XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 8/19/22 2:36 PM, -hh wrote:   
   > On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >> On 8/19/22 10:47 AM, KWillis wrote:   
   >>> On 8/19/2022 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:37:15 +0000, "Lee"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Florida calls teen ‘too immature’   
   >>>>> for an abortion. But forced   
   >>>>> motherhood is fine?   
   >>>>> Aug 18   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope.  That's why there's adoption   
   >>>   
   >>> She *still* is forced to give birth.  A woman who gives birth is a   
   >>> biological mother, you stupid cocksucker.  She should not be forced to   
   >>> give birth.   
   >> If she falls and breaks her arm is she forced to heal by laws that say   
   >> we have to treat her in the Emergency room, or does it just happen by   
   >> nature with a little help like a cast on her arm?   
   >>   
   >> Same girl different medical issue, same outcome.   
   >>   
   >> Broken arm or pregnancy, everyone makes mistakes and gets hurt, the   
   >> question is how they choose to recover from that injury, should we just   
   >> cut off the broken arm or try to save it?   
   >   
   > Depends on the specific situation:  the arm could have been so mangled and   
   > with higher health side effects risks (gangrene, etc) such that an amputation   
   > may arguably very well be less traumatic than to live with a mutilation.   
   >   
      
   So you're saying it's a case of logic and if you can't save the arm then   
   the last resort would be to amputate it...   
      
   Why wouldn't you treat another human life with that same logic that you   
   treated the arm?   
      
   > In this context, the question comes down to if the State should or shouldn't   
   have   
   > the right to impose on the individual   
      
   Wrong... in this case the States has only the law to go by and the   
   question of health is for the Doctors/Lawyers and the Pregnant child's   
   parents or guardian to make legal and health decisions with her /or/ for   
   her as needed and required.  Children have RIGHT they just don't have   
   the right to kill or drink alcohol or drive a car without following the   
   laws and meeting the health needs that show they can make adult   
   decisions and they can get that RIGHT to make decisions by being legally   
   emancipated.   
      
   > a "one size fits all" treatment, especially when   
   > what they want to impose is not only more burdensome & more expensive, but   
   that   
   > the State's not going to pay its share of these higher costs.  Indeed, if   
   the individual   
   > proves that they can't cope with what the State wants to mandate, the State   
   can   
   > penalize them, including sending them to jail.   
      
   Which is why I say "the least government necessary is the best   
   government possible" and yet you love Government and want them to make   
   all kinds of decisions for me.... strange that you would only   
   selectively realize that I'm correct.   
      
   The truth is I'm correct when I say that and I'm correct when you say   
   you want more government involvement in "my" life.   
      
      
   > Similarly, the State comes along and says, "gosh, that's a nice kidney ya   
   got there .. and   
   > I know someone else needs it.  Hand it over":  do you think it should be   
   legal for the State   
   > to force you to donate one of your organs?  Especially since you're not done   
   using it yet?   
      
      
   How would that be different than the State being allowed to force-ably   
   inject me with an mRNA vaccine that causes damage to kidneys and hearts   
   and brains?   
      
   Because from this end of the post it looks like you're fine with the   
   government destroying my organs if it happens due to a law that you say   
   is Constitutional but I know it isn't.  Why do you want more Government   
   to mandate what I want but then tell me you *don't* want more government   
   to mandate what you want?  Seems to be contradicting again.   
      
      
   *Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*   
      
      
      
   --   
   -That's karma-   
      
   The result is DEMOCRATS lies about history and reality to themselves and   
   others means their attempts to figure-out what's wrong is an exercise in   
   futility, because what they think they know they really don't know, and   
   fixing problems without the truth... becomes a fools errand.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)