20 votes

PRO-Choice? Oh...Really?

via Travis Holte @ LewRockwell.com:

Pro-Choice

http://i.imgur.com/4yQFfBO.jpg

Posted by Travis Holte on April 3, 2013 07:38 PM




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sums it up perfectly

left and logic...1984 today.

You want government to legislate morality?

PLEASE stop falling for this divide and conquer BULL $#IT. Look at the underlying LEGAL, MORAL, and HEALTH questions - do you think the GOVERNMENT is the solution?
We will never agree. I have my reasons, you have yours.
It was illegal in the state where I grew up, so girls went across the border or got back alley jobs. The law cannot end it, why ask it to do what it cannot?
Can we agree to disagree? Defend your DNA - leave me to do the same.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Allow me to respectfully explain.

By this logic, we should not ban murder, since people do it anyway - a particularly fitting comparison, since abortion *is* murder.

The government's job is to do whatever it can to prevent people's rights from being violated, that's it. If something is a violation of someone's rights, the government is obligated to forbid it and attempt to enforce that.

Getting stoned is not violating anyone's rights, ergo government should have no say. Gay sex is not violating anyone's rights, ergo government cannot legitimately ban it.

Killing someone? There's a violation of rights.

Is it murder?

By this logic, we should not ban murder, since people do it anyway - a particularly fitting comparison, since abortion *is* murder.

Is it? Tell me, is it first degree murder, second degree, 3rd degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide? Since the legal definitions and sentencing guidelines for these criminal charges vary from state to state, the answer to my question is a bit more complicated than most pro-lifers care to consider or even acknowledge, preffering the easy road over the high road they insist federal legislation is the be all and end all answer. By the pro-lifers logic ALL murder should be a federal crime.

DISCLAIMER:
http://youtu.be/2n34eeXWjUQ

Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:
http://youtu.be/plIH98Kxu58

I disagree.

I am not even going to bother with why. Can you agree to disagree, and stop perpetuating this argument? I will NEVER agree with you, it will not happen. And I do not like that abortions happen, at all. I believe there would be less of them if we stopped allowing the government to be involved in this deeply PERSONAL matter.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

The thing with this is that

The thing with this is that it blows things out of proportion. Out of all the things in the comic, only smoking and incandescent bulb are under any real attack. And I don't think smoking fits here. When you smoke, you are directly influencing the air quality around you in a very negative way. The onus is on the smoker to remove the negative infliction, not for the non-smoker to adjust around it. After all, you are allowed to smoke in your own home. It is public places where it is banned.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Public places are still

Public places are still private property and the government has no right to barge in on such matters. Only places like parks and other publicly-owned buildings can ban smoking. In the case of a business, it's up to the non-smoker to adjust to smoke or go elsewhere. Ventilation does split off sections perfectly. The only places that don't have sections are bars. If you are out drinking, you should deal with the smoke. Most non-smokers do smoke when they drink.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Agreed. The government

Agreed. The government shouldn't put bans on smoking in bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.

However, I will say that the vast majority of smoking bans don't come from some politicians pet project. They come from the overwhelming demand to see these bans from the public. Nationally, the majority of the country wants to ban smoking in any place that isn't a house. People have a bad expectation of what government should be doing.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Yes. They were obviously

Yes. They were obviously taught that the government is to force the will of the majority onto the minority. They also constantly erroneously call the system our founders thought up a democracy. They don't understand the concept of a constitutional republic. Our government is supposed to be there to protect the minority from the will of the majority and not force any will on anyone.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

"Yes. They were obviously

"Yes. They were obviously taught that the government is to force the will of the majority onto the minority."

People are not "taught" this. They simply do it because they want something.

"They also constantly erroneously call the system our founders thought up a democracy. They don't understand the concept of a constitutional republic."

I agree, but this is a separate issue. The Constitution places limits on federal power, and on some state powers, but there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the state of New York from banning soda's or cigarrettes.

In fact, a lot of state government give the state tremendous power. In the South, government has wide power to legislate "morality", while in other states the government was wide power over regulating the economy.

"Our government is supposed to be there to protect the minority from the will of the majority and not force any will on anyone."

It should, but that isn't even how the Constitution is set up. The 14th amendment went a long ways towards fixing that but even then it isn't perfect.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

People ARE taught this. That

People ARE taught this. That is the thing.

You have the constitution backwards. It only lists things that government can do. Since it doesn't say that a state can ban sodas and cigarettes, doing so is unconstitutional. The federal government really should be going after these states who try to legislate morality.

What does the 14th amendment have to do with being a republic?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

"People ARE taught this. That

"People ARE taught this. That is the thing."

I wasn't taught this, and people I know were taught this. People might say "we are a democracy". That doesn't meant that they LITERALLY think we are a democracy as defined in the dictionary. It is just saying "we are a country with freedoms". Just a buzzword.

Actually, you have the Constitution backwards, at least according to Ron Paul. The Constitution only lists the things that the FEDERAL government can do. It puts very few restrictions on the states. The 14th amendment, in my opinion and in the opinion of the vast majority of Constitutional lawyers, applies the BOR and other restrictions to the states. Ron Paul actual disagrees with that, and still believes taht the Constitution allows state governments to do whatever they want.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Democracy means people vote

Democracy means people vote for things. People think because they vote for representatives that they have "a democracy." There is a huge difference between "having democracy" and "having a democracy."

Did I not just say that the constitution lists things government can do? If the feds can't do it, neither can the states, nor the local towns. The federal government can't infringe on your constitutional rights, but the way I see the states' rights nuts viewing things is that the states can do whatever they want. The feds can't ban soda, neither can a state or a city. I don't care what Ron Paul thinks. He's not a god. I'm glad I didn't support him if he would just give states the powers to go around crushing rights. States are in the union voluntarily, and if they want to do such things, they need to secede.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

no such thing as public property.

you're claiming damage where there is none.
you don't have a right not to be annoyed.

Public property like

Public property like government buildings, schools, roads, etc?

You don't have a right to anything. You also don't have a right to be annoying. You also don't have a right for me not to have a right to be annoyed.

Plus, of course smoking causes damage. In a literal and practical sense.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Thanks for sharing

amazing how twisted things have gotten

yup

Kafkaesquely so.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

scawarren's picture

Amazing and frightening:/

Amazing and frightening :/

"The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government." -Thomas Paine

yup

indeed.

Gallows humor ahead...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul