Trump and Cruz are dangerous for America

[Danmark]

What is it about claiming to be Bible believers that spawns politicians who want to rig the system for the rich and reduce programs for the poor? Isn't this the opposite of what Christ preached?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 26 by Elijah John]
Everyone is "Pro life." Maybe not always pro mosquito life or pro cancer cell life.

The "pro life" hand wringing Pharisees have proclaimed themselves gods who decide which life is sacrosanct. They are 'Pride' incarnate.

Everyone is "pro choice". Maybe not pro infanticide choice, or pro government funded choice.

The "pro choice" abortion promoters have also proclaimed themselves gods who decide which words are sacrosanct and who must pay for another person's "private" decision. Those who oppose publically funded abortion started calling themselves "pro life" in response to the "pro choice" crowd that insisted the that they not be called pro abortion. Most "pro life" people I know have no problem being called anti abortion, even though it is publically funded abortion that is the primary sticking point.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you misunderstood my point. The "you can't control your own body contingent" have co-opted the title 'Pro life.' They are not pro life at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about biology.

The law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body.

There are a lot of old men who want to tell women how to use their [the women's] bodies. These old busy bodies would be up in arms against government telling them what to do with THEIR bodies. They don't even want government to tell them what kind of weapons they can have.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 31 by Danmark]

"The law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body. "

A woman should not need the law to tell her to respect her body. Pregnancy should be planned in a loving ralationship and she decides when it is time to bring another person into the world. If she can not do that, there are birth control pills.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 26 by Elijah John]
Everyone is "Pro life." Maybe not always pro mosquito life or pro cancer cell life.

The "pro life" hand wringing Pharisees have proclaimed themselves gods who decide which life is sacrosanct. They are 'Pride' incarnate.

Everyone is "pro choice". Maybe not pro infanticide choice, or pro government funded choice.

The "pro choice" abortion promoters have also proclaimed themselves gods who decide which words are sacrosanct and who must pay for another person's "private" decision. Those who oppose publically funded abortion started calling themselves "pro life" in response to the "pro choice" crowd that insisted the that they not be called pro abortion. Most "pro life" people I know have no problem being called anti abortion, even though it is publically funded abortion that is the primary sticking point.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you misunderstood my point. The "you can't control your own body contingent" have co-opted the title 'Pro life.' They are not pro life at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about biology.

The law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body.

There are a lot of old men who want to tell women how to use their [the women's] bodies. These old busy bodies would be up in arms against government telling them what to do with THEIR bodies. They don't even want government to tell them what kind of weapons they can have.

That is an extremely cynical and uncharitable way to look at the motives of pro-life, anti-abortion people, don't you think?

It is not about "controling others" but rather protecting innocent life. Once a child is concieved, it is not just a matter of the woman's body. The embryo is not a dehumanized appendage but rather a separate being.

And that ain't just a religous perspective, but a philosophical one. Your characterizaton of "old men" wanting to control women" is extremely unfair. Remember many of the anti-abortion-on-demand advocates are actually women!

And abortion kills baby girls too.

It comes down to this, when in doubt as to when human life actually begins, why not give the benefit of the doubt to life?

[Danmark]

That is an extremely cynical and uncharitable way to look at the motives of pro-life, anti-abortion people, don't you think?

It is not about "controling others" but rather protecting innocent life. Once a child is concieved, it is not just a matter of the woman's body. The embryo is not a dehumanized appendage but rather a separate being.

And that ain't just a religous perspective, but a philosophical one. Your characterizaton of "old men" wanting to control women" is extremely unfair. Remember many of the anti-abortion-on-demand advocates are actually women!

And abortion kills baby girls too.

It comes down to this, when in doubt as to when human life actually begins, why not give the benefit of the doubt to life?

"That is an extremely cynical and uncharitable way to look at the motives of pro-life, anti-abortion people, don't you think?"

Yes, but it IS my opinion. ... in general, that is. Yes, based on a naive and rather black and white view of biology, that a single cell is the same as a live human being, I agree that for many their anti abortion opinion [and it is only an opinion] may be motivated by lofty ideals, wholly impractical ideals, but decent ideals.

I did not mean to claim the anti abortion opinion is entirely a sexist one. It just seems more often than not, it is men telling women what to do with their bodies, not the other way 'round.

My position that the law has no jurisdiction over the interior of a person's body is a legal view. It may be solely my own. I came up with that notion nearly 40 years ago when I was in law school and opposed to abortion.

One of my points is that both [major] sides to the abortion debate pejoratively and disingenuously label their positions. "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" are both misleading and inaccurate.

I agree, the life that is growing inside that foreign jurisdiction is not a mere appendage.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 26 by Elijah John]
Everyone is "Pro life." Maybe not always pro mosquito life or pro cancer cell life.

The "pro life" hand wringing Pharisees have proclaimed themselves gods who decide which life is sacrosanct. They are 'Pride' incarnate.

Everyone is "pro choice". Maybe not pro infanticide choice, or pro government funded choice.

The "pro choice" abortion promoters have also proclaimed themselves gods who decide which words are sacrosanct and who must pay for another person's "private" decision. Those who oppose publically funded abortion started calling themselves "pro life" in response to the "pro choice" crowd that insisted the that they not be called pro abortion. Most "pro life" people I know have no problem being called anti abortion, even though it is publically funded abortion that is the primary sticking point.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you misunderstood my point. The "you can't control your own body contingent" have co-opted the title 'Pro life.' They are not pro life at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about biology.

The law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body.

There are a lot of old men who want to tell women how to use their [the women's] bodies. These old busy bodies would be up in arms against government telling them what to do with THEIR bodies. They don't even want government to tell them what kind of weapons they can have.

No I understand, the "you have a right to do what you want with your own body" crowd co-opted the title "Pro-Choice". They are not pro choice at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about economics.

If, the law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body, then the government could not regulate drugs, prostitution, organ sales, or any voluntary medical procedure.

There are a lot of old women who want to tell men that they are responsible for funding how their [the women's] bodies are used. These old busy bodies would be up in arms against government telling them what they must fund. They don't even want government to tell to buy their own birth control. In fact, they are now saying that the government should provide all women with feminine hygiene products.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 26 by Elijah John]
Everyone is "Pro life." Maybe not always pro mosquito life or pro cancer cell life.

The "pro life" hand wringing Pharisees have proclaimed themselves gods who decide which life is sacrosanct. They are 'Pride' incarnate.

Everyone is "pro choice". Maybe not pro infanticide choice, or pro government funded choice.

The "pro choice" abortion promoters have also proclaimed themselves gods who decide which words are sacrosanct and who must pay for another person's "private" decision. Those who oppose publically funded abortion started calling themselves "pro life" in response to the "pro choice" crowd that insisted the that they not be called pro abortion. Most "pro life" people I know have no problem being called anti abortion, even though it is publically funded abortion that is the primary sticking point.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you misunderstood my point. The "you can't control your own body contingent" have co-opted the title 'Pro life.' They are not pro life at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about biology.

The law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body.

There are a lot of old men who want to tell women how to use their [the women's] bodies. These old busy bodies would be up in arms against government telling them what to do with THEIR bodies. They don't even want government to tell them what kind of weapons they can have.

No I understand, the "you have a right to do what you want with your own body" crowd co-opted the title "Pro-Choice". They are not pro choice at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about economics.

If, the law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body, then the government could not regulate drugs, prostitution, organ sales, or any voluntary medical procedure.

There are a lot of old women who want to tell men that they are responsible for funding how their [the women's] bodies are used. These old busy bodies would be up in arms against government telling them what they must fund. They don't even want government to tell to buy their own birth control. In fact, they are now saying that the government should provide all women with feminine hygiene products.

What was it about my post #34 you didn't understand?

Your

They are not pro choice at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about economics.

If, the law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body, then the government could not regulate drugs, prostitution, organ sales, or any voluntary medical procedure.

Contains as many false claims and poor logic as I've ever seen in such a short space.
Yes, they are 'pro-choice' because they want a woman to be able to choose an abortion, or not to have one.
This is NOT imposing their views on others. Those opposed to having an abortion don't have to have one. That is their choice. Your 'faulty economics' comes out of the blue. It is not only not relevant, it is unexplained and unsupported.

The law regulates drugs prostitution, organ sales. It does not regulate what goes on inside someone's body. Do you see the distinction?

There is actually law on this subject. Once one consumes alcohol, one no longer "possesses" it. It has been assimilated. It is MY personal legal view that there is no jurisdiction and that is a way to sidestep the irresolvable moral questions, for me.

[Texan Christian]

Trump in my opinion could be bad for America or could be good for America. But I don't really want to take the chance unless its him or Hillary/Bernie.

and Bernie and Hillary are more dangerous for America than either of them.

Hillary: need I say more than emails and Benghazi?

Bernie: Socialism and Communism DONT. WORK. Look in your History book and you'll see. Sure, it can "work" for a small time. until you run out of other peoples money...
And I fail to see how it is morally acceptable to take someones hard earned money and give it to someone who REFUSES to work.

Good day and God bless

[H.sapiens]

Trump in my opinion could be bad for America or could be good for America. But I don't really want to take the chance unless its him or Hillary/Bernie.

and Bernie and Hillary are more dangerous for America than either of them.

Hillary: need I say more than emails and Benghazi?

You'll have to do a whole lot more then mouth Darrell Issa's stupidity.

Bernie: Socialism and Communism DONT. WORK. Look in your History book and you'll see. Sure, it can "work" for a small time. until you run out of other peoples money...

Communism does not work, socialism does: http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content ... /WHR15.pdf[/url]

And I fail to see how it is morally acceptable to take someones hard earned money and give it to someone who REFUSES to work.

Isn't that essentially what we done with Trump? He did not really work for most of his money, he inherited and bankrupted his way to riches. Great system, take someones' hard work and give the fruits of it to someone who doesn't even really need it and keep them coming back for more mistreatment with the carrot that perhaps someday you too will be permitted to join the 1%. I ain't happening.

[bluethread]

What was it about my post #34 you didn't understand?

Your

They are not pro choice at all. They are pro controlling others and imposing their views on others. They are 'pro' telling people they should all be enslaved to what THEY claim is moral; to THEIR faulty conclusions about economics.

If, the law does not have jurisdiction over what happens inside another's body, then the government could not regulate drugs, prostitution, organ sales, or any voluntary medical procedure.

Contains as many false claims and poor logic as I've ever seen in such a short space.
Yes, they are 'pro-choice' because they want a woman to be able to choose an abortion, or not to have one.
This is NOT imposing their views on others. Those opposed to having an abortion don't have to have one. That is their choice. Your 'faulty economics' comes out of the blue. It is not only not relevant, it is unexplained and unsupported.

The law regulates drugs prostitution, organ sales. It does not regulate what goes on inside someone's body. Do you see the distinction?

There is actually law on this subject. Once one consumes alcohol, one no longer "possesses" it. It has been assimilated. It is MY personal legal view that there is no jurisdiction and that is a way to sidestep the irresolvable moral questions, for me.

I think I understand your position clearly. You wish to minimize to scope of the pro-abortion argument and maximize the scope of the anti-abortion argument. If we throw out both of the extremes, the only issues are who pays for abortion procedures and what to do about abortions in the third trimester.