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 8/20/22 5:12 AM, -hh wrote:   
   > On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 5:23:07 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >> 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...   
   >   
   > No, I'm saying that situations can quickly get complicated with multiple   
   shades   
   > of grey, so do you really want such decisions to be dictated by the State?   
   >   
      
      
   And I'm saying that the best possible government is the least government   
   necessary to protect human life. And if you notice it's NOT NATION WIDE   
   it's 50 shades of gray because there are 50 State Constitutions that can   
   solve the problem of a human life being snuffed-out, in 50 different   
   ways...  and the one option of allowing unlimited killing of human life   
   inside the uterus is NO longer the only option.   
      
   Why do you support a ban on clubbing baby seals and then support   
   allowing human abortions...?   
      
      
      
   >> Why wouldn't you treat another human life with that same logic that you   
   >> treated the arm?   
   >   
   > Because much of the topic's debate is seeking to recognize both the rights   
   and life of   
   > the mother relative to the fetus...   
      
   FALSE, when the question is the mothers life being at risk then the   
   Doctors determine the risk to each and the adults and courts can make   
   the choice of who bears the most risk and if the mothers life is   
   sufficiently at risk, then the human life in the uterus is also at risk   
   isn't it?  What the baby can be saved but the mother lost or both will   
   be lost, the general outcome seems to be to save the life that can be   
   saved and mostly that's the mother.   
      
   > and how some States are choosing to impose their   
   > own standard on that which profoundly devalues the mother.   
      
   It actually makes the mother more important in that her decision is   
   dependent on knowledge and knowledge of how the pregnancy is going to   
   play out will be of more help in saving the mothers life.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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 ..   
   >   
   > Not a justification, because the State now has the authority to set that law.   
      
   That's how the U.S. Constitution works, Jurisdiction is a key part of   
   the Constitution. It allows for more freedoms and less one size fits all   
   central mandate failed issues.   
      
   Remember that the least government necessary, is the best government   
   possible.   
      
   >   
   >> 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....   
   >   
   > Which is not what's happening in this case:  the State of FL has pretty much   
   > said "Fuck off,  Doctors/Lawyers/Pregnant child's guardian".   
   >   
      
   NO, it says unless there is a life or death issue, then killing one or   
   the other for convenience is NOT an option.   
      
   A husband making decisions for a pregnant coma patient comes to mind...   
   Remember Scott Peterson who killed his pregnant wife to be with a   
   girlfriend? He's in prison but imagine his pregnant wife had been in a   
   coma and he was making all the decisions for the wife and baby?   
      
   No need for courts or lawyers if the father is acting on the mother's   
   behalf as her spouse. will he make the decision to let them both die or   
   would he try to save one?  Marriage means he is her decision maker when   
   she can't make informed decisions.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
      
   States don't get women pregnant, why should they pay?  States don't   
   cause you car crash why should they pay for your car or your hospital   
   bill from the car you crashed.   
      
   The States have clothing laws but they don't buy you clothes.   
      
   The states have gun laws but they don't pay for all the additional   
   inflation in gun price, created by the those laws/regulations when you   
   go buy a gun? And the gun is a RIGHT but if health care is a RIGHT how   
   does a State regulate it by denying you the health care you decide you   
   need? And if Health care is a RIGHT why isn't the HUMAN LIFE IN THE   
   UTERUS able to have that RIGHT protected?   
      
   KILLING that life in the uterus isn't "health care" it's eugenics and a   
   death sentence.   
      
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Or help them by saving their life during their depression.   
      
      
   >>   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)