Strange thinking...

Started Jan 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP vadimraskin Veteran Member • Posts: 3,596
Re: Hypocrisy is everywhere.

Morris Sullivan wrote:

vadimraskin wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:

vadimraskin wrote:

Morris Sullivan wrote:


Morris Sullivan wrote:


Morris Sullivan

Right or wrong, It is still intruding on peoples decisions about what they do with their bodies. Follow along with me here. The argument for abortion rights was never about whether it was good or bad for society. It was a fundamental question of whether the government had a say in what women did with their bodies. Now apply that to trans-fatss.

It's not the same...because the trans-fats HAVE a direct influence upon the social medical system. And therefore, a persons decision actually effects everyone.

GOVT has the right to prevent BAD behaviours that have a direct impact upon society at large.

Look at it this way, would the government have a right to prohibit abortion if it was shown to have a direct impact on society at large?

IF that were the case, then any GOVT would seriously have to take a closer look at the overall situation, etc.

So the whole "women's right to choose" is apparently just feel good BS because it could be revoked at any time if we determined it was negatively effecting society? It's not really a "right" then it's a privilege.

So they aren't hypocrites, just dishonest.

How did you arrive to this conclusion? Who is "dishonest"? I lost you here.

If you call something a "right" and it's not, then you are being dishonest. Pro-Choice supporters have always claimed women have a "right" to an abortion, now you are claiming it's a privilege.

I am not claiming anything.

There is nothing dishonest about it. Women still have right to terminate the pregnancy but this right have been restricted by the SC decisions that took a measured approach and weighted between rights of a woman and rights of a fetus. This is why in most states woman has only as few months to legally terminate her pregnancy (usally the first trimester). But limitations of right of a person doesn't invalidate the fact that the person still has rights to something. You can find this everywhere; thwe rights to bear arms stipulated in the Second Amendment have bbern severely limited by the SC and States to protect society against certain types of weapons but it doesn't mean that the entire right to bear arms was invalidated. Same with the First Amendment: child porn is illegal to protect children but we are still free to express ourselves in many other ways.

The democratic party's position:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.""

It doesn't sound the the limits you mention are their idea.

Where did I say that I was a member of the Democratic Party? I have my own ideas. Not all pro-choice people are Democrats either. But the Government is still there to limit freedom of choice, regardless of DNC or GOP says.

The Government has an obligation to limit and regulate practices that have been determined to have a large negative effect on the significant portion of population. Examples: banning of certain types of food additives that were causing cancer, limiting sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors, banning assault rifles and certain types of other firearms, use of asbestos and lead in certain products, etc. If abortion as a medical procedure was found to cause a uniform damage to patients I am sure the Government would step in and limit it or outright ban it as a health risk. They do limit types and timing of abortions

I already referenced this, and now you have, but apparently you didn't read it either time.

"The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued in 1983 after extensive hearings on the Human Life Amendment (proposed by Senators Orrin Hatch and Thomas Eagleton), stated what substantially remains true today:"

"Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a mother to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy."

That was changed by SC in 2002 in Planned Parentood vs. Casey. Read the link from Wiki.

No, the federal position is still just as I quoted. State law varies, but federally there is no limit.

We DO know that an unhealthy diet puts a huge strain on the public medical systems, etc.

Large sodas and trans fats are the problem, really? Worthy of being banned?

Have you looked at our children lately? Check out a few fast food joints and get back to me. Large sodas contain as many calories as a healthy meal and trans fats cause a lot of damage to your artiries and other systems. Hard attack is a #1 killer. You tell me if we should just sit here and wait for more kids to become obese and pay for their health care or the Government should realize the epidemic and do something about it.

Do you seriously want to live in a country where the GOVERNMENT spends their time figuring out what is best for you to eat? No thanks! What we eat has to be one of the smallest most basic freedoms us humans enjoy. If a kid is fat, educate him and his parents. If that doesn't work, then it's none of your business. If I want to eat nothing but french fries and soda until the day I die, I believe that is my prerogative. If I am forced to pay for someones healthcare because they made poor decisions, that's life.

If I follow your logic, we all then should be allowed to smoke crack and shoot drugs because it is our prerogative? I would have no problem with it IF drug addicts weren't dangerous to me or cause my healthcare to be more expensive. But since they don't live isolated from the rest of us, I expect my Government to protect me against them and limit their ability to do drugs. It might not work in real life but the obloigation (and responsibility) of the Government is evident. Same with food: if kid is obese, he will develop health problems earlier in life and it will cost more money to treat him than a person of normal weight. This added cost (multiplied by thousands) is divided amongst the entire populatiuon and we are paying it. I don't want to pay for your unhealthy habits just as much as you don't want to pay for mine.

You just had to compare smoking crack to eating unhealthy to make your point. Does that sound odd to you?

How is it odd? Where is a difference? Right now some food additives are illegal to use, just as some drugs.

If I decide to jump out of the moving car, brake my leg and bring YOU the medical bill to pay because I was excerising my right to jump out of the car and since it ended badly, that is life, please cover my bill. What would you say to that?

I would say that exact thing happens on a daily basis. Obviously I accept it because I continue to pay my medical premiums. Such is life, as I said.

Right, because it is what is happening but the Government should be limiting bad choices for people to benefit the whole population (including you) and reduce costs. Why would you argue with that?

Nobody is an island, and for that reason we all have to live with the results of other peoples choices. I'm not interested in taking away basic freedoms, just so I don't end up living next to someone who doesn't mow their lawn.

Well, the way I see it, the freedom comes with certain responsibilies to a society. Government is obligated to ensure that people comply with these responsibilities to ensure that the rest of the society is able to function. That is why laws are written and enforced. Most laws restrict some part of your freedom and most laws were written as a result of someone's actions and choices.

The responsibility to eat healthy? Really? No I won't accept that.

This is why there are limitations imposed by the Government, because you refuse to act responsively. I make my kids brush their teeth twice a day against their will sometimes too.

I don't want to live in your idea of utopia, where the government dictates every facet of our lives under the guise of trying to make us all live as long as possible.

Than you have to move to an island and make sure there is nobody there. This is the only way be totally FREE.

I have to move to an island to avoid the government dictating every facet of my life? No I won't accept that either.

Too bad

 vadimraskin's gear list:vadimraskin's gear list
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow