descrimination against pro-life?

Lindsey374 · Mar 26, 2004

Well I view it as discrimination but non the less its unconstitutaional it violates our right to freedom of speach. Which I strongly believe in, probably more so than most conservatives.

Yitzchak · Mar 26, 2004

I am in favor of freedom whenever possible. I do think that limiting it to tasteful slogans is in the public good. I for one, as a pro-life person, do not want to be driving down the road and see some gross picture of an aborted fetus and certainly do not want my children to have to look at it. I also think obcenity laws should be enforced more strictly for the same reason. However, if someone can get their message out in a non-obscene way that does not violate tender children's minds then I am in favor of freedom of speech.

I will say this about the whole abortion issue. I think there needs to be some common sense about age-appropriate situations. If people are bringing their 8 year old along on anti-abortion protests , they need some counseling or something on how to use common sense about what is age-appropriate.

Outspoken · Mar 26, 2004

msjones21 said:
Really? I have seen them on Fox News as well and they all look and act in the same manner.

ahh stereotypes at its finest. A liberal on the same logic would call you a biogot, but I say you're just stereotyping.

Outspoken · Mar 26, 2004

burrow_owl said:
[/font]

From the opinion:

By granting access to the license plate forum only to those who share its viewpoint, South Carolina has provided pro-life supporters with an instrument for expressing their position and has distorted the specialty license plate forum in favor of one message, the pro-life message....ecause the State has established a license plate forum for the abortion debate, it cannot limit the viewpoints expressed in that forum.

The clear inference is that if the statute allowed for a pro-choice plate to be available to the public, there'd be no constitutional problem with the statute.

You didn't read the whole article. IT WAS available to planned parenthood. they never applied. How many times do I have to point that out.

Outspoken · Mar 26, 2004

burrow_owl said:
[/font]

I agree that that's a fine (and pretty fomalistic) line to draw, but the key thing for present purposes is that a planned parenthood plate isn't available to the public at large. If the government opens a forum for speech (especially political speech), it's gotta remain viewpoint-neutral, which means not restricting that forum to only one side of a given debate.

On further thought, if the public were given a choice between 'choose life' and 'planned parenthood,' then my objection (which i wrongly thought was terribly clever) largely vanishes.

Exactly, it is vanishing. THEY NEVER APPLIED FOR IT. *sigh*.

burrow_owl · Mar 26, 2004

Outspoken said:
IT WAS available to planned parenthood. they never applied.

Close, but you're way off. There is no "it" - the case is about "them": the two different kinds of license plates and the differences between them. The court held that they're quite different.

Earlier, I wrote:

The non-prof's ability to get the specialized plates extends only to members of the organization. So there was an imbalance that amounted to viewpoint discrimination: while anyone in the state could get the 'choose life' plate, only members of planned parenthood would be able to get their own plate.

The two ways are different in a very important respect: anyone can get the choose life plate, while only a member of planned parenthood could get a PP plate (and that's not even guaranteed, since the non-prof plate is subject to the discretion of SC).

That's why PP not applying for a plate is immaterial; the idea behind viewpoint discrimination is that if the government opens a forum for the general public, it can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

ifriit · Mar 26, 2004

Outspoken said:
ahh stereotypes at its finest. A liberal on the same logic would call you a biogot, but I say you're just stereotyping.

It seems implied here that stereotyping is a bad thing, but that would make you a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

PatrickM · Mar 26, 2004

burrow_owl said:
Close, but you're way off. There is no "it" - the case is about "them": the two different kinds of license plates and the differences between them. The court held that they're quite different.

Indeed, there is a difference. One is an opinion, the other is a licensed, copyrighted organisation.

Earlier, I wrote:

The two ways are different in a very important respect: anyone can get the choose life plate, while only a member of planned parenthood could get a PP plate (and that's not even guaranteed, since the non-prof plate is subject to the discretion of SC).

That's why PP not applying for a plate is immaterial; the idea behind viewpoint discrimination is that if the government opens a forum for the general public, it can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

But the point is anyone could have applied for a generic "pro-choice" plate. This phrase is not an exclusive, licensed organisation. The term "Chose life" is not an organisation, it is an opinion, as was pointed out, like "Bass fishing".

PP is a trade-marked organisation, hence only those member is such could have such. "Chose Life" is no such organisation.

It is discrimatory, and the thought police are increasing in numbers.

feral · Mar 26, 2004

Hmmm...it sounds like Planned Parenthood or some other pro-choice organization had the option of applying for specialty plates as well, and that doesn't sound like discrimination to me. If your organization decides not to offer the plates while your opposition does, that's choice, not discrimination. I do also think it's unneccessary for the state to offer license plates with either message, as there are other ways to make sure everyone driving by understands what type of person is driving beside them, but that's a personal thing.

burrow_owl · Mar 27, 2004

PP is a trade-marked organisation, hence only those member is such could have such.

Honestly, and I'm not being sarcastic, that was a good guess but wrong. Trademark law is quite independent of this SC statute. What the court held (feel free to disagree with the court; i just want to make sure we're all on the same page) is that being able to get a 'pro-choice' plate was expressing an opinion. Since some 'choice!' plate weren't offered to the general public, the court held that there was impermissible violation of the first amendment.

Im4Decency · Mar 27, 2004

msjones21 said:
The reason I say that the "Choose Life" license plates are tacky is because they are.

Well, I never really liked the "baby on board" signs either--so much so that I did like the "baby seeking missle on board" signs when they finally came out!

msjones21 said:
The pro-life advocates love getting their message out there because they thrive on propaganda.

Actually, both sides love propaganda.

msjones21 said:
They love hauling their offensive and disgusting fake aborted fetus pictures. They enjoy doing radio programs. They live for the drama of standing outside abortion clinics and harassing women.

Are you aware of how horrible this sounds? I've never seen a "fake" aborted fetus. I've seen real ones though. In fact Ms. Jones, I've lost four children all in the second trimester. Two of them I got to see after they were passed...I wouldn't call it born. The corpse of a baby is always shocking. Death can be quite shocking...it's death....that's just reality.

msjones21 said:
Why? Because most of these activists have zero class.

Have you ever spoken knowingly to one of them? I see that you've seen them on the news--it's quite true that the news orginizations focus on the most outspoken, the most avid, the most shocking---that's why it's "newsworthy"

I specify "knowingly" because fully half of the country is pro-life....way more than half is in favor of totally banning third trimester abortions....you probably have more contact with us pro-lifers than you know!

msjones21 said:
My point is simply this, the people who are at the forefront of the pro-life advocacy are almost always un-intelligent people who will go to any lengths for their cause.

That's blatantly untrue, and very naive of you to post. You really should do a little research on the subject, you seem to be quite sheltered in your opinion. In general, it's a very good idea to check out the opposing idea(s) so that you will have a better idea of any subject.

I don't know of any avid pro-life supporters or activists who have gone over to the Pro-Choice side....there are several very prominent Pro-Choice folks who have defected to the Pro-life side though!

Folks like Bernard Nathanson M.D., and Carol Everett, a former owner of two clinics and director of four are hard to ignore.

Dr. Nathanson was a founder of NARAL, he helped make abortion legal, he was a main "mover and shaker" within the abortion industry at it's beginning--and he's admitted to major deceptions. Do a little research--all true information is good information as we in my family say!

sad astronaut · Mar 27, 2004

Okay, contrary to what you believe, or WOULD LIKE TO, many people that are against abortion actually think for themselves. Yes, I know it is much easier for you to believe that everyone who disagrees with you on the issue of abortion does so because they were somehow brainwashed or their parents thought abortion was bad. Have you ever questioned your pro-choice beliefs? Have you truly questioned it, tried to think of the problem from different angles and understand why others may be against it? Because I have. You cannot argue that I cannot think for myself more than I can argue the same for you. Or do all conservative beliefs exist simply because people simply do not think for themselves? I used to think that if liberals simply thought hard enough about what they believe, they would eventually see the error of their ways and become conservatives. But sooner or later, you have to realize that people see the world differently, and unless their fundamental view of the world changes, their views on these issues will not change. Or you could just simply argue that those who oppose your views suffer from a lack of logic, maybe that's much more fun.

Ikaria said:
How about "I think for myself"?

PatrickM · Mar 27, 2004

bloocat68 said:
Whats wrong with you? Yeah pro-life people should be discriminated against! Unless they intend to raise and most importanly pay for all these kids to be brought up then they dont have a say i the matter.

Ah, the First Amendment trampled again!

Get real. If abortion is made illegal, do you know how many baby on board signs we are talking about? Put your money where your mouth is.

And the old "let's kill 'em, because they're unwanted" argument. Well, then, let's just kill all babies in orphanages, then, based on your ill-logic.

Better yet, let's just kill all pro-life people!

Susan · Mar 27, 2004

.:Mod hat on:.

:topic: :topic: :topic:

If this thread cannot get back on topic and off of personal attacks and comments, it WILL be closed.

[noflame]
[notroll]

News Rules said:
As well as these general rules, certain other behaviors are specifically prohibited in the News and Current Events forum as they are either violative of these rules or disruptive to the peace of the forum. These actions are:

1) Calling into public doubt a staff member's posts or actions in regard to moderating. This includes hostile questioning, mocking, undermining, or taking disagreements public before they are resolved privately. This also includes the re-posting of closed or trashed threads without permission: if your thread has been moderated, there *is* a reason why.

2) Off topic personal attacks and ad hominem attacks, previously known as "directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed." These are expressly in violation of the rules.

3) Taunting or "stalking" any particular member or group of members. This is trolling and will not be tolerated.

4) Hostile posts or sarcasm meant to inspire hostility. Sarcasm for humor's sake may be excused, sarcasm to put down another member or group of members will never be.

5) "Starting threads directed at another member."

6) Using immature, tongue-in-cheek, or otherwise disrepectful names for anyone or any group of people.

7) "Quoting someone's posts from other threads" OR using information gained about a member in another location whether on or off CF.

8) Baiting members or "brinking." Brinking is trying to get OTHERS to break the rules while not technically doing so oneself. If this behavior is spotted, it is considered equal to breaking the same rule you are trying to get others to break and will be dealt with severely.

9) Slandering or libeling another member. Public accusations that someone or some group of people on the board is/are engaging in acts that violate the laws of their country or harm others (i.e. terrorism, pedophilia, treason), has AIDS or another STD, or is lying with the intent to decieve all fall under this definition.

10) Cutting and pasting ANY material with no personal comments on said material either as a thread or as a post made to a thread. This is spamming and will be treated as such. To quote the old rules, "this is not a dumping grounds for news articles. In other words, starting a thread by merely cutting and pasting a news article, without adding your own remarks, is discouraged as is replying to a thread with a cut and paste. Hit and run quote mining is really not good etiquette, nor is it discussion. Any thread started, or post made within it, with just the dumping of a news article, with no input from the thread author, will be trashed."

11) Replying to different threads with the same "canned post." If you absolutely must post the same material to separate threads within 24 hours, please vary it at least to some extent.

12) Posting copyright material without permission, especially AP articles. It will be snipped if it is seen.

Outspoken · Mar 29, 2004

ifriit said:
It seems implied here that stereotyping is a bad thing, but that would make you a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

No, I don't advocate stereotyping, but if I was stereotyping like the poster was I would have drawn that conclusion. That was the point.

Outspoken · Mar 29, 2004

burrow_owl said:
[/font]

Close, but you're way off. There is no "it" - the case is about "them": the two different kinds of license plates and the differences between them. The court held that they're quite different.

Earlier, I wrote:

[/font]

The two ways are different in a very important respect: anyone can get the choose life plate, while only a member of planned parenthood could get a PP plate (and that's not even guaranteed, since the non-prof plate is subject to the discretion of SC).

That's why PP not applying for a plate is immaterial; the idea behind viewpoint discrimination is that if the government opens a forum for the general public, it can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

"the two different kinds of license plates and the differences between them. "

LOL no it wasn't. It was about the availablity of them. Please go re-read the case.

"That's why PP not applying for a plate is immaterial"

NO, the ruling was they cannot offer them at all, not that they were limited. there was nothing to say that PP can't still apply for one. It simply was discrimiation.

burrow_owl · Mar 29, 2004

Mssr Outspoken: I don't know if the actual decision is available on the net, but if it isn't, and if you haven't read it, I'd be more than happy to send it to you. The fact that we're disagreeing about the basic facts of the case suggests that you maybe haven't read it, and it doesn't seem right to go on if we don't have access to the materials on which the core of our disagreement devolves. So I'd be more than happy to send it to you as a Word file so that we can proceed with the same materials.

Of course, if anyone else wants it, the offer is extended generally.

Blessed75 · Mar 29, 2004

Im4Decency said:
and very naive of you to post. You really should do a little research on the subject, you seem to be quite sheltered in your opinion. In general, it's a very good idea to check out the opposing idea(s) so that you will have a better idea of any subject.

Do a little research--all true information is good information as we in my family say!

Everyone has a right to their POV and their opinion but to tell someone that what they posted was naive is just wrong. How do you KNOW she hasn't done the research? Belittling another member just b/c they believe differently than you is so childish. Why don't you do a little more research on how to converse in an adult manner?

Blessed75 · Mar 29, 2004

Yitzchak said:
I am in favor of freedom whenever possible. I do think that limiting it to tasteful slogans is in the public good. I for one, as a pro-life person, do not want to be driving down the road and see some gross picture of an aborted fetus and certainly do not want my children to have to look at it. I also think obcenity laws should be enforced more strictly for the same reason. However, if someone can get their message out in a non-obscene way that does not violate tender children's minds then I am in favor of freedom of speech.

I will say this about the whole abortion issue. I think there needs to be some common sense about age-appropriate situations. If people are bringing their 8 year old along on anti-abortion protests , they need some counseling or something on how to use common sense about what is age-appropriate.

I cannot believe this was over-looked but what a great post! I also believe this as well and I'm pro-choice. Thanks Yitzchak!

Outspoken · Mar 30, 2004

burrow_owl said:
Mssr Outspoken: I don't know if the actual decision is available on the net, but if it isn't, and if you haven't read it, I'd be more than happy to send it to you. The fact that we're disagreeing about the basic facts of the case suggests that you maybe haven't read it, and it doesn't seem right to go on if we don't have access to the materials on which the core of our disagreement devolves. So I'd be more than happy to send it to you as a Word file so that we can proceed with the same materials.

Of course, if anyone else wants it, the offer is extended generally.

I have read the specifics of the case, but I'll take what you want to send me. I think its very clear that they are trying to quiet a certain view on the based face that they don't want anything to do with the state to endorse a view, it just happens that pro-life was the one quelched. If planned parenthood had acutally gotten some plates, this lawsuit would have never happened.

descrimination against pro-life?

Active Member

יצחק

Standing in the Gap

Standing in the Gap

Standing in the Gap

Senior Contributor

PRABOB!

What? You're not a Fightin' Irish fan????

Dostoyevsky was right

Senior Contributor

Member

Robot in Disguise

What? You're not a Fightin' Irish fan????

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

Standing in the Gap

Standing in the Gap

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Standing in the Gap

Similar threads