Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Some people get ENRAGED if government tries to give them healthy food guidelines because they want gubment to BUTT OUT and yet?
Legally banning unhealthy food items is different from LEGALLY having sovereignty over other women's bodies and invading their right to do what they wish with them HOW?
Are you being purposely OBDURATE or do you really NOT understand at all what the he** I'm talking about? Seriously? You want LEGALIZED dominion over all wome's bodies. You think that's just swell as he**. But you get enraged if anyone like a mayor wants to make sugared drinks UNAVAILABLE? Really? And you see no problem with that at all on any level? Really? Seriously? OMG.
This post was edited by RosieG at December 17, 2019 7:43 AM MST
I want legal protections for that unborn baby. As a living baby he/she has a right to life. If the Mom does not want it she can place it for adoption. If a person kills that Mother they are charged with a double homocide. Why is it legal for the Mother to pay someone commit the same homocide?
Again---Soda is not the same as a baby. And Mom's right to PRIVACY should end where the CHILDs right to life begins.
If she does not want to get pregnact she has a choice to make. Use protection or do not have sex. And understand that no protection is 100%.
EG1. The Mother altered her health when she had sex and did not prevent the pregnancy. Just having sex--alters a persons health. Killing the child is certainly altering he/her health.
EG2: The Mother enslaved herself when she had sex and did not prevent the pregnancy. People make bad decisions all the time forcing themselves to do things they do not want ie. no school so dead end job
There is NO medical procedure that can implanted an unwanted fetus in a womb. Perhaps in the future. And I believe you would be surprised number at the volunteers.
The children who "age out" of the foster system are generally children who were older when they went in and were NOT even eligible for adoption because of the time required (years) in the court system to terminate a biological parents rights.
You are saying that when you volunteer for something, you automatically give others the right to force something on you. Wrong. I may volunteer to get a medical procedure - but I still retain the right to later refuse that procedure. I may volunteer to work for an employer - but I still retain the right to quit whenever I want.
And most of those children also have NO support, as most children do after they turn 18. No one to help them figure out how to apply for a job, or create a resume, or fill out a college application. No one to "go home" to, they are immediately homeless.
So you'll forgive me, when I say: I highly doubt there is any alleged Christians willing to "take up the slack" - because the actual, factual, historic evidence shows otherwise.
I am saying there are consequences for decisions. And another person should not be forced to loose their life because of your decision.
If I take a job and then decide I do not want it, I cannot murder the boss. If I go in for a medical procedure and then decide I do not want it, I cannot murder the Doctor. If I have sex and get pregnant and decide I do not want it, I should not be allowed to murder the baby.
As far as when a child turns 18 in the foster system. The system should not be allowed to remove them from the foster home without a place to go. That should be a law. How many children who aged out are you helping? Or are only alleged Christians supposed to do that?
In my experience, there are two major political topics in the United States which produce the greatest heat-to-light ratio (i.e. the most hurt feelings and resistance to opposing arguments): abortion and gun control.
Yet, it occurs to me that the situations are arguably diametric opposites.
In the case of "gun control", the vast majority of Americans actually agree on something like 90% about what the law should be. Pretty much everyone agrees criminals shouldn't have guns, the insane shouldn't have guns, the average citizen shouldn't be allowed to acquire a nuclear warhead, etc. It's the argument over small incremental changes within the broadly agreed-upon framework that produces all of the brouhaha.
In contrast, the debate about abortion starts for a fundamental disagreement about a basic claim: is a fertilized zygote a "person" in a moral/legal sense? The vast majority of the "pro-life" faction asserts this is so. Once one accepts that basic premise, the criminalization of abortion follows logically from that premise, and any sort of reproachment between the opposing factions is very difficult to achieve.
To tie the above into the actual question which was asked, I think the fact that many of the same people who are "pro-gun" are also "anti-abortion", and they tend to be similarly passionate about both those issues, even though the level of agreement between their position and that of the "opposite" position is so different suggests that the given reason for their positions is NOT the real reason they hold them.
Similarly, anyone who claims to have a consistent position about whether the government should butt in or butt out of people's lives should be treated with great skepticism and requests for explanatory arguments.
my2cents 