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



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



Fine - it's elective but still a right.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Let's not play word games.

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

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

Boudica:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boudico:

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

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



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

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

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

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

Boudica:

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



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



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

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

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

Basmas:

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



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

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



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

How does that make it less human?

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



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

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