very true and we know how republican states decide when they do the deciding Bush and Texas http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html looks like fox removed the link but still archived https://web.archive.org/web/20051219170102/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html "But on March 15, a Texas law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush (search) in 1999 allowed the hospital to go ahead and take Sun off the respirator in defiance of Wanda Hudson's wishes."
if its a 'right' then it must be within the grasp of everyone clearly not true of medical procedures...
You didn't counter the example. If we are to be provide that which we have a right for, why are we not being provided arms?
I am interested in those flaws, and yet you did not voice them. What is deeply flawed is this idea that since a woman should own her body, she has some logical right to kill another human being, which resides in her body until birth. It is perhaps based upon another idea that her baby is not a human being, and is not protected, until it comes out of the birth canal. But this is an arbitrary line, which denies that the baby is not a human life. So, it must come out, alive, before it is considered worth protecting, as a citizen with the right to life. I find that to be incoherently absurd. But as I said, I do not believe women should be prosecuted for an abortion. For practical reasons. Abortions would continue, as they existed prior to them becoming legal, with a greater loss of life involved. So pragmatism applies here. And yet as a society that should value all human life, we should value the life of the unborn and look upon abortion, unless in the interest of the health of the mother is WRONG. But some people don't even want the killing of an unborn child as being seen as wrong! So we, artificially make an exception for that life. I find it utter absurd and ludicrous and intellectually incoherent. And after 76 years of life, there is no argument that will ever change my mind for I think I am on the side of truth. And I think it is self evident. In regards to the drug issue, if I do not have the most basic right that should exist, personal sovereignty, the principle that I own my body and mind, and you do not own it, nor does the state, then all other rights are easily taken away and it is easier to justify taking other rights away. Without that most basic human right, the others rest on a foundation of sand. Now drug use is not a good idea, but that applies to alcohol which is no different, for it is a drug. But it should be left up to each person, who owns his body and mind, to choose what he wants to do. For if it kills him, it is his life, not yours, nor mine, nor the states. And so no one has any business in dictating what drug he can use and what drug he cannot use. It is a matter of basic principle and freedom. And I will not budge from this position, for I see no flaws in it. Indeed, I think it requires incoherent thinking in order to come up with a flaw.
Well not quite the same if abortion was banned. I doubt you would get the mafia giving abortions, and buying of judges and cops. ha ha I am not for banning abortion, so you need to read my posts instead of assuming. My contention is the "right" of abortion, based upon your absurd arguments, that a woman owns her body. Sure, but she does not own the other life inside her. And it is illogical to think differently. It is muddled thinking that came up with this idea of yours.
as you mentioned, it doesnt mean free, however a gun can be had for cheap, not so for most medical procedures & medications... having the ability to protect oneself isnt the same as being allowed to live... no one has died due to not owning a firearm, but many have died due to not being able to pay for a medical procedure, some were even at the hands of insurers that denied coverage...
Sure, it is not a good idea to be a drug user, and that includes alcohol. But if one should own one's body, instead of you owning their bodies, then those people should have the basic right of consuming whatever they want to. That you want to own others, is the problem. And actually demand it, or so it seems, with some justification which is rubbish. Just admit it. You like being able to tell people what they should consume and what they must never consume or you will lock them up for years. I have no fondness for such people. And if that is condescending, so be it. I see it is simple truth. I believe in the most basic right that all people should have. Personal sovereignty when it comes to what one consumes, but also other things. We saw this in the 20s and it gave us Prohibition. If we do not have the most basic, fundamental right of them all, then the other lessor rights are much easier to take away. People should be free to wreck their lives if that is their choice. What society can do is to educate its people not to go down those destructive paths, and then let them make that choice without taking their lives away. And I think I just addressed your question, again,.
to start, i quoted u only as reference to my post for context purposes... technically, the fetus is a parasite, feeding upon its host, as with any parasite it is the breathing human that has the right to remove the parasite... now, if those 'right to lifers' wish, they can have the parasites implanted into themselves, killing two birds as it were... alas, it seems as though they do not wish to impose that responsibility upon themselves, but rather to impose it upon others...
Maybe not but there would be women dying and being maimed by illegal abortions. (Is that what you mean by "ha ha" ? When alcohol was banned many people besides the Mafia were making and selling illegal booze. So a woman owning her own body is "absurd" ...as in ""absurd arguments, that a woman owns her body"" ? If the woman doesn't own the fetus who does? YOU? The government? Nosy busybody control freaks? WHO? If she doesn't own the fetus then all the more reason she can have it removed !!!!!!!
NO, it is not based on that...it's based on the FACT that a fetus is part of a woman's body and women own their own bodies just like everyone else. The human fetus is of course human, but it is NOT A human being as in "person". Sheer baloney, elective abortions are banned after 23 weeks. You would if you didn't know the facts. IF a fetus had the same rights as BORN persons then it would also have the same RESTRICTIONS we all have. We cannot harm another without their consent nor use another's body to sustain our life (as in we can't force someone to give us a vital organ). So make a law but ignore it? How absurd...Why waste all that time and money? . As we do when we go to war.
bootleggin, was the kenedy's wet dream, it was their only source of wealth and illegal yet they are the poster child of the dems... figure that out!
“So we, artificially make an exception for that life. I find it utter absurd and ludicrous and intellectually incoherent.” Speaking of which...you say the fetus is the killing of another human being but should not be unlawful. It is, by your definition, blatant premeditated murder that would normally be a quite serious criminal act but you give the women a pass. Why? Is the fetus less human? Is the murder less serious? Are you giving lesser rights to one human than another? Is that what the pro-choice people are doing? As I stated before you have an egocentric philosophy but society (if you live in one) has a say in your choices if those choices can potentially harm society, which you seem to deny. Free access to a drug like krokodil you think only harms the user but you are wrong. Society, including friends, family, victims, taxpayers, quality of live all take a hit and there are no positives.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Maybe not but there would be women dying and being maimed by illegal abortions. (Is that what you mean by "ha ha" ? When alcohol was banned many people besides the Mafia were making and selling illegal booze. So a woman owning her own body is "absurd" ...as in ""absurd arguments, that a woman owns her body"" ? If the woman doesn't own the fetus who does? YOU? The government? Nosy busybody control freaks? WHO? If she doesn't own the fetus then all the more reason she can have it removed !!!!!!! So you couldn't address the post of mine you quoted so got on another hobby horse, Kennedy Hatred......totally irrelevant to the topic or my post.....and just plain silly..
not at all, i merely responded to a specific point that you brought up... i've already expressed my point of view on the op subject matter, so lets try not to be so petty with every post...
contrair, the positive is not forcing someone to raise a child, when they vehemently dont wish to. dont bother spouting crapola about abstinence or 'protections' thats been beating to death, which btw, could happen to that unwanted child, or is that acceptable that they be abused , afterall they're alive and thats all that matters... right???
So you couldn't address, NO REFUTE, the post of mine you quoted. FoxHastings said: ↑ Maybe not but there would be women dying and being maimed by illegal abortions. (Is that what you mean by "ha ha" ? When alcohol was banned many people besides the Mafia were making and selling illegal booze. So a woman owning her own body is "absurd" ...as in ""absurd arguments, that a woman owns her body"" ? If the woman doesn't own the fetus who does? YOU? The government? Nosy busybody control freaks? WHO? If she doesn't own the fetus then all the more reason she can have it removed !!!!!!! """""""""""""""""
c'mon now, i bolded the text, which shows what i was replying to. most people have complained about not quoting their entire post because it can be taken out of context, ergo i quoted yours in its entirety while bolding the specific comment that i addressed. the bottom comment was already bolded by you and i left it untouched, rightfully so... can we please move on now ?
FoxHastings said: ↑ So you couldn't address, NOR REFUTE, the post of mine you quoted. FoxHastings said: ↑ Maybe not but there would be women dying and being maimed by illegal abortions. (Is that what you mean by "ha ha" ? When alcohol was banned many people besides the Mafia were making and selling illegal booze. So a woman owning her own body is "absurd" ...as in ""absurd arguments, that a woman owns her body"" ? If the woman doesn't own the fetus who does? YOU? The government? Nosy busybody control freaks? WHO? If she doesn't own the fetus then all the more reason she can have it removed !!!!!!! """"""""""""""""" Sure move on ...I would if I were you and unable to address specific and pertinent points like: "" If the woman doesn't own the fetus who does? YOU? The government? Nosy busybody control freaks? WHO? If she doesn't own the fetus then all the more reason she can have it removed !!!!!!! """""""""""""""""
Um...are you high? Are the sun glasses to hide red eyes? I was talking about the drug krokodil not abortion. I'm pro-choice by the by.
I didn't see it....so a simple answer to a simple question (which you could've answered here ) Who owns the fetus? If you have no answer that's all right, no one has ever answered that question.
it is a parasite, ownership is irelevent , just get rid of it as any other parasite that feeds off its host... iow, if its in/on my body, it is i who has the only say as to what to do about it. its no one else's business...
