Idaho's ban on undercover animal abuse videos struck down by federal judge

[Obiwan]

These videos are crucial evidence exposing cruelty to farm animals of epic proportions. Some days I'm glad I can't get videos to load because the stills I have witnessed have me bazooka barfing on their own.

I don't think I could handle video and sound. My husband and I both hunt and we have no problem with good clean kills whether its Bambi or Thumper and we do respect their lives in the way we handle them.

We are talking over the top vicious cruelty that these brave souls go undercover to expose. Oh boy, one at a dairy farm gave me freaking nightmares that people like that existed in life. And because of the work of the activists Land O'Lakes cancelled their contracts with this farming outfit. As they should have.

For those that don't understand what some of these great undercover animal activists are doing you really need to check into them. They're awesome.

Good call by this judge. Kudos.

I agree. I just wonder why the Libs rate animals above kids.

Stop pretending, you aren't a Christian and you don't have any moral ground.

You just like to tell yourself that 'cuz it makes ya feel good'.

Wrong... I have morals.

That's why I can't be a Lib.

 

[IsaacNewton]

These videos are crucial evidence exposing cruelty to farm animals of epic proportions. Some days I'm glad I can't get videos to load because the stills I have witnessed have me bazooka barfing on their own.

I don't think I could handle video and sound. My husband and I both hunt and we have no problem with good clean kills whether its Bambi or Thumper and we do respect their lives in the way we handle them.

We are talking over the top vicious cruelty that these brave souls go undercover to expose. Oh boy, one at a dairy farm gave me freaking nightmares that people like that existed in life. And because of the work of the activists Land O'Lakes cancelled their contracts with this farming outfit. As they should have.

For those that don't understand what some of these great undercover animal activists are doing you really need to check into them. They're awesome.

Good call by this judge. Kudos.

I agree. I just wonder why the Libs rate animals above kids.

Stop pretending, you aren't a Christian and you don't have any moral ground.

You just like to tell yourself that 'cuz it makes ya feel good'.

Wrong... I have morals.

That's why I can't be a Lib.

Jesus was a 'lib'. Full blown love your neighbor, condemn the rich, help the poor lib. Something you will never understand. Your morality is the same as Newt Gingrich or Dennis Hastert. You claim it, but it isn't real.

 

[Camp]

These videos are crucial evidence exposing cruelty to farm animals of epic proportions. Some days I'm glad I can't get videos to load because the stills I have witnessed have me bazooka barfing on their own.

I don't think I could handle video and sound. My husband and I both hunt and we have no problem with good clean kills whether its Bambi or Thumper and we do respect their lives in the way we handle them.

We are talking over the top vicious cruelty that these brave souls go undercover to expose. Oh boy, one at a dairy farm gave me freaking nightmares that people like that existed in life. And because of the work of the activists Land O'Lakes cancelled their contracts with this farming outfit. As they should have.

For those that don't understand what some of these great undercover animal activists are doing you really need to check into them. They're awesome.

Good call by this judge. Kudos.

I agree. I just wonder why the Libs rate animals above kids.

They don't. You just can't accept the reality that zygotes and early stage development of fetuses are not kids, babies or children. Your alleged religion or whatever you call your belief system has you participating in cult like thinking and behavior. Go live with the Taliban. America does not want your sharia law.
Your constant anti freedom projections are a nuisance by the way.

 

[tyroneweaver]

the animals in question were being abused

These videos are crucial evidence exposing cruelty to farm animals of epic proportions. Some days I'm glad I can't get videos to load because the stills I have witnessed have me bazooka barfing on their own.

I don't think I could handle video and sound. My husband and I both hunt and we have no problem with good clean kills whether its Bambi or Thumper and we do respect their lives in the way we handle them.

We are talking over the top vicious cruelty that these brave souls go undercover to expose. Oh boy, one at a dairy farm gave me freaking nightmares that people like that existed in life. And because of the work of the activists Land O'Lakes cancelled their contracts with this farming outfit. As they should have.

For those that don't understand what some of these great undercover animal activists are doing you really need to check into them. They're awesome.

Good call by this judge. Kudos.

I agree. I just wonder why the Libs rate animals above kids.

They don't. You just can't accept the reality that zygotes and early stage development of fetuses are not kids, babies or children. Your alleged religion or whatever you call your belief system has you participating in cult like thinking and behavior. Go live with the Taliban. America does not want your sharia law.
Your constant anti freedom projections are a nuisance by the way.

Ever put a milker on a freshening heifer

 

[martybegan]

Sassy does make a valid point...

Nah. Apples and oranges. One is about wiretapping laws, while ag-gag is about forbidding free speech solely based on subject matter. The latter is a clear first amendment violation. Wiretapping laws, no. If anyone makes a law against reciting pro-life positions, that would be equivalent to ag-gag laws.

If you believe this crap spin you just expectorated out, then you are a bigger hack that I thought.

 

[martybegan]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

A federal judge struck down Idaho's ban on undercover videos at factory farms Monday, saying state legislators wrongly criminalized free speech to protect powerful agricultural groups.

Animal rights advocates called the ruling the first such defeat for a so-called ag-gag law in the U.S. The laws have gained popularity in some states as activists continue to publish undercover videos showing animal abuse at facilities around the country.

The remedy for misleading speech, or speech we do not like, is more speech, not enforced silence.- U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the District of Idaho
U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the District of Idaho swept away the state's ban on the grounds that the law violated the 1st Amendment and selectively targeted activists or journalists who might be critical of factory farm practices.

"The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment," Winmill wrote in a summary judgment.

The judge said that "the facts show the state's purpose in enacting the statute was to protect industrial animal agriculture by silencing its critics."

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter signed the ban into law in February 2014 after a Los Angeles-based animal rights group, Mercy for Animals, released undercover video that showed dairy workers at one Idaho farm beating and abusing cows.

One clip showed workers at Bettencourt Dairies' Dry Creek Dairy in Hansen, Idaho, dragging a cow with a tractor after attaching a chain to her neck.

Although the video resulted in criminal charges against some of the workers, many Idaho lawmakers appeared more piqued by the animal rights activists who produced the highly edited footage.


FOR THE RECORD

Lawmakers likened it to propaganda or worse. One lawmaker called the undercover videos "farm terrorism" intended to damage the agricultural industry. Another compared activists to ancient invaders who destroyed crops to starve enemies into submission.

Idaho's law made it a misdemeanor -- punishable by up to a year in prison, plus potentially steep damages -- to make secret recordings or misrepresent one's identity to gain entrance to an agricultural facility.

After the law was passed, a broad coalition of animal rights activists, journalists and civil liberties advocates sued Idaho in federal court. Plaintiffs included the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and left-wing news magazine CounterPunch.

------------


Aug. 4, 8:42 a.m.: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Mercy for Animals is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

------------

Judge Winmill noted that the law would have criminalized the undercover journalism that Upton Sinclair performed in order to write his shocking 1906 novel on the meatpacking industry, "The Jungle," which led to industry reforms.

"As the story of Upton Sinclair illustrates, an agricultural facility's operations that affect food and worker safety are not exclusively a private matter. Food and worker safety are matters of public concern," Winmill wrote. "Moreover, laws against trespass, fraud, theft and defamation already exist."

Winmill said that if farm owners were concerned about highly edited activist videos, they could mount their own public relations campaigns.

"The remedy for misleading speech, or speech we do not like, is more speech, not enforced silence," Winmill wrote.

Mercy for Animals hailed the ruling, saying it was looking forward to producing more undercover videos in Idaho.

"Idaho’s lawmakers should be ashamed of wasting precious time and valuable resources enacting unconstitutional laws that threaten animal welfare, food safety, workers’ rights and the environment," Nathan Runkle, president of Mercy for Animals, said in a statement.

This is fantastic news.
Idaho apos s ban on undercover animal abuse videos struck down by federal judge - LA Times

I totally agree because people should be able to speak freely but I only get excited when ideas of liberty can be used to take down the capatalist system. Anything to make it difficult for the capatalist system to operate.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

 

[martybegan]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

 

[martybegan]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Wait, you mean Idaho legislators and governor actually passed a bill banning undercover videos at farms of animals? WTF!!

What was it called, the You Are Free To Torture Animals bill?

Careful, you are treading on dick cheney's territory now.

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

 

[martybegan]

It's less about torture, and more about the fact that animals have to be slaughtered to be turned into yummy yummy meat, and the methods of doing this are shall we say, less than pleasant to our current crop of separated from reality citizens.

It's the same with all the current tapes showing what abortion is actually about. Much as meat providers don't want people thinking how that Steak got on the plate, Abortion rights activists don't want the reality of abortions, particularly late term ones, being in the minds of the public.

That being said, Ag-Gag laws are blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

They think that a person deserves a chance to be born, i.e. "life". You creating a Standard of them having to save all other children's lives to claim the term "pro-life" is nothing more than trying to re-frame the debate, instead of debating the actual points.

 

[chikenwing]

These videos are crucial evidence exposing cruelty to farm animals of epic proportions. Some days I'm glad I can't get videos to load because the stills I have witnessed have me bazooka barfing on their own.

I don't think I could handle video and sound. My husband and I both hunt and we have no problem with good clean kills whether its Bambi or Thumper and we do respect their lives in the way we handle them.

We are talking over the top vicious cruelty that these brave souls go undercover to expose. Oh boy, one at a dairy farm gave me freaking nightmares that people like that existed in life. And because of the work of the activists Land O'Lakes cancelled their contracts with this farming outfit. As they should have.

For those that don't understand what some of these great undercover animal activists are doing you really need to check into them. They're awesome.

Good call by this judge. Kudos.

I agree. I just wonder why the Libs rate animals above kids.

Stop pretending, you aren't a Christian and you don't have any moral ground.

You just like to tell yourself that 'cuz it makes ya feel good'.

Wrong... I have morals.

That's why I can't be a Lib.

Jesus was a 'lib'. Full blown love your neighbor, condemn the rich, help the poor lib. Something you will never understand. Your morality is the same as Newt Gingrich or Dennis Hastert. You claim it, but it isn't real.

Apparently yo uwill never know also,you break one of Jesus biggest commandments,judge not,you fail baddly

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yeah, abortion is on your mind. The 20,000 children that died yesterday are not, nor are the 20,000 that will die today.

Because life isn't what you are concerned about. Its how you can use it for political gain.

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

They think that a person deserves a chance to be born, i.e. "life". You creating a Standard of them having to save all other children's lives to claim the term "pro-life" is nothing more than trying to re-frame the debate, instead of debating the actual points.

Yes, I am reframing the debate to include all life, rather than a politically expedient subset.

Does pro-life mean all life, or some life.

 

[martybegan]

My issues with the whole Abortion Debate are more about Roe V Wade being horrible Constitutional law, rather than abortion itself. I wouldn't push for abortion bans if Roe got overturned, but I have no issue with people in Alabama deciding they do want to push for them.

What I can't stand is abortion rights people trying to candy coat what is effectively killing off another organism, the debate over it's person-hood not withstanding.

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

They think that a person deserves a chance to be born, i.e. "life". You creating a Standard of them having to save all other children's lives to claim the term "pro-life" is nothing more than trying to re-frame the debate, instead of debating the actual points.

Yes, I am reframing the debate to include all life, rather than a politically expedient subset.

Does pro-life mean all life, or some life.

it means what they want it to mean, and what the public accepts it to mean. And I doubt anti-abortion rights people (see i used the negative there) don't actively go out of their way to ignore the plight of poor children, many of the Churches they belong to probably do things for that. The fact is they see the plight of the unborn as more important, and there are plenty of people working on the plight of poor children at the same time.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It isn't a perfect world and never will be. I think most people would rather there were no abortions but you then have to step across that line and take control over women's bodies away from them. And the rape and incest issue has to then be addressed. There are many who say yes, even in case of rape or incest, the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Force a woman to carry a rapists baby to term. Step forward if you are for that. It isn't a perfect world and this is simply beyond human.

There is no simple solution to this. Real life is sometimes ugly and harsh and there is no easy way out of it. What I really don't like is this fake high ground people attempt to take because they are against abortion and therefore they are the holy defenders of life. 55 million abortions in the last 40 years. 92 million children died of hunger and disease between 2000-2010 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. It is hypocrisy on a galactic scale. How many have died in the last 40 years that could have been saved, 200 million? More?

No one can claim pro-life and ignore the 20,000 children that will die today, and tomorrow, and the next day. And if you watch, their way of excusing themselves of this responsibility is to demand someone else do something first.

There is no high ground until all the children already here are saved.

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

They think that a person deserves a chance to be born, i.e. "life". You creating a Standard of them having to save all other children's lives to claim the term "pro-life" is nothing more than trying to re-frame the debate, instead of debating the actual points.

Yes, I am reframing the debate to include all life, rather than a politically expedient subset.

Does pro-life mean all life, or some life.

it means what they want it to mean, and what the public accepts it to mean. And I doubt anti-abortion rights people (see i used the negative there) don't actively go out of their way to ignore the plight of poor children, many of the Churches they belong to probably do things for that. The fact is they see the plight of the unborn as more important, and there are plenty of people working on the plight of poor children at the same time.

"it means what they want it to mean" What they want it to mean is we are pro-life if that life is in the country they live in and isn't out of the womb. Otherwise they couldn't care less. And they can't claim their impetus is biblical because the Christian god and Jesus say all are gods children.

It is the cherry picking of the 'life' that is important and the 'life' that is ignored. Stop claiming biblical affirmation and high moral ground. Trying to save 55 million while watching 100 or 200 million die is not noble. Sorry, this circle cannot be squared. And anyone who DOES claim to be pro-life knows it. It is just a very very uncomfortable reality that they angrily deny because it lays bare the hypocrisy.

 

[martybegan]

If a person can't figure out if they want to abort a rape/incest baby in the first trimester, they have other issues, or they are in a coma. Personally I find no reason to ban abortions in the 1st trimester, or even part of the 2nd. If used for birth control I find it reprehensible and the people that do it pigs (including the guy, seriously dude, wrap your wang).
I also think non therapeutic abortions are elective surgery, and should be paid out of pocket, and if a minor wants one they need the consent of a parent, guardian, or a court.

And saying not doing X precludes you from believing in Y is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly a cop out which ignores the points of supporting Y.

It doesn't preclude belief in anything. If you claim to be 'pro-life' and ignore a far greater loss of life that you could affect, it is hypocritical. That isn't a fallacy. You should specify that you are 'pro THESE lives', not all.

They think that a person deserves a chance to be born, i.e. "life". You creating a Standard of them having to save all other children's lives to claim the term "pro-life" is nothing more than trying to re-frame the debate, instead of debating the actual points.

Yes, I am reframing the debate to include all life, rather than a politically expedient subset.

Does pro-life mean all life, or some life.

it means what they want it to mean, and what the public accepts it to mean. And I doubt anti-abortion rights people (see i used the negative there) don't actively go out of their way to ignore the plight of poor children, many of the Churches they belong to probably do things for that. The fact is they see the plight of the unborn as more important, and there are plenty of people working on the plight of poor children at the same time.

"it means what they want it to mean" What they want it to mean is we are pro-life if that life is in the country they live in and isn't out of the womb. Otherwise they couldn't care less. And they can't claim their impetus is biblical because the Christian god and Jesus say all are gods children.

It is the cherry picking of the 'life' that is important and the 'life' that is ignored. Stop claiming biblical affirmation and high moral ground. Trying to save 55 million while watching 100 or 200 million die is not noble. Sorry, this circle cannot be squared. And anyone who DOES claim to be pro-life knows it. It is just a very very uncomfortable reality that they angrily deny because it lays bare the hypocrisy.

Actually they probably do care, they just focus on the life that is snuffed out via abortion. And this is still just a mental exercise by you and others like you to ignore the real argument over the killing of something living for the sake of convenience (in the case of non-therapeutic abortions only, of course).

It boils down to:

A: Abortion is wrong and I think it should be illegal, and I am willing to work towards that
B: How dare you think about that when there are living children suffering and dying out there!!!

Notice B isn't answering A, or retorting, B is just bringing up a separate, even if related point, ignoring A's view entirely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As expected, one of the resident right wingers comes flying in trying to compare fetuses to intelligent, emotional, sentient animals.

Animals are sentient, but humans are not?

Just in case anyone wonders how you came to murder 200 million people in the 20th century....

Oh, and the ruling is right, it is a matter of freedom of speech.

Cutting the head off a chicken isn't torture.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you oppose the judge and his order on the Planned Parenthood videos? You can't have it both ways

Sure they can, they're Communists, they are all about the double standard.

Besides, Mamooth thinks animals have value - humans not so much.