bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Quarantines aren't really applicable; while restricting freedom of movement, they don't really impose on one's body per se; and I have yet to see a "mandatory vaccination"; Just visit federal or provincial prisons if you want more proof. You don't even own your body in death, as there are laws governing disposal of remains. Mandatory vaccinations are common for military service and many occupations. Many public schools will not play ball unless the "shot card" is complete. Edited June 17, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Just visit federal or provincial prisons if you want more proof. You don't even own your body in death, as there are laws governing disposal of remains.Mandatory vaccinations are common for military service and many occupations. Many public schools will not play ball unless the "shot card" is complete. When you certify a birth - you are stating that this person is now offically property of the state and estate..it's quite feudal. When you do your very first income tax form - the first one ----you are actually saying that you agree to pay tribute to the ruling mob. Feudalism never died -it just became very vast and broad ----abortion is control of the working herd - management of the work force....under the guise of securing a wonderful working future - heaven forbid that some woman are to busy raising a child - when they could be making the proverbial MAN some money - and we are not talking about the husband - but the husbanding state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues.Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. You abortionists are still stuck on stupid. First, killing human tissue does not qualify for a claim of MURDER since you have to make a legal, ethical and scientific case that full rights of human personhood should be granted to embryos and fetuses that are contingent life -- dependent on the mother; and second, they are not two separate issues. If you are going to claim some kind of moral legitimacy of being "pro life" then you have to show your interest in that life after birth and until it reaches the age of majority. Otherwise you are ethically no better than a deadbeat dad.....and for that matter so are the conservative religionists that you taken your upside down moral lessons from! Nope. I'm not religious. My pro-life views are based on science. Show me the science! I've never dismissed the idea that sometimes late term abortions are necessary. If a mother's life is in danger, then obviously certain medical procedures need to be part of the solution. Now tell me why that is obvious? For normal rational people, it is obvious because the life of the mother should be accorded more legitimacy than the potential life of the fetus she is carrying. But anti-abortionists need to explain why they are williing to "kill" that unborn life if there is even the risk that continuing the pregnancy if it endangers the mother's life. If there is even the chance that the mother may die during pregnancy, the fetus must be terminated, and along with it the claim that the fetus has the same rights of personhood as the mother! Once so called pro life believers give in to rational thinking and budge from their absolute stand that embryos and fetuses are persons, then they have to answer why not in cases where a girl has been raped? why not in cases where the fetus is deformed or will be born with birth defects? why not cases before fetal brain development has reached a stage where it is capable of developing conscious mental processing? etc. etc. Once you make one exception to your rule about where life begins, you need to explain why that is the one and only exception you will allow. Dr. Tiller preformed late term, and almost full term abortions for very specious reasons. You don't know that for a fact, and neither do the rest of us, since the actual medical records have never been revealed by the Kansas Attorney General's Office, and that "expert" you cited previously, turned out to be a Catholic conservative hack who was allowed to see only thirty of some pre-selected records provided to him by the former attorney general, obviously for the purpose of building a case for wrongful abortions by state law. One of the facts that has leaked out about the abortions performed by Dr. Tiller, was that one of the recipients was only 9 years old, and had been raped by her father. A few months back, there was a sensational Brazilian case where the Catholic Church (backed by the Vatican) excommunicated the mother of a nine year old girl for procuring an abortion for her daughter....and that's the kind of upside down morality conservative religionists want to push us towards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Pro-life is good - Pro-death - is questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.