National H I V Testing Day

[Veridicus]

I'm really worried that when Obama gets elected (I've pretty much consigned myself to this sad, sad, sad fact)...greater access to abortion may become a congressionally legislated matter and if any of our oldest supreme court members step down they will be sure to be replaced by leftists that conform to Obama's Rv.W policy...sad, sad times...

[rkwright]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587894' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:16 AM']If you're going to make accusations, at least post proof.

Oh wait, you can't![/quote]

I'm not sure this is how you 'win' debates either...

[Alycin]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588124' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:56 AM']I'm not sure this is how you 'win' debates either...[/quote]

I don't take kindly to false accusations.

[rkwright]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1587804' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:29 PM']I never said anything about making testing maditory if thats what your referring to. It should be free and avaliable to everyone. We should be teaching God's law to people.

Correct for point 2. If we spend all our time and effor trying to illegalize abortion, what will it really accomplish? Can the law be changed later on down the road? Will people still perform abortions? Will making it illegal end abortions all together? Although change someone's mind and will it matter if abortion is legal? Who cares if its legal if every person understands its wrong and refuses to do it.[/quote]

I understand you're not making it mandatory. But still we have to legislate it in order to make it 'free and available' to everyone. Thus we have to spend time passing laws for it, finding funding for it. Moreover, you have hinted at the fact that people should be informed of others AIDs, to the tune that if someone is not informed and contracts AIDs they might be able to prosecute the other for murder. Thus there must be some law put in place making it mandatory to disclose if you are a carrier of the disease. So while you say you don't advocate mandatory testing, there are legislative and mandatory elements to your ideas.

So apply your logic all the way through.

You don't think that the abortion battle should be fought on the legislative side because it doesn't really change people's minds.

When then do you believe that HIV should be fought on the legislative side, when you believe if won't really change people's minds?

You can take your whole second paragraph and substitute abortion for HIV testing:

"If we spend all our time and effor[t] trying to [provide 'free and available testing, and holding people responsible for giving others AIDs unknowingly], what will it really accomplish? Can the law be changed later on down the road? Will people still [contract AIDs]? Will [providing testing] end [HIV] all together? Although change someone's mind and will it matter if [there is no HIV testing]? Who cares if [we test for HIV] if every person understands its wrong and refuses to do it"

See my point?

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1587941' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:12 AM']I would say that the pro-life movement should focus more on the issue of federalism which has been trumped by all pro-abortion legislation and court decisions. It removes the right of the state to regulate this practice. If I were to come up with a plan, I would try to get Roe v. Wade overturned based on states' rights. From there, I'd employ a state-by-state plan of lobbying and voter education to have laws passed to outlaw this practice. It will be easier to get things done at the state level than at the federal level, IMHO.

And there is ALWAYS only one argument when the Church issues an opinion on abortion.[/quote]

Kujo your posts always spark my interest.

Though I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't the federalism\states rights will be able to overcome Roe. Roe finds its basis in the right to privacy, and the states interest as a sovereign cannot overcome a constitutionally protected right. The states interest (and federal interest) in the people (ie right to life) is the only thing I think that could trump a right to privacy. Bottom line, I don't think a states rights interest is more compelling than a person's right to privacy.

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588128' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:09 AM']Kujo your posts always spark my interest.

Though I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't the federalism\states rights will be able to overcome Roe. Roe finds its basis in the right to privacy, and the states interest as a sovereign cannot overcome a constitutionally protected right. The states interest (and federal interest) in the people (ie right to life) is the only thing I think that could trump a right to privacy. Bottom line, I don't think a states rights interest is more compelling than a person's right to privacy.[/quote]

Actually, if you think about it, the problem with the decision of [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is that it assumes that the federal government should be in charge of "protecting" a "right to privacy" when, in fact, because that power is not delegated to them by the Constitution. the Tenth Amendment oughta come into play and the "right to privacy" oughta be a state issue.

I see your point though. Just seeing it from different angles.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1588219' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:34 AM']Actually, if you think about it, the problem with the decision of [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is that it assumes that the federal government should be in charge of "protecting" a "right to privacy" when, in fact, because that power is not delegated to them by the Constitution. the Tenth Amendment oughta come into play and the "right to privacy" oughta be a state issue.

I see your point though. Just seeing it from different angles.[/quote]

Well the right is the protection of privacy, and Roe says no government can interfere with that right, federal or state. Even if we say its a state issue, as long as there is a protection of privacy from the constitution even the state government has its hands tied.

I mean I guess I'm asking, if there is a constitutional right to privacy, and abortion\reproductive rights fall into that, why does it matter who 'protects' that right? If its a constitutional right both the state and federal government's hands are tied.

What I am trying to say is that if Privacy is in the Constitution, its not up to the states to decide whether abortion falls under that right.

Now I guess if you're arguing that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right, and is one of those in mind in the 10th, then thats a different issue. But the right to privacy has a long 'tradition' of being included (and excluded) from the Constitution.

Edited July 1, 2008 by rkwright

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588222' date='Jul 1 2008, 12:44 PM']Well the right is the protection of privacy, and Roe says no government can interfere with that right, federal or state. Even if we say its a state issue, as long as there is a protection of privacy from the constitution even the state government has its hands tied.

I mean I guess I'm asking, if there is a constitutional right to privacy, and abortion\reproductive rights fall into that, why does it matter who 'protects' that right? If its a constitutional right both the state and federal government's hands are tied.

Now I guess if you're arguing that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right, and is one of those in mind in the 10th, then thats a different issue. But the right to privacy has a long 'tradition' of being included (and excluded) from the Constitution.[/quote]

I would actually argue that abortion should not fall into the purview of the "right to privacy," which is why it should be dealt with by the states.

[rkwright]

Why is that?

Griswold v. Connecticut?

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
could we get back on topic please?

[rkwright]

This topic got hijacked to abortion way back on page 2. I bet less than 50% of the posts have something to do with HIV testing.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
okay, so? i'm asking for the topic to get back on track. when i left yesterday, the topic was still on page 1. when i got here this morning, it was on page 5.

[Veridicus]

I am not sure that I disagree with the HIV testing. I do not think that mere knowledge of one's HIV-positivity or HIV-negativity is scandal enough to give them a free card to 'sleep around' if that is the purported feared result of having mandatory testing.

I remember when the HPV vaccine came out a couple of years ago...people were arguing that it was scandalizing girls to go have sex 'since they are immune to HPV.' I never really bought into that argument on a moral or personal level. There are still plenty of STDs out there that don't give us cancer that kids have to worry about as deterrents to premarital sex. Sex is just about the only way to get HPV, but it is posible to acquire outside of sex and its implicated in like over 90% of cervical cancers or something.

Anyway, I think it is similar...the government could be mandating a program which may or may not give people a false sense of security about their capacity to freely sleep around. Like I said in a preivous post though, someone can go into the ER today and demand an HIV test be done...so if there purpose in the governemnt to offer the test is simply to get that "I can sleep around" card, they don't have to wait on the government to get that kind of assurance. Any hospital can provide that. I think the pontetial good this knowledge could have in terms of curtailing the spread of HIV as well as allowing infected people to begin treatment far outways the speculative future sexual scandal inherent to that knowledge.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Veridicus

[rkwright]

ok

















But roe v. wade is so much cooler to talk about!

ok back to HIV....










kujo thoughts!?
ok thats it... I promise!

[Veridicus]

Furthermore, as it is now...you have to fill out additional consent forms just to have an HIV test performed at the hospital. HIV test results pretty much the MOST HIGHLY privacy restricted information. Basically just the doctor and the patient gets to know and the lab technician who read the test and plugged the result into the computer. When physicians would call down to our Microbiology lab that I worked at...they had to give me their physican ID and I had to cross-reference it with a huge master log before I was allowed to give a verbal result over the phone. Then I had to document the whole incident. The medical field takes HIV privacy VERY, VERY seriuosly...I don't think mandatory testing would be an 'invasion of privacy' if this level of patient confidentiality is maintained.