Naked Body Scanners

[Debora123]

Can you imaging telling your spouse that you got a new job and a raise but one of the conditions is that you have to let a stranger touch you in intimate areas a couple of times a week.

I just got married a few months ago. We are both going to fly North together to be with our parents for Xmas. Neither one of us has a problem with the scanners. My husband won’t “forbid” me to go through them, and if I ever got a job that required me to travel a lot, the only problem he’d have was that we wouldn’t get to spend as much time together.

Several individuals here have stated that the touching and viewing is justified because of the motive. And for the TSA, (if you assume these are effective) has motive that may be proportionate to the negatives of these searches.

I just do not believe that ALL cases of air travel provide bennefits proportional to the negatives.

I hope that you will at least agree that the exposures and touching are in themselves negative and would disagree with these activities if they were not related to a terrorist threat.

Of course I agree. Having to be exposed in that way is definitely not a fun, positive thing, I don’t think anyone here is trying to say it is. Likewise, going to the doctor and having to expose yourself isn’t extremely comfortable either. The ONLY reason for these scans is safety precaution. Whether or not an individual thinks it’ll actually make flying safer or not is beyond the point. We have absolutely NO WAY of knowing whether or not some psycho would have tried the underwear thing again if not for the scanners. Maybe someone would have, and maybe someone wouldn’t have. But considering what’s at stake (our lives), I’m sure most people would rather be safe than sorry, and that is the one and only purpose for those scans.

 

[angelerulastiel]

Except if you talk to the Israeli security guys who are the experts, they say that the scanners don’t work, which is why they don’t use them.

 

[Debora123]

Except if you talk to the Israeli security guys who are the experts, they say that the scanners don’t work, which is why they don’t use them.

Whether or not an individual thinks it’ll actually make flying safer or not is beyond the point. We have absolutely NO WAY of knowing whether or not some psycho would have tried the underwear thing again if not for the scanners. Maybe someone would have, and maybe someone wouldn’t have. But considering what’s at stake (our lives), I’m sure most people would rather be safe than sorry, and that is the one and only purpose for those scans.

 

[angelerulastiel]

They’ve already said the scanners probably wouldn’t have caught the underwear bomber. It doesn’t make us any safer. Yes, I’d rather be safe than sorry, but I’d rather retain my dignity and modesty than get felt up or have naked pictures taken of me to put on a show of increased security that does nothing.

 

[Debora123]

Yes, I’d rather be safe than sorry, but I’d rather retain my dignity and modesty than get felt up or have naked pictures taken of me to put on a show of increased security that does nothing.

Yes me too, but we can’t be sure it does nothing. A lot of people seem to think it’s not the case, otherwise they wouldn’t be spending so much money on them.

 

[angelerulastiel]

Actually they are spending so much money on them because the guy in charge of ordering them has a stake in the company that makes them,

 

[Debora123]

Actually they are spending so much money on them because the guy in charge of ordering them has a stake in the company that makes them,

Really? I thought president Obama played a big role in getting them out there. Wasn’t it his decision after all?

Regardless of whether or not someone thinks they will or will not be beneficial, I don’t think we can sit here and say it’s a sin to travel now, I’m pretty sure that’s what this thread is about.

 

[angelerulastiel]

I don’t think it’s a sin to travel, but I do think that the TSA is behaving in very inappropriate manners. They are harassing children, and violating people’s rights and personal space. And these newest measures aren’t really increasing safety from terrorist, but is increasing your risk of cancer and decreases your sense of personal safety.

And here are sources on the conflict of interest.
boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

youtube.com/watch?v=roQKZA4GTD4

 

[royal_archer]

Whether or not an individual thinks it’ll actually make flying safer or not is beyond the point. We have absolutely NO WAY of knowing whether or not some psycho would have tried the underwear thing again if not for the scanners. Maybe someone would have, and maybe someone wouldn’t have. But considering what’s at stake (our lives), I’m sure most people would rather be safe than sorry, and that is the one and only purpose for those scans.

Would you support a requirement that every potential passenger be given a blood test prior to boarding to prevent them from bringing communicable diseases onto the airplane? That is a much more realistic threat.

 

[Debora123]

I am sure there are arguments on both sides on whether or not the scanners “work,” but the fact remains that their whole intent is to make flying safer. I agree, airport workers need to remember to be sensitive while doing their jobs and protect human dignity as best they can given the circumstances.

At least we can both agree that passengers don’t hold a burden of sin for having to go through these scanners while traveling.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes me too, but we can’t be sure it does nothing. A lot of people seem to think it’s not the case, otherwise they wouldn’t be spending so much money on them.

Sort of like spoilers on ecconomy cars? Or, supposed Green cars like the prius? Let’s face it sometimes people are willing to waste money in order to attain an image.

 

[Debora123]

Would you support a requirement that every potential passenger be given a blood test prior to boarding to prevent them from bringing communicable diseases onto the airplane? That is a much more realistic threat.

If it’s what we had to do, I wouldn’t consider it a sin to do so if I wanted to travel somewhere.

 

[Debora123]

Sort of like spoilers on ecconomy cars? Or, supposed Green cars like the prius? Let’s face it sometimes people are willing to waste money in order to attain an image.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. We can’t always be sure with everything. All I’m saying here is that traveling is not a sin bc of these scanners.

 

[royal_archer]

Really? I thought president Obama played a big role in getting them out there. Wasn’t it his decision after all?

Regardless of whether or not someone thinks they will or will not be beneficial, I don’t think we can sit here and say it’s a sin to travel now, I’m pretty sure that’s what this thread is about.

Exposing yourself to a stranger is in itself a wrong act. You can argue that the good attained outweighs the bad but that only counteracts the bad it does not dimminish it. To perform that bad act with out justification is immoral. I don’t think that a vacation justifies the act. Nor do I feel that making money justifies the act. The church has been very clearly against allowing people to photograph you naked (regardless of resolution) or touch you in intimate areas for money.

If you consider that the machines do not achieve the ends advertised does not make the act more wrong but they do make the corresponding bennefit less good. This thread is about the moral implications and discussions about the validity of the mitigating factors is a valid part of that discussion.

 

[royal_archer]

If it’s what we had to do, I wouldn’t consider it a sin to do so if I wanted to travel somewhere.

So if the resort you wanted to go to was at a nudist beach, would you feel it was OK to be a nudist because that is also a requirement of going to the place you wanted to travel to?

 

[royal_archer]

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. We can’t always be sure with everything. All I’m saying here is that traveling is not a sin bc of these scanners.

Only because what you state here is half of the equation. You must also consider the good achieved or other evil avoided. After all you could justify a lot of otherwise sinful acts by looking at the greater evil avoided.

 

[Debora123]

Only because what you state here is half of the equation. You must also consider the good achieved or other evil avoided. After all you could justify a lot of otherwise sinful acts by looking at the greater evil avoided.

Lol what? I’m considering the fact that the Church doesn’t say it’s a sin for me to fly out to Ohio to see my family for Xmas.

 

[royal_archer]

Lol what? I’m considering the fact that the Church doesn’t say it’s a sin for me to fly out to Ohio to see my family for Xmas.

That alone wouldn’t be a sin. But if you did something wrong in order to get there that thing you did wrong might be a sin. Obviously stealing a car or robbing a bank to get the money to travel would be a sin. You agree with that right?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Stripping down for a doctor is only as needed for medical reasons. It would be wrong for a doctor to ask all patients to strip regardless of the symptom. It would also be wrong to have a patient strip down when there is a less intrusive yet practical method of performing an equivalent exam.

How often do people get onto flights for Grave Reasons? Normally it is for vacation or for profit.

You still fail to address the fact that the scanners obscure faces and genitalia. Your claim of “experience” causing you to mistrust the TSA is, unfortunately, an inadequate response.

If you cannot refute the article I cited and the images demonstrating the censoring of body scans, please demonstrate how such scans are otherwise immoral.

Peace,
Dante

 

[angelerulastiel]

tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/mmw_large.jpg

The face may be obscured (but if you can obscure it you can unobscure it) but the genitalia don’t seem very obscured. And if they can “obscure” the genitalia and have the image still be sufficient to check for safety concerns, why do they have to feel there during enhanced pat-down? If they are concerned enough about people hiding items there that they have to feel with the fingers and palms, then you’d think they would have to check the area on a full body scanner.