Let me understand exactly what you are attempting to voice here.
Not only are you stating that the that NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL A WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH HER BODY!
IS this correct?
So what you are stating is that, it should be up to the woman to commit murder so that she and her partner, who both decided to have uprotected sex,
with impunity? So in other words, a woman (or anyone else) should not have to "pay the piper. Women as well as men have have been taught and should
know that if they want to have sex, there maybe a price to pay if they decide not to take precautions.
Using your own logic here then, If a person decides to go out and drink then drive, then get's into an accident that kills another that the drunk
should not be held cupable for the death of another.
According to the Medical Community
In THE TRANSACTION OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, vol. XXII (1871), we read: "Long before quickening takes place, motion, the pulsation of the
heart, and other signs of vitality, have been distinctly perceived, and, according to approved authority, the foetus enjoys life long before the
sensation of quickening is felt by the mother. Indeed, no other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the
embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception."
At what point do medicate experts say life begins? In 1981, while considering S 158 (known as the Human Life Bill), the U.S. Senate heard testimony
from 57 international authorities. The Senate's report stated: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the
beginning of the life of a human being -- a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in
countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome pattern of Down's
Syndrome, told the Senate: "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, chief geneticist at the Mayo Clinic,
stated: "It is an established fact that human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth of Harvard University declared: "It is
scientifically correct to say that individual human life beings at conception."
So as determined by the medical community, LIFE begins at the moment of conception which is the actual fertilization of the ovum which can take place
up to 5 days after the act of intercourse.
When Does Life Begin?
At six weeks, the baby has brain waves that can be measured with an electroencephalogram
Social or "Birth Control" reasons account for approximately 93 percent of all abortions. The so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, health of
the baby and threat to life or health of the mother account for less than 7 percent of all abortions.16
The above quote is from the same link directly above.
Again, what you are defending is the woman's right to kill an innocent life just so she and her partner can "enjoy life" , Not taking any
HMMM as stated above, then no one should have to pay for any crime including rape as it is an infringement on thier rights!
That is a wonderful outlook.
Now let's look at some of the other points which you are advocating.
Yes, and the same can be said about wearing seat belts, motorcycle helmets, riding in the back of a truck and more. These are just a few of the
freedoms that have been taken away in my lifetime. It should be left to the individual to make his own choices, right or wrong!
You can do all of the above if that is what you wish although, the police will give you a ticket for failing to abide by the law.
Seatbelts- You the driver are taking your own life into your hands. Any passengers are putting their life into your hands when not wearing a seatbelt.
They are betting that you are in your right mind, that you are not going to kill them in an accident. OOPs, forgot, going by your origional
statements, if the driver kills the passengers it's okay.
Motorcyles and helmets- In many states, a person can ride without a helmet as long as thei post a seriously large bond first. The bond is to pay for
any medical treatment (which of course insurance will not pay for) due to thier foolishness.
Riding in the back of a truck. the statments that I made above in regards to seatbelts again hold true here. I do though invite you to do a search on
the net for pix on the kids killed by riding in the back of a truck where they have nothing but the open air to keep them in the vehicle. Enough said
Does it not commit murder by implementing the death penalty, or waging war when most of the world denies it's provocation? Does a government really
care about it's people when it allows the poisoning of it's environment or the sale of untested drugs to the unsuspecting public? Think again if you
think Uncle Sam gives a rats ass to our well being by enforcing seat belt or no-smoking, or even scarier, gun control laws. It's all about control
and nothing else.
Let's look at the first line, does the goverment commit murder with the death penalty? Well, let's see, a person that has been given the death
penalty has commited a crime which has caused the death of another person. Another innocent person. They have been tried and convicted of such by a
panel of their peers. But again, by the logic in which you advocate a woman's right would of course negate anything which the person on death row
As to the war in Iraq, if that is what you are refering to.... agree and disagree with you. The reasons that the goverment gave which prompted the wat
have been proven to bogus. Does that mean that Sadaam Husain should still be in power? I think that over 5000 Kurds who were murdered by a chemical
attack led by "Chemical ALI" under Husain's orders would disagree with you.
As to poisoning the environment, there are laws, which I agree with you need to be enforced but how does this support your argument to do away with
the abortion laws?
Sale of Untested Drugs? Do you have anything to support this? To date, the drugs that have been sold on the open market to the american people have
been tested. There should be more testing with a wider testing range and all the testing results need to be out in the open and at least available to
the medical community. I am unaware of any drug which is openly sold today in the US that has not undergone at least some testing.
No Smoking- although their are laws in place to prevent underage smoking and there is alot of anti-smoking advertising, I have to agree with you to a
point on this. The goverment should take some of the billions that have been won in law suits against the tobacco industry should be used to help
people quit the habit and insurance companies need to allow the use of drugs such as welbutol to be used for stemming tobacco use.
Gun Control- What are you trying to get at? Should the goverment take away the right of people to own guns? By the logic that you use to promote
overturning the abortion laws, this would be an infringement on the gun owner's rights and thus should not be regulated.
Loss of religious freedom- again this begs the question how does this support your main argument? The abortion laws are in place to protect lives
when a person decides that it is inconvient to them. How does this have anything to do with the right to religion?
Remember, The Constitution which goes
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness
Notice the word life? so our goverment supports that life is somethign that should be faught for.
Before you go on and hit on the Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, should those two rights negate the first when support of the Liberty and
Happiness will cause the death of another innocent person?