given) religious beliefs outweighed this rape victim's desire to not be made pregnant by a rapist.

You anti-abortion people want to know why I get so pissed off at you sometimes? It's shit like this that does it. You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes.

Idiots.

Anti-choicers don't understand that Plan B prevents pregnancy (and, therefore, can prevent abortion).Besides which, a lot of anti-choice people are also anti-birth control.

Dear Allah..

Besides which, a lot of anti-choice people are also anti-birth control.
Which is one of the biggest pieces of idiocy on the planet. Better birth control=fewer abortions. This is what gives their real motive away- women must be punished for their sexuality.

I wondered what kind of backward hyper religious third world country would do this. Go figure it's Florida. Can we ditch them? Just slice the country off at Georgia?

I would have no objection, but I doubt the AARP would be as peaceful on that issue.

But anyways, that is one of the most messed up things I have ever heard.

This is the goofiest post I've seen all day.

By your logic:

-Religious belief should be kept sequestered in homes because this one idiot police officer (and remember cops are known for enjoying their power anyway) did something idiotic?

-Pro-life advocates generally would support this kind of nonsense.

:rolleyes:
Like you would know logic if it bit you on the face. :rolleyes:

Here's a simpler version of it--if your religious beliefs keep you from doing your fucking job, then get out of the job. Don't make other people suffer for your stupid beliefs.

1)Religion is a private matter but that doesn't justify locking it away in the closet. By that logic every church, synagogue or mosque with an identifiably religious emblem on it (like a cross, star of David, crescent moon) should be demolished and replaced by some nondescript replacement.

Hold you flame. I'm not advocating pushing it on others, only refuting Nazz and Khadgar's apparent stance that religion should be locked in the closet.

2)You're going by a vocal minority. Most pro-life advocates are ambivalent on the use of the morning after pill.

1) Excluding churches (which are classified as "public"), religion should be totally non-public and private.

2) Well, do something about the vocal minority! If you're on a team, and a member of your team start talking crap at others, you are mixed in with him as well. His words go out, and you can't just hide behind "well, it wasn't me that said that". With Muslims it's more understandable, because the non-vocal majority can stand to lose their lives (probably) by going vocal against the vocal minority.

Like you would know logic if it bit you on the face. :rolleyes:

Here's a simpler version of it--if your religious beliefs keep you from doing your fucking job, then get out of the job. Don't make other people suffer for your stupid beliefs.

Wow Nazz takes a personal shot, so I must be wrong. Thankya, I was getting a little bored and needed something to chuckle at :p

On a note of irony, I do agree that if a person's employment is incompatible with their beliefs, then they ought to find a different job. See, Nazz? It IS possible to make a point without being crude.

1) Excluding churches (which are classified as "public"), religion should be totally non-public and private.

I disagree. Making the public religiously sterile is at best a slippery slope that can only end in Government sponsored religious suppression.

Don't believe the Government capable of attacking religious groups?

If you really want to promote religious tolerance/coexistence, then let them coexist. Let people see it so they can choose for themselves.

Unless, of course, you DON'T want to promote religious tolerance.


2) Well, do something about the vocal minority! If you're on a team, and a member of your team start talking crap at others, you are mixed in with him as well. His words go out, and you can't just hide behind "well, it wasn't me that said that". With Muslims it's more understandable, because the non-vocal majority can stand to lose their lives (probably) by going vocal against the vocal minority.

I never miss an opportunity to speak my peace to someone who is being unreasonable, even if we do share religious ideals. And no, Muslims don't get a pass. This is about religion, and so transcends death.

Unless, of course, it's about something else.

I disagree. Making the public religiously sterile is at best a slippery slope that can only end in Government sponsored religious suppression.

Don't believe the Government capable of attacking religious groups?

If you really want to promote religious tolerance/coexistence, then let them coexist. Let people see it so they can choose for themselves.

Unless, of course, you DON'T want to promote religious tolerance.

I will refrain from pursuing this subject further due to my inevitably biased follow-up.

I never miss an opportunity to speak my peace to someone who is being unreasonable, even if we do share religious ideals. And no, Muslims don't get a pass. This is about religion, and so transcends death.

Unless, of course, it's about something else.

It's about something else. It's about people representing you (anti-abortion) saying stuff, and then you saying "oh, it's just the vocal minority" as a defense.

I will refrain from pursuing this subject further due to my inevitably biased follow-up.
Very well.


It's about something else. It's about people representing you (anti-abortion) saying stuff, and then you saying "oh, it's just the vocal minority" as a defense.

That's just it. They don't represent. Nazz is using those few as an excuse to vent his anger on everybody that dares disagree. It's a way of rationalizing a sort of predjudice. "Some of you think that's so therefore I'm mad at all of you." That's irrational at best, and indefensible.

It would be like me saying something akin to "All homosexuals are raving perverts because I read an article that said some gay guy was harassing a malke coworker." The logic doesn't hold. It's idiotic. If someone made a statement like that on here you'd justifiably be up in arms over it.

That's just it. They don't represent. Nazz is using those few as an excuse to vent his anger on everybody that dares disagree.

If you believe so...

It's a way of rationalizing a sort of predjudice. "Some of you think that's so therefore I'm mad at all of you." That's irrational at best, and indefensible.

It would be like me saying something akin to "All homosexuals are raving perverts because I read an article that said some gay guy was harassing a malke coworker." The logic doesn't hold. It's idiotic. If someone made a statement like that on here you'd justifiably be up in arms over it.

This conversation no longer interests me. Farewell.

If you believe so...

I do.


This conversation no longer interests me. Farewell.

Bye.

This event highlights problems with "religious tolerance". It seems nowadays you can just mention the phrase and you suddenly win because the authority in question can't be seen as racist.

Another example is recently, when an airline had restricted the staff from wearing any jewellery above their uniforms. One day a woman decided to wear her christian cross, then when her employers ask her to remove it she plays the racist card and wins hideous compensation.

I don't think religions should be persecuted by any means, but I believe that they should be treated no different to any other organisation, no exemption from taxes or laws.

Outside of this analysis, it takes a pretty sick person to arrest somebody after a seriously traumatic experience and actively make the situation worse for them over a silly fine. I don't think it is fair to blame any religion for this. I think that alot of religions have the potential to be very good for society and the world (even though I am myself a firm atheist), but aside from some direct stupidity, there is a huge amount of stuff that people can get away with by using religion as a scapegoat.

First post btw, kwl game, kwl book :)

Some sort of federal civil rights charges should be filed against the barbarian at the jail.

Also, crippling civil penalties should be assessed.

Civilized people dont deprive others of important medical treatment beause of mud-hut religion. This is the same as that scumbag who attacked a doctor in france.

You want them to care for a child?

Hey, If they care about "the unborn" so much and about "sanctity of human life" they'd probably be happy to get the kid. After all, If he/she is born, It'll be just as much their fault.

not required no, but the problem is when you talk about these things, we can discuss whether it was morally wrong, and i think we can all agree on that. No real discussion.

The problem is whether it was LEGALLY wrong, and as a matter of law, the police need not ensure that someone is arrested at a time convenient for them.

And the rape they should have been investigating, even if she was under arrest? I'm fairly certain that, while it may not be illegal (the Supreme Court has held that it is perfectly legal for police officers to refrain from doing their jobs), it certainly should be seen as dereliction of duty. They could very well have taken her into custody, but still continued the investigation of her rape.


By your logic:

-Pro-life advocates generally would support this kind of nonsense.

Those who would make abortion illegal are pretty much the same people who are trying to keep women from having access to Plan B as well. There certainly are some who support one viewpoint and not the other, but the same general groups who lobby to make abortion illegal also think that a pharmacist should be able to keep a woman from getting Plan B because the pharmacist doesn't agree with it.

Definitely a gross overreaction on the part of the officer and he'll be paying for that one big time.

Those who would make abortion illegal are pretty much the same people who are trying to keep women from having access to Plan B as well. There certainly are some who support one viewpoint and not the other, but the same general groups who lobby to make abortion illegal also think that a pharmacist should be able to keep a woman from getting Plan B because the pharmacist doesn't agree with it.

I don't believe there's a single anti-abortion advocacy group that proactively supports the use and distribution of contraception, much less the morning after pill. There are a couple who are silent on the matter, but none of them are in favor of birth control.

Definitely a gross overreaction on the part of the officer and he'll be paying for that one big time.

The cop is probably okay. It's the jail worker who is toast, and rightfully so.

2) They do, or have you completely ignored all the whining bitching and threats of death and eternal hellfire around Plan B and the HPV vaccine?

The HPV vaccine is one I really don't get. "Hey, nobody should get a vaccine that can help prevent a vaccine that often causes cancer and death, because we're afraid that it might make teenagers less afraid of sex." Eh?


2)You're going by a vocal minority. Most pro-life advocates are ambivalent on the use of the morning after pill.

Are they? I have yet to meet a single person who advocates making abortion illegal and doesn't have a problem with Plan B - especially readily accessible Plan B. The same lobbying groups and protesters advocate both. It would appear that you, if you are "ambivalent to the use of the morning after pill," are the exception to the rule.

Those who would make abortion illegal are pretty much the same people who are trying to keep women from having access to Plan B as well. There certainly are some who support one viewpoint and not the other, but the same general groups who lobby to make abortion illegal also think that a pharmacist should be able to keep a woman from getting Plan B because the pharmacist doesn't agree with it.

If I based an argument on a generalization like that you'd be all over it.

If you're comfortable with Nazz making generalizations and predjudiced remarks then I don't know what else to say to you.

Back to the issue at hand:

The fact is, the Morning After Pill is a prescription drug, and thus betwene the patient and her doctor. The cop failed by not giving this woman access to a doctor after having been raped. Whether there's a moral issue on taking the pill is irrelevant in this case.

It's like people expected the officer to administer this pill personally and he refused. That isn't how it works. She was raped. That means she should have been taken to the hospital not only to be checked for injury or VD, but also for exactly the sort of issue at hand. By failing to do this, the police officer failed in his job miserably. If there was a warrant for her arrest, she could still have been taken to the hospital in police custody.

Are they? I have yet to meet a single person who advocates making abortion illegal and doesn't have a problem with Plan B - especially readily accessible Plan B. The same lobbying groups and protesters advocate both. It would appear that you, if you are "ambivalent to the use of the morning after pill," are the exception to the rule.

And if I turned around and said I hat yet to meet a single person who had made a strong stand on it based upon their abortion beliefs, you'd dismiss it as anecdotal and unprovable.

If I based an argument on a generalization like that you'd be all over it.

If the comment had been made that all who wish to make abortion illegal also oppose the use of Plan B, I would be all over it. However, it is undeniable that the overlap between the two groups is very high.

The fact is, the Morning After Pill is a prescription drug, and thus betwene the patient and her doctor.

Sort of like abortion is a medical procedure, and thus between the patient and her doctor?

The cop failed by not giving this woman access to a doctor after having been raped. Whether there's a moral issue on taking the pill is irrelevant in this case.

It's like people expected the officer to administer this pill personally and he refused. That isn't how it works. She was raped. That means she should have been taken to the hospital not only to be checked for injury or VD, but also for exactly the sort of issue at hand. By failing to do this, the police officer failed in his job miserably. If there was a warrant for her arrest, she could still have been taken to the hospital in police custody.

I think you probably didn't read the article. The woman already had a prescription for Plan B (which suggests that she had already seen a doctor) and had already taken the first pill before she was traveling with the officer to the site of the crime. It was the second pill that she was prevented from taking - by the medical personnel at the jail.

If there is a problem with the arresting officer, it is that he stopped a rape investigation and arrested the victim on an outstanding warrant. He very well could have continued the investigation with her in custody, or waited to take her into custody at all.

This is one of the more fucked-up situations I've ever read about, and a perfect example why people's religious beliefs should be forcibly left at home and not allowed into the workplace.

Here's the story (http://sptimes.com/2007/01/30/Tampabay/Police_jail_rape_vict.shtml):

Here's how stupid that worker is--you would think a person with religious objections to the morning-after pill also objects to abortions, but she just basically forced this rape victim into one. It's obvious the victim doesn't want to be pregnant in this situation or in this manner, but this asswipe of a jail worker just decided that his or her (the worker's gender is not given) religious beliefs outweighed this rape victim's desire to not be made pregnant by a rapist.

You anti-abortion people want to know why I get so pissed off at you sometimes? It's shit like this that does it. You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes.

Morning after is not abortion. And most anti-abortion people I know of make an exception at rape, among others.

And if I turned around and said I hat yet to meet a single person who had made a strong stand on it based upon their abortion beliefs, you'd dismiss it as anecdotal and unprovable.

If you were trying to use that to "prove" to me that no person did so, or even that most who believe one do not believe the other, absolutely - especially considering the fact that the large-scale political groups and most of the churches expressing opinions on the two issues are opposed to both.

Like I said, I'm sure there are people who are in favor of making abortion illegal, but have no problem with Plan B. I know for a fact that there are people who are opposed to abortion, but have no problem with Plan B - myself included. But an assertion that the majority of anti-choicers are just fine with Plan B is contrary to all evidence I have seen.


Morning after is not abortion.

Indeed. I believe Nazz's point was that, because this woman was denied the opportunity to take her second dose of Plan B in a timely manner, she is at increased risk for pregnancy, and thus may decide to have an abortion because of it. If she cannot prevent the pregnancy, there is a good chance that she would abort it if it occurred.

And most anti-abortion people I know of make an exception at rape, among others.

Indeed, although such positions are rarely logically consistent.

<snipped>

that is diabollical :mad:. i hope the company that contracts that jail is ordered to pay for any further treatment that woman needs, including any childcare costs if she decides to see the pregnancy through and keep the baby if it is conceived. plus that worker should be sacked and perma-banned from that sort of job where someone's life and future development is in their hands. i'm just totally disgusted at how that jail worker had the arrogance to decide that that poor woman should allow herself to become pregnant from a rape

You anti-abortion people want to know why I get so pissed off at you sometimes? It's shit like this that does it. You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes.
How do anti-abortion people, as a whole, side with idiots like the one in the article?

And why the hell was she thrown in jail after getting raped?

America is crap.

"We may need to revisit our policy"

Talk about the understatement of the fucking millennium. I certainly hope you have the resources left to do just that, Laura McElroy - once the woman your inhuman bastard cop thugs victimized gets through suing your police dapartment into the next world.

I say we try the guard for rape. He's no better than the rapist.

Talk about the understatement of the fucking millennium. I certainly hope you have the resources left to do just that, Laura McElroy - once the woman your inhuman bastard cop thugs victimized gets through suing your police dapartment into the next world.

Can you file amicus curiae briefs just to go "Yeah! Go, honey! Sue the living daylights out of them!"?

If the comment had been made that all who wish to make abortion illegal also oppose the use of Plan B, I would be all over it. However, it is undeniable that the overlap between the two groups is very high.

I have seen nothing to back this statement up.


Sort of like abortion is a medical procedure, and thus between the patient and her doctor?
Irrelevant to the point of this conversation, although to head off a tangent you should already know that I do not have a problem with an abortion in the case of rape.


I think you probably didn't read the article. The woman already had a prescription for Plan B (which suggests that she had already seen a doctor) and had already taken the first pill before she was traveling with the officer to the site of the crime. It was the second pill that she was prevented from taking - by the medical personnel at the jail.

If there is a problem with the arresting officer, it is that he stopped a rape investigation and arrested the victim on an outstanding warrant. He very well could have continued the investigation with her in custody, or waited to take her into custody at all.

None of which changes the fact that she should have been hospitalized immediately as a rape victim, at which point pill #2 could have been provided. Do you not agree that this was also a failure of the officer?

I say we try the guard for rape. He's no better than the rapist.

There must be some angle - would an act of 'depraved indifference' be an offense under US law?

Poor girl. :(

Indeed, although such positions are rarely logically consistent.

Not logically inconsistent at all.

If abortion is unjustified on the basis that a woman willingly put herself into a position where pregnancy was possible, thus making the baby her responsibility, then rape would be an obvious exception on the basis that she did NOT enter into it willingly, and it would thus be unfair to make it her responsibility.

Although that point is for another thread.

Can you file amicus curiae briefs just to go "Yeah! Go, honey! Sue the living daylights out of them!"?

What am I - a lawyer? The only briefs I know have "Stanfield's" stitched into the elastic. But it doesn't take a lawyer to know when someone has been unfuckingbelievably done over by a complete and utter bastard who had no fucking right.

And why the hell was she thrown in jail after getting raped?

America is crap.

Reading is hard. Seriously people, it isn't even that long of an article.

I have seen nothing to back this statement up.

Then you ignore all of politics?

None of which changes the fact that she should have been hospitalized immediately as a rape victim, at which point pill #2 could have been provided. Do you not agree that this was also a failure of the officer?

I know that you aren't this bad at reading comprehension. The woman ALREADY HAD PLAN B. This means she had already seen or, at the very least, consulted with a doctor. The fact that she was traveling with a police officer to the scene of the crime makes it exceedingly likely that she had already been examined with a rape kit, as the police had now been brought in.

She already had Pill #2. She didn't need to go anywhere to get it. She was prevented from taking it by the medical staff at the jail, not by the arresting officer.

The failure of the officer was in not completing his duty to investigate a rape. It was the failure of the medical staff at the jail that she was denied her medication.

There must be some angle - would an act of 'depraved indifference' be an offense under US law?

It would probably be called negligence. But this bastard should get 5 years minimum. And be put on a sex offender registry.

Not logically inconsistent at all.

Do you believe that abortion is murder/manslaughter? If the answer is yes, then you either have to believe that it's perfectly ok to commit murder/manslaughter on someone after you have been raped by someone else, or you are logically inconsistent with the following justification:

If abortion is unjustified on the basis that a woman willingly put herself into a position where pregnancy was possible, thus making the baby her responsibility, then rape would be an obvious exception on the basis that she did NOT enter into it willingly, and it would thus be unfair to make it her responsibility.

And, if you do not believe that abortion is murder/manslaughter, then your reason for wishing to ban abortion is quite obviously to punish women for having sex.

Do you believe that abortion is murder/manslaughter? If the answer is yes, then you either have to believe that it's perfectly ok to commit murder/manslaughter on someone after you have been raped by someone else, or you are logically inconsistent with the following justification:



And, if you do not believe that abortion is murder/manslaughter, then your reason for wishing to ban abortion is quite obviously to punish women for having sex.

That's completely illogical. As I said, however, this is a tangent that belongs in the other thread, so I won't waste any more time on it here.

Reading is hard. Seriously people, it isn't even that long of an article.
Neither was my post but... what can ya do. You can lead a horse to water...



Then you ignore all of politics?

Yes, I ignore all of politics because I don't see it your way [/sarcasm]


I know that you aren't this bad at reading comprehension. The woman ALREADY HAD PLAN B. This means she had already seen or, at the very least, consulted with a doctor. The fact that she was traveling with a police officer to the scene of the crime makes it exceedingly likely that she had already been examined with a rape kit, as the police had now been brought in.

She already had Pill #2. She didn't need to go anywhere to get it. She was prevented from taking it by the medical staff at the jail, not by the arresting officer.

The failure of the officer was in not completing his duty to investigate a rape. It was the failure of the medical staff at the jail that she was denied her medication.

So I went back and, instead of reading just Nazz' edited version of the article, read the original.

Not only is it exceedingly likely that she was taken to the doctor, it's a fact that she was. She was taken to a clinic first. Later, the officer found out about 2 outstanding warrants. At the instructions from his boss, a sergeant, he placed her under arrest.

So, that being said, it's not so much the fault of the arresting officer as it is the fault of the sergeant who instructed him to arrest her, and the jail worker who denied her the second dose because of his personal beliefs.

It's unclear who made the call to halt the investigation of the rape, but whoever it was is also (or at least, had better be) in deep trouble.

This is the goofiest post I've seen all day.

By your logic:

-Religious belief should be kept sequestered in homes because this one idiot police officer (and remember cops are known for enjoying their power anyway) did something idiotic?

-Pro-life advocates generally would support this kind of nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Just to clarify, I believe you misquoted The Nazz, who actually said religious beliefs should not be brought into the WORKPLACE.
Which is generally, in my opinion, a good idea. People are to do their job, not make judgments on others unless that is a part of the job (ie: a judge). Imagine your work colleagues telling (or maybe even trying to enforce) you to wear a veil, or not cut your hair, or not eat dairy with meat, or not maybe to not eat meat at all. In the USA, this shouldn't happen.
The police worker had absolutely no right to put his/her own life philosophy above that of the rape victim and her doctor. Police and correctional officers, above all others, should already be well trained (given the fact they deal with criminals) to deal effectively and fairly with persons who do not share their values. The worker should be fired, the city should be sued.

Just to clarify, I believe you misquoted The Nazz, who actually said religious beliefs should not be brought into the WORKPLACE.
Which is generally, in my opinion, a good idea. People are to do their job, not make judgments on others unless that is a part of the job (ie: a judge). Imagine your work colleagues telling (or maybe even trying to enforce) you to wear a veil, or not cut your hair, or not eat dairy with meat, or not maybe to not eat meat at all. In the USA, this shouldn't happen.
The police worker had absolutely no right to put his/her own life philosophy above that of the rape victim and her doctor. Police and correctional officers, above all others, should already be well trained (given the fact they deal with criminals) to deal effectively and fairly with persons who do not share their values. The worker should be fired, the city should be sued.

I know what he said. My religious identity doesn't stay at home when I go to work. And it shouldn't have to. Does that mean I push it on others? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I have to hide it, either.

In this particular case, this jail worker clearly went over the line. I've already said so.

My religious identity doesn't stay at home when I go to work. And it shouldn't have to. Does that mean I push it on others? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I have to hide it, either.

It sure as Hell doesn't give you (or anyone) a passcard to not do your job properly, though.

Yes, I ignore all of politics because I don't see it your way [/sarcasm]


No, but it sounds like you ignore a great deal of politics when you argue that you have seen no evidence to suggest that a lot of prominent anti-abortion activists and groups are also anti-Plan B.

That's completely illogical. As I said, however, this is a tangent that belongs in the other thread, so I won't waste any more time on it here.

It's illogical to point out that your viewpoint amounts to, "People can kill other people if they've been raped"?? Unless you don't view abortion as killing someone, that is precisely what you are saying.

But you're right, it is a tangent. This was obviously one of those people who doesn't care if it is rape or not. Probably more consistent, but also most likely more of a horrible person.

Neither was my post but... what can ya do. You can lead a horse to water...

And I read and responded to your post. What's your point?

Yes, I ignore all of politics because I don't see it your way [/sarcasm]

It has nothing to do with your viewpoints. You claim that you have seen no evidence of something for which the evidence in current politics is constant. You may not have been convinced of the conclusion, but to say that there is no evidence for it implies that you have been hiding under a rock.

Seriously, why do you take such a defensive stance with me all the time? Lately, you pretty much always get super-defensive and end up reading things into my posts that aren't even implied, and are sometimes explicitly denied.

So I went back and, instead of reading just Nazz' edited version of the article, read the original.

Just a hint, that's generally a good idea before you respond to a thread, unless the article is unavailable. Even in reading it, you can miss things, but you're going to miss a lot if you don't even read it the first time. And it's generally a good idea, when someone is telling you that you missed something, to go back and look.

So, that being said, it's not so much the fault of the arresting officer as it is the fault of the sergeant who instructed him to arrest her, and the jail worker who denied her the second dose because of his personal beliefs.

Indeed.

It's unclear who made the call to halt the investigation of the rape, but whoever it was is also (or at least, had better be) in deep trouble.

It would appear to be the sergeant who ordered the immediate arrest or the officer who chose not to continue the investigation with her in custody.

Unfortunately, due to recent court cases, the woman has absolutely no right to sue for this, however, and the precinct is highly unlikely to do anything. The courts have held that a civilian cannot sue officers for failure to do their job.

Hey, maybe we should give this fucker another taste of his religion: stoning.

This is the goofiest post I've seen all day.

By your logic:

-Religious belief should be kept sequestered in homes because this one idiot police officer (and remember cops are known for enjoying their power anyway) did something idiotic?

-Pro-life advocates generally would support this kind of nonsense.

:rolleyes:
a) Why shouldn't it? Especially if it interferes with doing the job you're paid to do. No-one has the right to impose their religious belief upon anybody else. That's how crusades and fanaticism start.
b) Well, I don't hear any pro-choicers advocating this sort of nonsense, so that narrows the list down a bit, doesn't it?

a) Why shouldn't it? Especially if it interferes with doing the job you're paid to do. No-one has the right to impose their religious belief upon anybody else. That's how crusades and fanaticism start.
b) Well, I don't hear any pro-choicers advocating this sort of nonsense, so that narrows the list down a bit, doesn't it?

That would be an interesting viewpoint. I'd like to see someone try and back up allowing legal abortion but advocating the refusal of Plan B.

It's unclear who made the call to halt the investigation of the rape, but whoever it was is also (or at least, had better be) in deep trouble.was the investigation stopped?

the lawyer said...
"To stop the rape investigation and instead victimize her again," Moore said. "I'm aghast, astonished and outraged. I have never, ever heard of this happening."

but no where does it state that they didn't stop the investigation.

Sure they arrested her, but they had her statement, and they took the evidence from her (at the hospital.) but other than the Lawyer's statement, is there any evidence that they did stop the investigation?

was the investigation stopped?

the lawyer said...


but no where does it state that they didn't stop the investigation.

Sure they arrested her, but they had her statement, and they took the evidence from her (at the hospital.) but other than the Lawyer's statement, is there any evidence that they did stop the investigation?
I read the lawyer's words to mean "they stopped what they were doing on the investigation at the time to carry out this unnecessary arrest." My interpretation could easily be wrong, but that's how I read it.

i don't want this kind of "democracy" to be exported anywhere

That would be an interesting viewpoint. I'd like to see someone try and back up allowing legal abortion but advocating the refusal of Plan B.

"I like killing embryos" is the only justification I can think of for such a situation, and even that's just a personal one.

This happened in FLORIDA? I could see some fucked-up little town in the deep south, but FLORIDA?


Then again, these people brought us 2000 elections and Katherine Harris...

"I like killing embryos" is the only justification I can think of for such a situation, and even that's just a personal one.

Since embryos aren't alive in the animal sense, more alive in the skin cell sense.


And damn, are they fun to kill. Sometimes I tell my friends to get pregnant so I can hack it to ribbons with a laser.

This happened in FLORIDA? I could see some fucked-up little town in the deep south, but FLORIDA?


Then again, these people brought us 2000 elections and Katherine Harris...

Last time I checked, you can't get much further south in the continental US than FLORIDA.

Last time I checked, you can't get much further south in the continental US than FLORIDA.

Yeah, but Florida isn't really thought of as one of the Deep South states.

This event highlights problems with "religious tolerance". It seems nowadays you can just mention the phrase and you suddenly win because the authority in question can't be seen as racist.

Another example is recently, when an airline had restricted the staff from wearing any jewellery above their uniforms. One day a woman decided to wear her christian cross, then when her employers ask her to remove it she plays the racist card and wins hideous compensation.

I don't think religions should be persecuted by any means, but I believe that they should be treated no different to any other organisation, no exemption from taxes or laws.

Outside of this analysis, it takes a pretty sick person to arrest somebody after a seriously traumatic experience and actively make the situation worse for them over a silly fine. I don't think it is fair to blame any religion for this. I think that alot of religions have the potential to be very good for society and the world (even though I am myself a firm atheist), but aside from some direct stupidity, there is a huge amount of stuff that people can get away with by using religion as a scapegoat.

First post btw, kwl game, kwl book :)

I'd have to agree the most with this person. S/he has the best explanation here that I've read. The worker and police station.. they're just plain twisted, but people can't just attack all pro-life/Judeo-Christian types based on that one worker. That's all I have to say. Sorry if I'm a bit late in the conversation.

I'm probably going to be lynched for saying this, but I support the worker's actions.

Emergency contraceptives (as well as all other hormonal birth controls) were shown in studies to have weakened the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg could not implant in the wall and would pass out of the body and die. That is effectively the same thing as abortion, which is murder.

Though doubt has been cast on these studies, they have not been disproven.
Emergency contraception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception)

The worker stood up for his beliefs and worked against the possible murder of a child. I support that. Will he be persecuted? Yes. Will he be tried for crimes (which ought not to be crimes)? Yes, most likely.

But he obeyed God and followed Scripture rather than Man. Providing that was his motivation (which we have no way of knowing), God will honor that.

The worker and police station.. they're just plain twisted, but people can't just attack all pro-life/Judeo-Christian types based on that one worker..

Just watch us.

Emergency contraceptives (as well as all other hormonal birth controls) were shown in studies to have weakened the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg could not implant in the wall and would pass out of the body and die.


Yeah, that's sort of the point.

Yeah, that's sort of the point.

I chuckled. :)

Anti-choicers don't understand that Plan B prevents pregnancy (and, therefore, can prevent abortion). They just know that sluts deserve to be punished for fucking, and anything that allows a woman to escape this punishment is wrong.

They do understand that it gives women control over their own bodies, and thereby, their own sexuality. A certain kind of coward can't stand the idea that a woman might have anything to say about women's sexuality.

A certain kind of coward can't stand the idea that a woman might have anything to say about women's sexuality.

A male coward, surely.

I'd have to agree the most with this person. S/he has the best explanation here that I've read. The worker and police station.. they're just plain twisted, but people can't just attack all pro-life/Judeo-Christian types based on that one worker.

We don't. We base our attacks on the fact that they all adhere to an evil philosophy that does nothing but create misery and suffering.

A male coward, surely.

Well, there are many kinds of male cowards. The kind that is threatened by sexually empowered women is a subset of them.

We don't. We base our attacks on the fact that they all adhere to an evil philosophy that does nothing but create misery and suffering.

:confused: what kind of Christians live around you? ('cause whoever preaches that kind of message needs to be b!*#h-slapped.) I don't remember hearing that stuff growing up.

Must be religious zealots. Do try to ignore them.

I'm probably going to be lynched for saying this, but I support the worker's actions.

Emergency contraceptives (as well as all other hormonal birth controls) were shown in studies to have weakened the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg could not implant in the wall and would pass out of the body and die. That is effectively the same thing as abortion, which is murder.

Though doubt has been cast on these studies, they have not been disproven.
Emergency contraception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception)

The worker stood up for his beliefs and worked against the possible murder of a child. I support that. Will he be persecuted? Yes. Will he be tried for crimes (which ought not to be crimes)? Yes, most likely.

But he obeyed God and followed Scripture rather than Man. Providing that was his motivation (which we have no way of knowing), God will honor that.


Actually, Plan B is just a bigger version of the regular birth control pill, which is designed to prevent ovulation.

Oh, did you know that a great many fertilized eggs are actually aborted by the human body? Often, the woman (who, by your logic, is a murderer because of her body's dumping of a fertilized egg) doesn't even know that she'd been pregnant.

So, you'd prefer to make the woman chance a pregnancy by a man who raped her? You want her to have to carry around a constant reminder of the horrible crime visited upon her for 9 months? And possibly risk her life for your religious beliefs? Yes, she would be risking her life. Pregnancy, while it is not often the case in our country anymore, is potentially fatal.

Placing a clump of cells above a woman's right to her own body is why people like this disgust me.

Actually, Plan B is just a bigger version of the regular birth control pill, which is designed to prevent ovulation.

Which is why I oppose all forms of hormonal birth control.

Oh, did you know that a great many fertilized eggs are actually aborted by the human body? Often, the woman (who, by your logic, is a murderer because of her body's dumping of a fertilized egg) doesn't even know that she'd been pregnant.

She can't control that, but she can control whether she helps that along or not.

So, you'd prefer to make the woman chance a pregnancy by a man who raped her? You want her to have to carry around a constant reminder of the horrible crime visited upon her for 9 months? And possibly risk her life for your religious beliefs? Yes, she would be risking her life. Pregnancy, while it is not often the case in our country anymore, is potentially fatal.

The child is not to be punished for the sins of his father.
Neither are we to kill someone just so we can be comfortable: in my mind there are few things so dispicable and detestable as that.

There are very few instances when the life of the mother is truly in danger. And all but one of those can potentially be solved without abortion.

Placing a clump of cells above a woman's right to her own body is why people like this disgust me.

To bad it's not her body: it's in her body, but it is not hers.

To bad it's not her body: it's in her body, but it is not hers.

So do you support jail sentences for women who have abortions?

To bad it's not her body: it's in her body, but it is not hers.

Too bad you're a part of our society. You're in our society, but you aren't ours.

So do you support jail sentences for women who have abortions?

No, I support the death penalty if they undergo it willingly.

Provided it is not to save her life from imminent danger (not the potential of danger).

No, I support the death penalty if they undergo it willingly.

Provided it is not to save her life from imminent danger (not the potential of danger).

Well you're consistent. Unbelievably disgusting, but consistent, which is more than I can say for most anti-abortion folk.

Edit: And let me add--if there really is a God, man, I have to think he's gonna bitch-slap you something terrible for the atrocities you people have committed and continue to commit in his name. Whatever god you worship isn't worth my spit.

No, I support the death penalty if they undergo it willingly.

Provided it is not to save her life from imminent danger (not the potential of danger).

"He who is without sin..."

Too bad you're a part of our society. You're in our society, but you aren't ours.

"Be in the world, but do not be of the world."

"He who is without sin..."

I am not judging: I'm only repeating the judgement which God has told the civil government to carry out.

Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17;&version=47;)

I am not judging: I'm only repeating the judgement which God has told the civil government to carry out.

Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17;&version=47;)

I don't remember electing god.

I don't remember electing god.

That's because He's a Dictator. A benevolent, holy, perfect One, but a Dictator none the less.

He's called the King of Kings, not the President of Presidents.

That's because He's a Dictator. A benevolent, holy, perfect One, but a Dictator none the less.

He's called the King of Kings, not the President of Presidents.

Time to overthrow him.

Edit: And let me add--if there really is a God, man, I have to think he's gonna bitch-slap you something terrible for the atrocities you people have committed and continue to commit in his name. Whatever god you worship isn't worth my spit.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

And I know this sounds incredibly condescending and childish, but I am praying.

Time to overthrow him.

*Sigh*

:rolleyes: :(

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

And I know this sounds incredibly condescending and childish, but I am praying.

Oh, I don't mind. It won't help, even if there is a God--I gave the christian version the finger a long time ago, and if he exists, I'll gladly take the time in hell, just to stay away from him.

Time to overthrow him.

Ready to march on the throne, brother?

Which is why I oppose all forms of hormonal birth control.
Why? What do they have to do with abortion? You make no sense. Hormonal birth control, if anything, reduces the number of abortions because it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies. Also, since it prevents ovulation, it lowers the risk of ovarian cancer (which, by the way, is almost always fatal due to its being hard to detect until it's too late to do much about it) by 80%. A woman has a right to her reproductive tract.



She can't control that, but she can control whether she helps that along or not.
And? Her body, still her, so technically, still murdering.


The child is not to be punished for the sins of his father.
Neither are we to kill someone just so we can be comfortable: in my mind there are few things so dispicable and detestable as that.
It is not a child. At this stage, it is not even a fetus, and is indistinguishable from a malformed zygote that could turn into cancer. This is before it even looks like a fish. Have you any idea of the emotional and mental anguish the woman would be in if she was forced to carry the product of such an ordeal? And whyever would someone to be born with the hatred of his/her own mother?


There are very few instances when the life of the mother is truly in danger. And all but one of those can potentially be solved without abortion.
An implantation can sometimes turn into cancer. Obviously, a baby's not coming from this, and removal is the only way. Second, a zygote can sometimes implant in the fallopian tube or even in the abdominal cavity. There's two examples, your statement is false.




To bad it's not her body: it's in her body, but it is not hers.
She has the right to her own body. No one else has a right to use it if she doesn't want them to. This includes a clump of cells that you insist on calling a child, incorrectly. And by the way, all the material but the father's DNA comes from the mother. The cell wall, the mitochondria, everything but half the genetic material.

I wondered what kind of backward hyper religious third world country would do this.

Because of course third world countries with secular beliefs such as Cambodia and North Korea were much better...:rolleyes:

That's because He's a Dictator. A benevolent, holy, perfect One, but a Dictator none the less.

Of course, when you call Him "benevolent," you aren't really saying anything, since according to you, God has ultimate authority over what is good.

So even if He were brutal and cruel (and indeed, your version of Him is), you would still support worshipping Him.

The weird thing is that it is you people who then come along and call us morally depraved.

Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking cross.

Talk about adding insult to injury. :confused: I mean being arrested after being raped is bad enough, but then being denied the option to terminate the unwanted pregnancy? Insane...

Because of course third world countries with secular beliefs such as Cambodia and North Korea were much better...:rolleyes:

At least they're honest. They admit to their monstrosity, and don't try to hide behind some God figure for justification--assuming I know what you're talking about here.

Of course, when you call Him "benevolent," you aren't really saying anything, since according to you, God has ultimate authority over what is good.

So even if He were brutal and cruel (and indeed, your version of Him is), you would still support worshipping Him.

The weird thing is that it is you people who then come along and call US morally depraved.

Indeed. Easy to be the ultimate good when you get to write the definition.

It has nothing to do with your viewpoints. You claim that you have seen no evidence of something for which the evidence in current politics is constant. You may not have been convinced of the conclusion, but to say that there is no evidence for it implies that you have been hiding under a rock.



*sighs* The problem with your type of generalizations are that they can easily be disproven by someone in the group your stereotyping not going by your stereotype. For instance: I don't believe that the morning after pill is bad. The original statement was that anti-abortion people disagreed with the morning after pill, therefore you sir are wrong.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

And I know this sounds incredibly condescending and childish, but I am praying.

We're praying you'll stop going on about your religion.

At least they're honest. They admit to their monstrosity, and don't try to hide behind some God figure for justification--assuming I know what you're talking about here.
Of course not they just justify it with their different government philosphy. "Its all for the sake of the cause!"

Time to overthrow him.

I'll get the chariots of iron.

*sighs* The problem with your type of generalizations are that they can easily be disproven by someone in the group your stereotyping not going by your stereotype. For instance: I don't believe that the morning after pill is bad. The original statement was that anti-abortion people disagreed with the morning after pill, therefore you sir are wrong.

Actually, the original statement was "You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes," and I stand by it. I don't hear any outcry from anti-abortion groups claiming this woman and her kind are extremists who should be condemned for this. I've heard a handful of people on this thread, but no outcry, and I doubt that should people who side with the jail worker show up at the next protest at an abortion clinic, that they'd be told to leave by the more "moderate" protesters.

lol calm down leftie retards, a few points

1. This woman was arrested for a crime, not for being raped, but a crime irregardless, and thus has no right to bitch.

2. Not letting the woman take the pill was a good idea, because if any complications happened from taking it, it would be on the heads of the people responsible for her detention. Given the volatility of the stuff, the correct course of action was taken.

3. Most of you hippies feel sad that a possible abortion was prevented, I though most of you saw abortion as a heartbreaking last resort, way to blow that one into the water hippies.

4. On chemists not selling abortion drugs due to religion - THATS THEIR CHOICE YOU LEFTIST MORONS, ECONOMIC FREEDOM = LIBERTY

5. Abortion is not a good population strategy given the fact that the globe is still made up of nations.

Reading this thread, it almost makes me sad most of you have survived Roe v Wade, please go die in a stalinesque gulag or something ..

The child is not to be punished for the sins of his father.
Neither are we to kill someone just so we can be comfortable: in my mind there are few things so dispicable and detestable as that.
So says a man who never has to worry about being forced to carry a reminder of being violated in ways you cannot even begin to immagine.

I've always wondered for those men who stand up and say this crap how willing they would be to continue should I be able to change them into women and let them face the situation head on... how would your convictions stand after being forced to bear the spawn of a man who attacked and forced his sperm into your body?

Sadly, the Nyanneechuan does not exist in real life.

Why? What do they have to do with abortion? You make no sense. Hormonal birth control, if anything, reduces the number of abortions because it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies. Also, since it prevents ovulation, it lowers the risk of ovarian cancer (which, by the way, is almost always fatal due to its being hard to detect until it's too late to do much about it) by 80%. A woman has a right to her reproductive tract.

It is potentially abortion.

And? Her body, still her, so technically, still murdering.

Manslaughtering, not murdering. But, she is not actively killing anything, nor is she killing anyone through negligence. Abortion through hormonal birth control or other methods is murder.

It is not a child. At this stage, it is not even a fetus, and is indistinguishable from a malformed zygote that could turn into cancer. This is before it even looks like a fish. Have you any idea of the emotional and mental anguish the woman would be in if she was forced to carry the product of such an ordeal? And whyever would someone to be born with the hatred of his/her own mother?

Sripture disagrees. It calls the unborn children: Genesis 25:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=25&verse=22&version=47&context=verse)
And again, it is morally wrong to kill someone simply for your confort.


An implantation can sometimes turn into cancer. Obviously, a baby's not coming from this, and removal is the only way. Second, a zygote can sometimes implant in the fallopian tube or even in the abdominal cavity. There's two examples, your statement is false.

Really? I've never heard of the cancer thing, so I guess that's two. The instance I was referring to was the implantation of the child in the fallopian tube.


She has the right to her own body. No one else has a right to use it if she doesn't want them to. This includes a clump of cells that you insist on calling a child, incorrectly. And by the way, all the material but the father's DNA comes from the mother. The cell wall, the mitochondria, everything but half the genetic material.

She does not have the right to do anything against God's Law, because she is His creature and He can require whatever He wants of her. And He has set up His Law which forbids killing of any Man with the exceptions of excecution, war, and self-defense.

lol calm down leftie retards, a few points

1. This woman was arrested for a crime, not for being raped, but a crime irregardless.

2. Not letting the woman take the pill was a good idea, because if any complications happened from taking it, it would be on the heads of the people responsible for her detention. Given the volatility of the stuff, the correct course of action was taken.

3. Most of you hippies feel sad that a possible abortion was prevented, I though most of you saw abortion as a heartbreaking last resort, way to blow that one into the water hippies.

4. On chemists not selling abortion drugs due to religion - THATS THEIR CHOICE YOU LEFTIST MORONS, ECONOMIC FREEDOM = LIBERTY

Reading this thread, it almost makes me sad most of you have survived Roe v Wade, please go die in a stalinesque gulag or something ..
HURR


Nice 5,000th post, eh?

So says a man who never has to worry about being forced to carry a reminder of being violated in ways you cannot even begin to immagine.
That was the past (if even that). Men get to share in the fun, and worry about it too nowadays. :)

Of course, when you call Him "benevolent," you aren't really saying anything, since according to you, God has ultimate authority over what is good.

So even if He were brutal and cruel (and indeed, your version of Him is), you would still support worshipping Him.

The weird thing is that it is you people who then come along and call us morally depraved.

God is the Author of good, so I guess you are somewhat correct. But you call Him brutal and cruel, which cannot be, because you just said that He determines what is good, and brutality and cruelty are not good.

Actually, the original statement was "You encourage this kind of behavior by siding with these assholes," and I stand by it. I don't hear any outcry from anti-abortion groups claiming this woman and her kind are extremists who should be condemned for this. I've heard a handful of people on this thread, but no outcry, and I doubt that should people who side with the jail worker show up at the next protest at an abortion clinic, that they'd be told to leave by the more "moderate" protesters.

In that case as an anti abortion person, I do not endorse the actions of this person. I agree with them that abortion is wrong but I do not endorse their actions. Therefore its still proven wrong.

lol calm down leftie retards, a few points
You're going to go down well here, I can see it. :) Too bad MTAE & Co are scarcely seen nowadays.

But you call Him brutal and cruel, which cannot be, because you just said that He determines what is good, and brutality and cruelty are not good.

He sent his son to die horribly to redeem mankind for something he did. That's a textbook example of brutality and cruelty. He is a monster.

God is the Author of good, so I guess you are somewhat correct. But you call Him brutal and cruel, which cannot be, because you just said that He determines what is good, and brutality and cruelty are not good.
Then doesn't it follow that God, who sometimes even ordered deeds of such nature, is not good?

brutality and cruelty are not good.

Then God is not good, either - perhaps a basic contradiction in your belief system.

It's not anything but brutal and cruel to sentence billions of people to eternal suffering in Hell because they weren't perfect and weren't elected.

lol calm down leftie retards, two pointsYou already fail, but let's look at the rest of the post.

1. This woman was arrested for a crime, not for being raped, but a crime irregardless.No one suggested she was arrested for being raped. That would indeed be a new one in the annals of police stupidity, had they done it.

2. Not letting the woman take the pill was a good idea, because if any complications happened from taking it, it would be on the heads of the people responsible for her detention. Given the volatility of the stuff, the correct course of action was taken.
The volatility of the stuff? It's sold over the counter in most of the world, and will be soon here unless you're under 16. It's an oversized birth control pill.

3. Most of you hippies feel sad that a possible abortion was prevented, I though most of you saw abortion as a heartbreaking last resort, way to blow that one into the water hippies.Actually, what we resent is that a needless abortion might now have to take place, when one could have been avoided to begin with. You're really dumb, you know?

4. On chemists not selling abortion drugs due to religion - THATS THEIR CHOICE YOU LEFTIST MORONS, ECONOMIC FREEDOM = LIBERTYNo--they made the choice when they decided to go into pharmacy as a career. They ceded that freedom when they went into a licensed profession. And what's more, these aren't pharmacists who own their own stores in most cases--they're people working for corporations. They gave up some freedom when they took those jobs.

In the major leagues, an 0 for 4 can get you some bench time. Try to keep the splinters out of your ass, kid.

Reading this thread, it almost makes me sad most of you have survived Roe v Wade, please go die in a gulag or something ..

Oh, now, wishing death on others is certainly against forum rules. You'll want to watch that.

So says a man who never has to worry about being forced to carry a reminder of being violated in ways you cannot even begin to immagine.

I've always wondered for those men who stand up and say this crap how willing they would be to continue should I be able to change them into women and let them face the situation head on... how would your convictions stand after being forced to bear the spawn of a man who attacked and forced his sperm into your body?

I don't know how I would respond. I thank God I will never have to go through that and pray that He will give me the strength, wisdom, and love to guide those going through such an experience to do the right thing.

If I were in that position, I would hope that God would preserve me so that I would obey His Law. But I cannot say that I would.

Sadly, the Nyanneechuan does not exist in real life.

I don't know what this means.

She does not have the right to do anything against God's Law, because she is His creature and He can require whatever He wants of her. And He has set up His Law which forbids killing of any Man with the exceptions of excecution, war, and self-defense.

Your God is not my Law, and never shall be.

That was the past (if even that). Men get to share in the fun, and worry about it too nowadays. :)
Please tell me they haven't perfected women to men womb transplants. Seriously, please tell me that because if they have am in a whole lot of trouble. ;)

He sent his son to die horribly to redeem mankind for something he did. That's a textbook example of brutality and cruelty. He is a monster.

You misunderstand the Trinity. God the Father asked God the Son and God the Son said "yes" and suffered and died freely.

In that case as an anti abortion person, I do not endorse the actions of this person. I agree with them that abortion is wrong but I do not endorse their actions. Therefore its still proven wrong.

So when you show up at the next protest--assuming you care enough to do that sort of thing--are you going to poll the other protesters and ask them how they feel on this issue and then distance yourself from them if they disagree?

lol calm down leftie retards, a few points
"calm down" should not be immediately followed by a flame.


1. This woman was arrested for a crime, not for being raped, but a crime irregardless, and thus has no right to bitch.
But the fact they arrested her and held her for two days while her rapist was out on the street is appalling, and she may now be pregnant.



2. Not letting the woman take the pill was a good idea, because if any complications happened from taking it, it would be on the heads of the people responsible for her detention. Given the volatility of the stuff, the correct course of action was taken.

"volatility"? You talk about it like it's an explosive, as opposed to something woman take all the time. (Not each woman taking them all the time, but collectively.)

3. Most of you hippies feel sad that a possible abortion was prevented, I though most of you saw abortion as a heartbreaking last resort, way to blow that one into the water hippies.[/quotte]
The morning after pill is not abortion. Period. And most people would prefer not to have the child of a rapist.
[quote]
4. On chemists not selling abortion drugs due to religion - THATS THEIR CHOICE YOU LEFTIST MORONS, ECONOMIC FREEDOM = LIBERTY
Yeah, but it's still bloody stupid.

5. Abortion is not a good population strategy given the fact that the globe is still made up of nations.

Um...the effect of abortion on the population isn't going to be much of a problem.



Reading this thread, it almost makes me sad most of you have survived Roe v Wade, please go die in a stalinesque gulag or something ..

In conclusion, I would like to say you are a fanatical right wing asshole.

Please tell me they haven't perfected women to men womb transplants. Seriously, please tell me that because if they have am in a whole lot of trouble. ;)
I was referring to the "you cannot even begin to imagine" bit. It's perfectly capable for a guy to experience it too nowadays. :p

Then doesn't it follow that God, who sometimes even ordered deeds of such nature, is not good?

What does Man deserve? If God gives him less than that, is He being brutal and cruel?

What does Man deserve? If God gives him less than that, is He being brutal and cruel?

Yes.

I don't know how I would respond. I thank God I will never have to go through that and pray that He will give me the strength, wisdom, and love to guide those going through such an experience to do the right thing.

If I were in that position, I would hope that God would preserve me so that I would obey His Law. But I cannot say that I would.
Then how can you pass judgement, you who can never know?

I don't know what this means.
It's a very tragic story.

You misunderstand the Trinity. God the Father asked God the Son and God the Son said "yes" and suffered and died freely.

Well, bully for the three-in-one God. Get stuffed, sonny. This isn't a theocracy, and you don't have the inside scoop on how best to please some bearded mythological psychotic in the clouds, anyway - so stop making like the dick you are, already.

Then God is not good, either - perhaps a basic contradiction in your belief system.

It's not anything but brutal and cruel to sentence billions of people to eternal suffering in Hell because they weren't perfect and weren't elected.

That assumes that they deserve to be treated any better than He treats them.

What does Man deserve?
Not being torn to shreds by bears for making fun of a bald guy.

I was referring to the "you cannot even begin to imagine" bit. It's perfectly capable for a guy to experience it too nowadays. :p
Rape yes, being pregnant due to rape though...

So when you show up at the next protest--assuming you care enough to do that sort of thing--are you going to poll the other protesters and ask them how they feel on this issue and then distance yourself from them if they disagree?

Doesn't matter, your generalization was directed at "anti-abortion people". Therefore it has still been proven wrong.

Your God is not my Law, and never shall be.

"Those who will not live by the Law will die by the Law."

That assumes that they deserve to be treated any better than He treats them.

so humanity deserves whatever god decides to give it?

You misunderstand the Trinity. God the Father asked God the Son and God the Son said "yes" and suffered and died freely.

Someone suffered. Someone suffered needlessly, because God could have removed the sin anyways. He's a sick fucker no matter how you slice it.

Yes.
Well, that about sums it up.

2. Not letting the woman take the pill was a good idea, because if any complications happened from taking it, it would be on the heads of the people responsible for her detention.

No, it wouldn't be. If it would be on anyone's head, it would be on the doctor's who told her to take it.

4. On chemists not selling abortion drugs due to religion - THATS THEIR CHOICE YOU LEFTIST MORONS, ECONOMIC FREEDOM = LIBERTY

I didn't know that the right to not get fired from your job for not performing it properly was part of "economic freedom"... indeed, it's usually you "economic freedom" people who go on about the evils of government- or union-enforced job security.

"Those who will not live by the Law will die by the Law."

Death threats. Nice.

She does not have the right to do anything against God's Law, because she is His creature and He can require whatever He wants of her. And He has set up His Law which forbids killing of any Man with the exceptions of excecution, war, and self-defense.
Hmm, I think Jesus would be against the death penalty. You considering the whole nailed to a cross thing. Besides that "Though who hast not sinned cast the first stone" thing. Also the forgiveness. Not killing someone is sure sign that you forgive them, I think.

As for war, maybe I'm just unknowledgeable on the subject, but where in the OT does it say it's okay to kill in war?

Then how can you pass judgement, you who can never know?

I'm not passing judgement. I'm merely repeating/supporting the carrying out of the judgements God has made and has prescribed in Scripture.

Doesn't matter, your generalization was directed at "anti-abortion people". Therefore it has still been proven wrong.

Nope--the anti-abortion people give intellectual cover to the extremists by relying on false arguments and flat out lies about the biology of the fetus. They spring from the same poison well of anti-intellectualism, and so are all contaminated.

"Those who will not live by the Law will die by the Law."

Spoken like an avowed theocrat, assuming you're referring to your "God's" Law when you say that. Go join the Taliban, creep.

Rape yes, being pregnant due to rape though...
Yes, we still have some evolving to do. :)

I'm not passing judgement. I'm merely repeating/supporting the carrying out of the judgements God has made and has prescribed in Scripture.

what legislation promulgated this particular law, and what force enforces it?

Death threats. Nice.

Nah, thats just another way of him saying he believes your going to hell. Dieing is a reference to teh "second death" which is hell in the bible.

Not being torn to shreds by bears for making fun of a bald guy.

True, he deserves far worse.

Someone suffered. Someone suffered needlessly, because God could have removed the sin anyways. He's a sick fucker no matter how you slice it.

Sin needs to be payed for. Someone has to die for it. It can be you, or it can be Jesus.

Sin needs to be payed for.


Why?

Someone has to die for it.

Why?

True, he deserves far worse.
Are you sure it's not Satan you worship? He is the misanthrope. A god hellbent on making its creations suffer is hardly benevolent in any facet.

Death threats. Nice.

Umm, no. You misunderstand the meaning of that statement.

If you aren't going to live by the Law God has given you, when the time comes, God's going to hold it up and say "You didn't obey this. But, it still stands, and it says that you must die for your sins." And you will if you refused to live by the Law.

I'm certainly not going to be the one doing the killing.

Nope--the anti-abortion people give intellectual cover to the extremists by relying on false arguments and flat out lies about the biology of the fetus. They spring from the same poison well of anti-intellectualism, and so are all contaminated.

Wow, there goes another generalization. For someone who claims to be a liberal you certainly categorize people a lot. I don't side with this jailer. Whether or not you take that into account is your problem. Either way your making a false generalization. Please don't try and pull the death penalty cause I don't believe in that either. I consider myself a person of moderate beliefs, I take everything into consideration rather than rehashing what a socio-political belief system tells me.

"calm down" should not be immediately followed by a flame.

I cant help what you are

But the fact they arrested her and held her for two days while her rapist was out on the street is appalling, and she may now be pregnant.

Yes it is, they should have both been arrested.

"volatility"? You talk about it like it's an explosive, as opposed to something woman take all the time. (Not each woman taking them all the time, but collectively.)

Read a medical journal on abortion drugs, especially this one, its been known to cause complication and death.

The morning after pill is not abortion. Period. And most people would prefer not to have the child of a rapist.

Killing a living, growing human being at any stage of development = abortion, look up the medical term, moron.

Yeah, but it's still bloody stupid.

Yes economic liberty is stupid, thats why socialist economies are such notable successes lol

Um...the effect of abortion on the population isn't going to be much of a problem.

Yes it is ..

In conclusion, I would like to say you are a fanatical right wing asshole.

Me right wing? Hardly. Its just that spending the first half of my life in a socialist crap hole has endowed me was a particular hatred of the left and far left, since I've seen first hand what that kind of thinking leads to, I consider it my duty to intellectually destroy you morons where possible.

I'm not passing judgement. I'm merely repeating/supporting the carrying out of the judgements God has made and has prescribed in Scripture.
No, you have judged. Go re-read what you have written, you have passed judgement.

Wow, there goes another generalization. For someone who claims to be a liberal you certainly categorize people a lot.

It is some myth propulgated by the right wing that portrays the liberals as wishy washy "well we need to see all sides."

No, screw that, we don't. Some propositions are just wrong. Some things are just immoral. Murder? Wrong. Rape? Wrong. Restricting a right to chose? Wrong. Denying a woman her medication? Wrong.

Damned right I can generalize, damned right I don't need to be opened minded on some things. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Limiting a woman's right to chose is wrong. What this person did is wrong.

Period.

Hmm, I think Jesus would be against the death penalty. You considering the whole nailed to a cross thing. Besides that "Though who hast not sinned cast the first stone" thing. Also the forgiveness. Not killing someone is sure sign that you forgive them, I think.

As for war, maybe I'm just unknowledgeable on the subject, but where in the OT does it say it's okay to kill in war?

Did Jesus ever say that we are not to use the death penalty? No.

The instance of "Let he who is without sin..." was His sovereign right as Creator and Lord to forgive above the Law. We are not allowed to go against the Law and therefore are still to use the death penalty for the crime prescribed in Scripture and for those crimes only.

Forgiving (in a human sense) and loving /=/ not giving required punishment

The whole beginning of Numbers is God commanding a census to prepare for war.

Yes, we still have some evolving to do. :)
As long as it is done some time from now, like long after I am dead and gone.

My wife is already upset that I cannot share in the 'joys' that she is currently experiancing and I don't want to tell her it's suddenly possible. ;)

I'm not passing judgement. I'm merely repeating/supporting the carrying out of the judgements God has made and has prescribed in Scripture.

Your God. Your Scripture. Written by people you never knew. Long-dead people you never knew. Written by long-dead people you never knew - and over time, translated and re-translated, it's meaning bent and twisted every which way to conveniently accomodate any rotten bit of ecumenical politicking that floated up at the time. Well, you don't get to lord your God's Law over anyone but yourself, you thug. His day in the Sun is drawing to a close.

No, you have judged. Go re-read what you have written, you have passed judgement.

What judgement have I passed?

I said what must be done, and I pointed to the Scripture where God commands it.

Killing a living, growing human being at any stage of development = abortion, look up the medical term, moron.

The idea of you telling someone to look up the definition of a medical term when you get the medical term WRONG is amusing as all fuck.

An abortion does not kill an embryo. An abortion, by definition, is a termination of pregnancy.

An abortion aborts a pregnancy. What gets aborted in an abortion...is the pregnancy.

Not the embryo, not the fetus, an abortion means, by it's "medical term" to terminate THE PREGNANCY.

If the embryo has not implanted itself the pregnancy has not begun, that's the definition of pregnancy. If the drug prevents the implantation of the embryo, it prevents the pregnancy from ever happening.

Go look up your own medical terms, and stop being such a pompus and uneducated ass.

No, it wouldn't be. If it would be on anyone's head, it would be on the doctor's who told her to take it.

No, if you are arrested, you are in the legal custody of those who arrested you, they are responsible for your well being, including anything you ingest.

I didn't know that the right to not get fired from your job for not performing it properly was part of "economic freedom"... indeed, it's usually you "economic freedom" people who go on about the evils of government- or union-enforced job security.

What a chemist does as part of his private business, is just that, private business, a chemist can sell or choose not to sell any legal substance he/she wishes, its the core of what liberty means.

"Union enforced job security" is an oxymoron, economics has proven that the more power unions have the higher the unemployment rate due to the interference with market equilibrium, unless of course the company itself is a pure monopoly, which is almost impossible give antitrust laws.

What judgement have I passed?

I said what must be done, and I pointed to the Scripture where God commands it.

how do you know god commanded it?

Umm, no. You misunderstand the meaning of that statement.

If you aren't going to live by the Law God has given you, when the time comes, God's going to hold it up and say "You didn't obey this. But, it still stands, and it says that you must die for your sins." And you will if you refused to live by the Law.

I'm certainly not going to be the one doing the killing.

I'll look out for my own self, thank you very much. I have a very close, very intimate and very real relationship with what you would term 'God' - and there is no such thing as Sin.

I know what my God wants of me. I know my function in this continuum. I don't need some dusty old book to explain anything.

Me right wing? Hardly. Its just that spending the first half of my life in a socialist crap hole has endowed me was a particular hatred of the left and far left, since I've seen first hand what that kind of thinking leads to, I consider it my duty to intellectually destroy you morons where possible.
Then you best had sharpen up your argumentation skills. Because so far you're not doing too well in your self-ordained duty.

Anyway, you from Eastern Europe I guess? China? Latin America?

I cant help what you are...
*SNIP*

Me right wing? Hardly. Its just that spending the first half of my life in a socialist crap hole has endowed me was a particular hatred of the left and far left, since I've seen first hand what that kind of thinking leads to, I consider it my duty to intellectually destroy you morons where possible.
Oh... the Mods are just gonna LOVE you. May I suggest that if you'd like to stay here and, uh, attempt to destroy morons you bother to read the forum rules? They're the first sticky you see on top here.

It is some myth propulgated by the right wing that portrays the liberals as wishy washy "well we need to see all sides."

No, screw that, we don't. Some propositions are just wrong. Some things are just immoral. Murder? Wrong. Rape? Wrong. Restricting a right to chose? Wrong. Denying a woman her medication? Wrong.

Damned right I can generalize, damned right I don't need to be opened minded on some things. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Limiting a woman's right to chose is wrong. What this person did is wrong.

Period.
Your missing the point, I agree that what this person did was wrong. I don't agree with the statement that abortion is right. Way to demonize what you don't understand. Thats liberal principle alright. Anyone who takes a moderate position must be a propogator of right wing beliefs. Go back to watching your Michael moore film collection...

No, if you are arrested, you are in the legal custody of those who arrested you, they are responsible for your well being, including anything you ingest.

A prison keeper does not have the authority to circumvent the decision of a doctor.

Your missing the point, I agree that what this person did was wrong. I don't agree with the statement that abortion is right. Way to demonize what you don't understand. Thats liberal principle alright. Anyone who takes a moderate position must be a propogator of right wing beliefs.

and you're wrong. Again, period.

You think that abortion shouldn't be allowed? You are wrong.

The idea of you telling someone to look up the definition of a medical term when you get the medical term WRONG is amusing as all fuck.

An abortion does not kill an embryo. An abortion, by definition, is a termination of pregnancy.

An abortion aborts a pregnancy. What gets aborted in an abortion...is the pregnancy.

Not the embryo, not the fetus, an abortion means, by it's "medical term" to terminate THE PREGNANCY.

If the embryo has not implanted itself the pregnancy has not begun, that's the definition of pregnancy. If the drug prevents the implantation of the embryo, it prevents the pregnancy from ever happening.

Go look up your own medical terms, and stop being such a pompus and uneducated ass.

This was clearly not the case given the context of the OP, we're not arguing on theoretics here, but rather on the case study.

And call it whatever you want, if you're killing a unique cell-dividing (ie. living) mass of human DNA, its murder, no matter how many bullshit clinical terms you wanna use, there's no two ways about it.

If you want to execute anyone for rape, execute the rapist.

:mp5:

And call it whatever you want, if you're killing a unique cell-dividing (ie. living) mass of human DNA, its murder, no matter how many bullshit clinical terms you wanna use, there's no two ways about it.

No, no it is not. Murder is, by definition, an unlawful killing of a human being. Since abortion is legal, even if we accept that a fetus is a living person (it's not) it's still not murder, as it is not unlawful.

Try again.

By the way, a unique cell-dividing mass of human DNA meets the definition of my liver.

What a chemist does as part of his private business, is just that, private business, a chemist can sell or choose not to sell any legal substance he/she wishes, its the core of what liberty means.
Except that this person does not own the business. They are employed. If you fail to live up to your employment standards, you get fired.

What judgement have I passed?
By you:
I'm probably going to be lynched for saying this, but I support the worker's actions.
*snip*

That is effectively the same thing as abortion, which is murder.
*snip*

The worker stood up for his beliefs and worked against the possible murder of a child. I support that. Will he be persecuted? Yes. Will he be tried for crimes (which ought not to be crimes)? Yes, most likely.
Those are words of judgement.

:mp5:

holy shit, a first post that's a gun smilie and NOTHING ELSE.

You fucking win NSG.

and you're wrong. Again, period.

You think that abortion shouldn't be allowed? You are wrong.

Yep, here we go again, starting a fight that only involves saying "YOur wrong!" "NO your wrong!!". Abortion is right only in cases of rape or wher the woman's life is endanger. This is exactly why I'm completely turned off by both of the parties in the United States.

how do you know god commanded it?

Westminster Confession sums it up well:
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.

Westminster Confession sums it up well:

So the scripture was written by god because only god could have written it?

How do you know only god could have written it?

Except that this person does not own the business. They are employed. If you fail to live up to your employment standards, you get fired.

That would up to corporate guidelines then, many chemists are small privately owned businesses. If its a larger corporate chain, then the rules of the corporation must determine whether employed chemists are allowed degrees personal discretion or not.

Yep, here we go again, starting a fight that only involves saying "YOur wrong!" "NO your wrong!!". Abortion is right only in cases of rape or wher the woman's life is endanger.

You advocate stripping someone of their right to bodily autonomy.

You are wrong.

holy shit, a first post that's a gun smilie and NOTHING ELSE.

You fucking win NSG.I was thinking that that post was eerily appropriate myself--it's in an abortion thread no less. :D

So the scripture was written by god because only god could have written it?

How do you know only god could have written it?

Biblical literalists certainly suffer from a lack of imagination. It may be their worst failing as a species.

Those are words of judgement.

:rolleyes:

Really, if we're going to go down this road, you need to remove the mote from your own eye first. By pointing out that I am "judging" you are yourself judging.

I support the worker, because He did the thing which God requires.

Abortion is murder because it falls outside God's prescribed times of justified killing.

They ought not to be crimes because they go against God's Law and all ought ot submit to that Law.

You're searching for things to call judgement, but there are none.

A prison keeper does not have the authority to circumvent the decision of a doctor.

The OP does not say anything about a doctor ..

So the scripture was written by god because only god could have written it?

How do you know only god could have written it?

Did you read it?

It says that all these things (majesty of the style and such) are very good arguments, but the only thing powerful enough to convince us that it is His Word is God Himself by working on our hearts.

No, no it is not. Murder is, by definition, an unlawful killing of a human being. Since abortion is legal, even if we accept that a fetus is a living person (it's not) it's still not murder, as it is not unlawful.

Try again.

By the way, a unique cell-dividing mass of human DNA meets the definition of my liver.

Law does not equate to biological fact, please try again.

That would up to corporate guidelines then, many chemists are small privately owned businesses. If its a larger corporate chain, then the rules of the corporation must determine whether employed chemists are allowed degrees personal discretion or not.

still not true. Certain professions have certain rules that must be followed.

Lawyers can not do something against the interest of their clients. Doctors can not do anything that harms a patient. Accountants can not certify tax papers that he knows contains an error. Pilots can not deviate from their flight plan. And pharmacists can not refuse to give medication with a valid perscription.

Certain professions have certain rules, and if you deviate from those rules you lose your license to hold that profession. That's how it works. A pilot can't take the plane off course because he thinks the other route will be more fun. A lawyer can't sell out his patient because he wants to. A pharmacists can't simply decide he won't dispence medication.

Why the fuck should we treat them any differently than other licensed professions. You violate the conditions of your license, you lose your license. Period.

:rolleyes:

Really, if we're going to go down this road, you need to remove the mote from your own eye first. By pointing out that I am "judging" you are yourself judging.
Oh please, I can spot a circular logic trap a mile away and it don't impress me.

I support the worker, because He did the thing which God requires.

Abortion is murder because it falls outside God's prescribed times of justified killing.

They ought not to be crimes because they go against God's Law and all ought ot submit to that Law.

You're searching for things to call judgement, but there are none.
No, YOU are trying to get out of the very thing you have accused me of, judging. In your case, you judge without knowing.

The OP does not say anything about a doctor ..

the drug she was taking is, I believe, perscription only.

Law does not equate to biological fact.

But the definition of legal terms certainly does. Murder is a legal term. That which does not meet the legal definition of murder is not murder, no matter how much you want to say it is.

They ought not to be crimes because they go against God's Law and all ought ot submit to that Law.


No. I will not submit. Neither to your God, nor your God's Law.

Did you read it?

It says that all these things (majesty of the style and such) are very good arguments, but the only thing powerful enough to convince us that it is His Word is God Himself by working on our hearts.

so the only thing that could make us believe in god is god?

What about all those folks who believed in Zeus or Seth or Odin or Brahma?

Or, in other words, prove that god is the only thing that could make us believe in god.

Oh please, I can spot a circular logic trap a mile away and it don't impress me.

Circular? Yes, but only because you made it that way.

No, YOU are trying to get out of the very thing you have accused me of, judging. In your case, you judge without knowing.

Wonderful, more judgement.

Really, get over this obsession with judging. First, there are times when we are commanded to judge. Matthew 7:6,15-20 is an example.

And I have said nothing which has not been stated in Scripture.

What you are doing is to refute everything as sinful judgement so that it need not be harkened to.

so the only thing that could make us believe in god is god?

What about all those folks who believed in Zeus or Seth or Odin or Brahma?

Or, in other words, prove that god is the only thing that could make us believe in god.

You already refuse to accept Scripture.

It's faith: that's why it is religion.

They ought not to be crimes because they go against God's Law and all ought ot submit to that Law.

Your beliefs on what god wants has no place in a secular society.

still not true. Certain professions have certain rules that must be followed.

Ok ..

Lawyers can not do something against the interest of their clients. Doctors can not do anything that harms a patient. Accountants can not certify tax papers that he knows contains an error. Pilots can not deviate from their flight plan. And pharmacists can not refuse to give medication with a valid perscription.

All those are laws, except for the last one. The only law that exists in that case is the law of economics. If the pharmacist can get by without selling abortion drugs, so be it.

There is no such thing as a forcible selling law.

Certain professions have certain rules, and if you deviate from those rules you lose your license to hold that profession. That's how it works. A pilot can't take the plane off course because he thinks the other route will be more fun. A lawyer can't sell out his patient because he wants to. A pharmacists can't simply decide he won't dispence medication.

Again the one for pharmacists is incorrect, no such legal obligation exists, and one simply cannot, as it would be a violation of the freedoms of the individual.

Why the fuck should we treat them any differently than other licensed professions. You violate the conditions of your license, you lose your license. Period.

Because a pharmacy license ALLOWS you to sell x, y and z. You can choose not to sell x or y or z if you so wish, there is no "you must sell x" rule, for the reasons explained above.

You cant force a chemist to sell certain things anymore than you can force microsoft to develop the next Windows.

But the definition of legal terms certainly does. Murder is a legal term. That which does not meet the legal definition of murder is not murder, no matter how much you want to say it is.

Murder exists outside legality, in biological science and religion among other places.

Just because a certain law says x, does not mean x is right. Laws are hardly concrete.

Your beliefs on what god wants has no place in a secular society.

I believe that a secular society is nothing but a theocracy for agnostics and apathists.

I also believe that all parts of our lives are to be brought under God's Law, including our government and society.

You already refuse to accept Scripture.

Yes, yes I do.

It's faith: that's why it is religion

So since you can't prove a word you say, you really have no leg to stand on when you declare it as "fact" do you? So you would dictate how others live because of something that you can not demonstrate to be true?

You would tell me how to live based on a law that you can't prove to me exists?

Why the fuck should I believe you?

Circular? Yes, but only because you made it that way.
And a around and around and around he goes, where he stops nobody knows!

Wonderful, more judgement.

Really, get over this obsession with judging. First, there are times when we are commanded to judge. Matthew 7:6,15-20 is an example.

And I have said nothing which has not been stated in Scripture.

What you are doing is to refute everything as sinful judgement so that it need not be harkened to.
No, I am saying you stand judgement in a place where you have no friken clue what it would be like.

Snips.

State is not the rubber stamp of aeons-old fiction. It will never be such again. Get used to it, the age in which Christianity dictated what everyone was forced to do regardless of their religion is over. And it will never return despite your crazy efforts.

The man did this out of the need to control the woman and the sadistic impulse to make her suffer, due to his pre-mediaeval belief system. Reality does not work like that, and it should be a crime just like rape is. Rape stems from the need to control the weak, and so did the action which you are advocating.

The man is a rapist, and it's too lenient that he will not be tried as such, though, posthmously, he will. My decision. I am Heikoku. If you don't like it, if you want to take this to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with me!

So since you can't prove a word you say, you really have no leg to stand on when you declare it as "fact" do you? So you would dictate how others live because of something that you can not demonstrate to be true?

You would tell me how to live based on a law that you can't prove to me exists?

Why the fuck should I believe you?

Why should you believe me?

You shouldn't believe me: I'm a fallible, sinful human being.

The One whom you should believe is God.

I believe that a secular society is nothing but a theocracy for agnostics and apathists.

No a secular society is a society that has no official theocracy, at all. But you can believe what you wish on the subject.

That's the wonder of a secular society.

I also believe that all parts of our lives are to be brought under God's Law, including our government and society.

And you may believe that too, if you wish, that again is the wonder of a secular society.

You can not, however, do a god damned thing about it. That's the second wonder of a secular society.

I believe that a secular society is nothing but a theocracy for agnostics and apathists.

I also believe that all parts of our lives are to be brought under God's Law, including our government and society.

Well it's a good job nutcases like you will never get your way then, isn't it?

Why should you believe me?

You shouldn't believe me: I'm a fallible, sinful human being.

The One whom you should believe is God.

then why should I believe that the god YOU believe in, the fallible, sinful, without a shred of proof human being that you are, is the correct version.

You have admitted already that:

1) you have no proof
2) you are fallable

Isn't the conclusion to be drawn that you may be wrong about this?

No, I am saying you stand judgement in a place where you have no friken clue what it would be like.

And I'm saying that I don't need a clue because I am not judging the person, I am only repeating/supporting the carrying out of God's judgment on her actions. And God surely had more of a clue than even the woman who is going through the ordeal.

It's faith: that's why it is religion.

It's pathological laziness, your sense of faith.

Murder exists outside legality, in biological science and religion among other places.

No, no it does not. Murder is strictly a legal term

Just because a certain law says x, does not mean x is right.

True, but in this case abortion is both legal, and moral.

then why should I believe that the god YOU believe in, the fallible, sinful, without a shred of proof human being that you are, is the correct version.

You have admitted already that:

1) you have no proof
2) you are fallable

Isn't the conclusion to be drawn that you may be wrong about this?

I never said I don't have proof. What I said was that the proof cannot convince you without the Holy Spirit working on your heart.

I already said that I can be wrong. That's why it all rests on God and not one me.

And I'm saying that I don't need a clue because I am not judging the person, I am only repeating/supporting the carrying out of God's judgment on her actions. And God surely had more of a clue than even the woman who is going through the ordeal.

based purely on faith in the context of your fallable, and subject to error, humanity?

based purely on faith in the context of your fallable, and subject to error, humanity?

Which is why I point (or at least ought to point) back to God's infallible Word.

was the investigation stopped?

Yes. At the very least, it was postponed. Even eight hours after the crime, there might have been some evidence at the scene. Now? The chances of there being any evidence there are pretty much nil.

The officer could have taken her into custody, but continued to the rape scene to walk her through the scene and collect any evidence that might have still been there. Instead, he immediately took her to jail, where she sat for a couple of days, her rape case almost certainly going cold.

I never said I don't have proof. What I said was that the proof cannot convince you without the Holy Spirit working on your heart.

No, that's just it. You don't have proof. You point to scripture as proof, but you can't PROVE that the scripture is divine. You BELIEVE it, but you can't prove it.

I already said that I can be wrong. That's why it all rests on God and not one me.

You admit that your faith can be wrong. YOu admit you can be in error. You admit that every single belief you have can be absolutly and totally, 100% WRONG.

Then where the fuck do you get off telling ME how I should live MY life based on YOUR belief which you already admit can, quite possibly, be entirely wrong.

How dare you tell me that I should follow rules you just admitted can be absolute, total bullshit?

No, no it does not. Murder is strictly a legal term

Murder can happen in law free environment and has a greater meaning in the english language than just its strict legal interpretation.

Take OJ for example, people call him a murderer even though he is legaly innocent.

True, but in this case abortion is both legal, and moral.

Whilst the first one may be conditionally true for now, the second one never is, there is no morality in killing the innocent.

And I'm saying that I don't need a clue because I am not judging the person, I am only repeating/supporting the carrying out of God's judgment on her actions. And God surely had more of a clue than even the woman who is going through the ordeal.

I. am. God.

And I dare you to disprove the previous statement.

Which is why I point (or at least ought to point) back to God's infallible Word.

prove it came from god. For that matter, prove it's infallible

I. am. God.

And I dare you to disprove the previous statement.

God would pick a better username.

Next ..

Take OJ for example, people call him a murderer even though he is legaly innocent.

And they are wrong.

Whilst the first one may be conditionally true for now, the second one never is, there is no morality in killing the innocent.

I take it you're a vegan? I assure you the cow that made up the burger I had for lunch was a truly innocent individual.

I am only repeating/supporting the carrying out of God's judgment on her actions.

Your God's apparent judgement.

And God surely had more of a clue than even the woman who is going through the ordeal.

Yes, he's a thoroughly nasty & vengeful God, this God of yours. Not at all like my God. Thanks for underscoring just how right I am to believe in the things I do, and not to have ever settled instead for being some hopelessly-indoctrinated spiritual cypher.

Then you best had sharpen up your argumentation skills. Because so far you're not doing too well in your self-ordained duty.

Anyway, you from Eastern Europe I guess? China? Latin America?
To repeat my question.

God would pick a better username.

Next ..

how dare you argue with god? Don't you know god is infallable? If god chose that username it must be the right one.

Do you think you know better than god?

I take it you're a vegan? I assure you the cow that made up the burger I had for lunch was a truly innocent individual.
And how do you know? It could have been one of those mean cows that chase poor fishermen all over the place and won't let them fish!










What?
:p