oh man. erathoniel....



So, if you're driving along minding your own business one day and you make a lane change while your attention is distracted (let's say you look in your rear-view and forget to shoulder check your blindspot) and you hit another car. Technically you've just committed a crime. Now you deserve to lose all your rights?

Obviously you've never been on the wrong side of the law, or else you'd be changing your tune mighty quick! In our society there are a million and one things you can do in going about your everyday life that are seemingly harmless and well intentioned but end up being a crime.

Say for example you go to do your taxes, let's say you find the whole business terribly confusing (as many people do) so you give them to a friend to do, they tell you they can get you more money back (which means they cheat on your taxes) you're a dumb bloke who signs on the dotted line, albeit ignorant you never even imagine that your friend just committed a crime that you're on the hook for. Does that mean you also deserve to lose your rights?

No, it does not. The foundation of a civilized society is rights, not just for the straight-shooters but for those who have committed infractions as well. To state that anyone who's committed a crime is suddenly in some kind of sub-class of humanity creates a world that eventually devolves into an empire which is class based, and once you throw that pop can out the window (littering) bam! in you go to the "criminal" class in which you can now be exploited.



I'm sure you are. You do know, though, that in order to abstain you actually have to have an opportunity presented to you, right? Obviously, you've also never had the experience of both partners using contraceptives only to have a pregnancy scare, especially when you're both dumb kids with no money and summer jobs part-way through college!

I'm sure he's scared all the ladyfolk away, real quick.

Contraceptives do not always work - on a large scale they work better than abstinence but thats a different dicussion.

Human rights are human rights, you get them for being human and they don't keep all their rights in fact they lose rather a lot of them.

The cost to the government of a quicky abortion is going to be a damn sight less then the medical bills for a full term pregancy, the care of the baby in a care home, the cost of adoptiing it (if they can) and the potential cost to society of a baby born against their mothers will in jail.  I'm sure that even you will agree it is hardly the best start to life.

Don't forget that this woman is incapable of getting a job to pay for her own medical treatment - do you think that she should be denied all medical treatment or just this one?

You went off on to some tangents here.  You would have made the point better if you had of stuck with the fact that the people of the county Arpaio works for does not owe anyone an abortion.

I guess the American Criminal Leninists Union is all about "Commit a felony, win an abortion".

A right does not impose on another person. Abortion is not a right for that reason. Unless you self abort.

Erath:

You've been on this site long enough to know that when you make articles and say widely open opinions, in this case how you believe people lose their rights for commiting a crime, that people will come down a tab bit hard on those comments. I suggest you be a bit more specific when making such broad statements.

Take this for example. Do you know how often people commit crimes in this country? The average person commits at least 1 crime a day (if we were to follow the law by the book). Jaywalking, driving over the speed limit (even 1 mile), not wearing their seatbelts while driving (even if you put it on a few seconds after you start driving). You get my point. Do you think all these people deserve to have their rights taken away?

Not all, it was an accident. That's why you don't get a jail sentence for getting in an accident unless it's bad. It's more intent, not comission. You don't ever deserve to lose all of your rights, you just lose some of your priveleges.

So, what do you mean by that?

So, you mean to say that there aren't a million or so individual treatments that could be used in combination other than just at moment or afterwars?

I've never heard of abortions being a "human right", only a human sacrifice. A sacrifice for convenience, pleasure, and cheap sex.

Yes, it may cost less, but it's inethical, and removes a potential worker from society.

Thank you for asking, just this one. Oh, and sex changes. And a couple other related things in the sexual enhancements/alterations category.

Yeah, but I have to go on my tangents. They're how I vent.

Yep, pretty much. But the ACLU is just plain crazy.

Actually, it does impose on the unborn child. Therefore it should not be a right because then unborn have no more sanctity than murderers if it is. More, actually, because the libs' are all about protecting murderers.

1. Jaywalking is a crime of comission, and is punishable.
2. Speeding is usually an accident, but can be punishable. It's called "Felony Speeding". Otherwise they're given a ticket to make them more careful in the future.
3. You don't have to wear seatbelts on private property, IIRC, and you should have plenty of time to do so before departing.

You know how when you tell me the blatantly obvious I will fix your spelling/grammar errors. You've been around here long enough to know that. You say that like I care how people react to my comments. I hadn't gotten a comment in weeks until I wrote this article. Also, I seriously don't care if my beliefs are unpopular. I chose that myself, knowing full well the potential results.

ACk!  I think my head just exploded.  Reproductive rights are not a privilege.  I am so glad that we have an organization like the ACLU to defend our constiutional rights. 

“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” – Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Monmouth County Correctional Institute Inmates v. Lanzaro (1987) ²

 

 

Boudica:

That may be true, but no one has the right to elective medical care at the taxpayers' dime... not even inmates.

A whole lot of information and excuses but you never really did answer my question did you?

1 - It's still a crime. Punishment is a ticket. Try not paying it and see what happens.

2 - Again, still a crime. Not necessarily an accident, you can always drive under the speed
limit and never break it. Same as above, try not paying the ticket. Speed limits were set not so you can drive at that specific speed but so you don't exceed it.

3 - I was not being specific about where but all around. Have you ever gotten in your car after putting gas and not put your seatbelt on till your about to hit the road? It happens to people depending on their habits.

Of course, in the end you missed the point while trying to pass yourself as smarter than the rest. The point was crimes are committed every day by everyone, based on the laws that currently exist. But if we were to punish everyone for each little stupid thing like this no one would have rights and this would be a communist country.



Typical, when you can't win with smarts, throw mud. Forgive me for not being up to your perfect standards but my spellcheck only checks words spelled wrong not wrong words used and One does not always notice minor mistakes like that. But i forgot, you are Mr Perfect, the one who never breaks God's laws. What ever. In the end you never did get it.

  Actually, the prisoner had already paid for the procedure.  The sheriff would not transport her.  I don't think that a prisoner can walk out the door and catch a taxi to get the procedure done.  The violation was in his trying to impose his ideology on these women and deny them their constiutional rights. 

The sheriff has every right to refuse to allow an inmate to travel outside the jail. Again, the inmate has no inherent right to elective medical care, nor does the jail have to accomidate it. Inmates have the right to protest too, but the jail doesn't have to let travel to a peaceful assembly.

Fact it, not a single right was violated here. The American Criminal Leninist Union has always resented Sheriff Arpaio because he actually makes jail a bad place to be. They even whined and complained when Arpaio quit serving coffee to inmates.

No, he doesn't! They have to provide transportation for the inmate. This was ruled on in another court case three years ago.

The 2005 injunction came out of a case in which an inmate identified as "Jane Doe" was serving time for a DUI conviction and asked to be taken to an abortion clinic. She was forced to get a court order to do so, and the ACLU then filed suit to ensure that other women would not have to undergo similar delays.

At the time, Arpaio said he did not run a "taxi service" for women who wanted "elective surgery."

The court did not agree and issued the injunction, saying that forcing the inmates to get a court order was tantamount to making women jump through hoops to obtain a constitutional right. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in 2007. Arpaio then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and was denied a hearing.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/08/08/20080808abortion0808.html

And calling this "elective" is a way of trying to diminish it like it is something unnecessary, a frivolous cosmetic procedure, a nose job. It is a much more than that. The month long delay made this a more difficult procedure that required a two day hospital stay. This is not some tooth whitening procedure that can wait until the prisoner serves their sentence.

It seemed from your previous comment that your objection was whether tax payers were paying for the procedure. Now that you know that's not true you have to find another reason to back up Arpaio.

The ACLU has a problem with Arpaio because he routinely stomps on citizens rights.

No, calling it Elective is being honest. Words mean things and elective treatment is a medical term. She CHOSE to have that abortion, there was no more medical need for it than if she was choosing to have a face lift.

The ACLU doesn't give a rats rear end about anyone's rights. They are an Anti Constitutional Gang of liars who use our rights as a weapon against us. Arpaio simply doesn't see any reason for the taxpayers to pay for creature comforts and luxuries for people in jail.



I don't find another reason to back Arpaio, but yes I do stand corrected on the taxpayer paying for the abortion point.

So if the prisoner paid for participation in a protest march, Arpaio should be required to transport them to it?

The whole thing about letting people out of jail for elective anything is just plain idiocy. The fact that some judicial activist and incompetent judges would abuse their authority this way is disgusting.

Unless it's a life and death situation, abortion is an elective treatment. If it was a legitimate medical situation, I would agree that she should be transported.