Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1 Tattoos A More Serious Concern Than Abortion 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Tattoos A More Serious Concern Than Abortion


    By Wesley J. Smith

    September 12, 2013 11:10 AM

    Washington DC is apparently considering requiring a 24 hour waiting period before obtaining a tattoo. From the FNN story:


    The days of waking up with a hangover and a mysterious tattoo may be numbered in Washington D.C., thanks to a new regulation being proposed by the cityís Department of Health. The cityís Department of Health proposed 65 pages of regulations for tattoo parlors on Friday. One states that a tattoo artist cannot apply a tattoo until at least 24 hours after a customer requests it. The language for body piercings is similar.

    Yet, it is considered by many pro choicers the height of tyranny to require an equivalent wait for an abortion. Which is the more serious procedure? Apparently, tattooing.

    Children will also be protected from tattooing:

    The regulations would also prohibit the tattooing of anyone under the age of 18.

    That wouldnít even permit tattooing with parental consent

    Yet in many states, the opposite is true. Indeed, in California where I live, parents donít have to consent for a child to obtain an abortion. Worse, they donít even have to be told.

    Talk about illustrating how topsy-turvy our cultural values have become!
    http://www.nationalreview.com/human-...wesley-j-smith






    Pro-choicers, please feel free to explain why tattoos are going to be more strictly regulated than abortions in Washington DC?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,428
    In neither case is it appropriate. Adults can make their own decisions even if we don't happen to approve of them.
    Abortion is very sad, but I don't stand in the way of someone who makes that decision for herself. Tattoos are ugly, but I would not try to prevent someone from getting one.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    In neither case is it appropriate. Adults can make their own decisions even if we don't happen to approve of them.
    Abortion is very sad, but I don't stand in the way of someone who makes that decision for herself. Tattoos are ugly, but I would not try to prevent someone from getting one.
    Even minors?

    In Washington, DC, it's legal to for a minor to get an abortion without parental notification, much less consent (https://www.msu.edu/user/schwenkl/abtrbng/stablw.htm):

    PARENTAL CONSENT OR NOTICE
    Twenty-seven states have laws that prevent a minor from obtaining an abortion without parental consent or notice (AL, AR, DE, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, WV, WI, WY). Nine more states have parental consent or notice laws on the books that are not enforced (AK, AZ, CA, CO, IL, MT, NV, NM, SD). Of the 27 laws enforced, 24 contain a judicial by-pass provision (AL, AR, DE, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, WV, WI, WY). Two states provide a physician waiver of the notice requirement (MD, WV). Two states require counselors to discuss of the possibility of parental involvement (CT, ME).

    Note the absence of DC on the list.

    The Alan Guttmacher Institute's breakdown of abortion restrictions by state shows that DC has almost no restrictions on abortion. Of the following laws, only one affects DC residents:
    • Must be performed by a licensed physician
    • Must be performed in a hospital under specific conditions (viability, for example)
    • Second physician must participate under specific conditions (viability, for example)
    • Prohibited except in cases of life or health endangerment
    • ”Partial birth” abortion banned
    • Public funding of abortion private insurance coverage limited
      • Funds all or most medically necessary abortions
      • Funds limited to life endangerment, rape and incest
    • Private insurance coverage limited


    So, what you have is an incredibly permissive environment on abortion, but a restrictive environment on tattoos, not to mention guns (DC's ban was overturned by the courts but the City Council has yet to draft new legislation), cigarettes or alcohol. In NYC under Bloomberg, it would have been harder to buy a 64 ounce Coke or a pack of cigarettes than it would have been to get an abortion if the courts hadn't thrown out his soda ban.

    These priorities don't strike you as a bit skewed?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,428
    I do believe in parental notification in the case of a minor (for anything that could be life changing - abortions, or piercings, or tattoos). Those who say that abortion should be left to the states have to realize that some are going to be much more permissive than others.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    You can cover a tattoo with a shirt or make-up. You can have a tattoo removed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    I do believe in parental notification in the case of a minor (for anything that could be life changing - abortions, or piercings, or tattoos). Those who say that abortion should be left to the states have to realize that some are going to be much more permissive than others.
    Understood. The biggest issue with Roe V. Wade is not that it legalized abortion, but that it created the precedent that the court could create whole new sets of law. The court's reasoning, which was derived from "penumbras of emanations" of rights (rather than the actual text of the Constitution), created a series of rules that the states had to comply with in order to regulate something which had previously been within their authority. Since then, almost every controversial state issue has been kicked up to the federal courts for review, to include amendments to state constitutions. The consequence of this is that we no longer govern ourselves, but are dictated to by the courts. One recent example of this was when the courts upheld Obamacare as a tax, rather than as a regulation of interstate commerce, despite the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which Obamacare most certainly did not. Another is the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution of the State of California to overturn Prop 8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    You can cover a tattoo with a shirt or make-up. You can have a tattoo removed.
    Yes, I agree, but under the proposed legislation, a minor in DC will not be able to get a tattoo, with or without parental consent, and an adult will have a waiting period of 24 hours between ordering the tattoo and its execution, which means that under the proposed law, tattoos will be more regulated than abortions. Given that you can't cover a pregnancy with a shirt or or make-up and you can't put a fetus back into the womb, you tell me which procedure has more far-reaching effects.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Understood. The biggest issue with Roe V. Wade is not that it legalized abortion, but that it created the precedent that the court could create whole new sets of law. The court's reasoning, which was derived from "penumbras of emanations" of rights (rather than the actual text of the Constitution), created a series of rules that the states had to comply with in order to regulate something which had previously been within their authority. Since then, almost every controversial state issue has been kicked up to the federal courts for review, to include amendments to state constitutions. The consequence of this is that we no longer govern ourselves, but are dictated to by the courts. One recent example of this was when the courts upheld Obamacare as a tax, rather than as a regulation of interstate commerce, despite the fact that revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which Obamacare most certainly did not. Another is the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution of the State of California to overturn Prop 8.



    Yes, I agree, but under the proposed legislation, a minor in DC will not be able to get a tattoo, with or without parental consent, and an adult will have a waiting period of 24 hours between ordering the tattoo and its execution, which means that under the proposed law, tattoos will be more regulated than abortions. Given that you can't cover a pregnancy with a shirt or or make-up and you can't put a fetus back into the womb, you tell me which procedure has more far-reaching effects.
    Getting a tattoo is something people often do while intoxicated. Abortions not so much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Getting a tattoo is something people often do while intoxicated. Abortions not so much.
    They got pregnant while intoxicated though, and i'm not sure many people get intoxicated and have a tattoo removed.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Getting a tattoo is something people often do while intoxicated. Abortions not so much.
    Okay, so what you are saying is that we should have sobriety checks for both? That seems to be the point that you are making here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    They got pregnant while intoxicated though, and i'm not sure many people get intoxicated and have a tattoo removed.
    I'm afraid that some pro-choicer will make the case that abortion is to tattoo removal as pregnancy is to getting the tattoo in the first place, and people will buy it.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •