[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> selectively realize that I'm correct.   
   >   
   > No, I'm not advocating that the Government make all decisions:  my tone here   
   is the opposite.   
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Nope.   
   >   
      
   And yet every day you want gun laws and food laws and CO2 LAWS.... why   
   is CO2 about all lives but the lives of all doesn't include a human life   
   in a uterus? And yet if CO2 is a danger it's a danger to the human life   
   in the uterus, and if you want to protect that human life form the CO2   
   then killing that life for convenience seems anti-social when you claim   
   that CO2 is about all human life.   
      
   Should we decide that fixing the CO2 is only for White or Black or Male   
   or Christian human life with a Soul?   
      
   It seems if you choose all human life including all the unborn because   
   you don't have a list who should or will be born...  then when you pass   
   abortion laws you're NOT helping all the human lives, and so when you   
   talk about helping human life with laws about Fossil Fuel and CO2, you   
   are trying to only help specific human lives that you select through   
   your laws... the laws that allow for killing that human life that you   
   tell us you wanted to save from the CO2? Why is your life worthy of   
   "necessary" laws to save it, while the human life in the uterus is not?   
      
   Where is the logic in your idea of the best government possible is the   
   least government necessary? When you want to kill the human life you   
   wanted to save using laws on Fossil fuel, but kill for convenience based   
   on color or intelligence or gender or cash-flow... with laws on medical   
   eugenics.   
      
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Unlike you, I recognize that there are conflicting interests to be balanced.   
      
   And then you ignore me and use mandates with no religious or   
   philosophical or medical basis that are used to extort behavior and   
   create more risk to life rather than reduce risk?   
      
   > Constitutionally, the State has identified the principle of 'greater good',   
   for which public health   
   > calls for restrictions on individual freedoms:  I'm not allowed to have an   
   open cesspit in my   
   > back yard that pollutes an open body of water, because it would adversely   
   affect the health   
   > and wellbeing of my fellow neighbors.  Likewise, in some cases of sickness,   
   I don't have the   
   > freedom to go endanger others - - that's why Mary Mallon was literally   
   locked up for ~25 years.   
      
   But you want to be able to kill another human life... seems like a   
   conflict of beliefs.  How is a human life in the uterus dying NOT a   
   greater good issue when a million human lives are killed/aborted for the   
   greater good... doesn't the States laws limit that greater good defense   
   like it limits open cesspits for greater good to stop deaths of human   
   lives both inside the uterus and outside the uterus?  Why is one law for   
   cesspits that protected both inside and outside the uterus deaths OK but   
   another law on abortion that protects lives inside and outside the   
   uterus NOT OK?   
      
      
   >   
   > FWIW, the historical argument for restrictions against abortions had   
   traditionally been that the   
   > State had a 'compelling interest' increase the population of the USA,   
   justifying its intervention.   
      
   How about the mental health of people placed in a position to choose to   
   take a life, a lot of people can't make that decision and do it without   
   great mental trauma due to their conscience and guilt, which means   
   placing them in that no win situation, choosing either way will cause   
   mental issues that can last a lifetime.  A lot of women who get   
   abortions have what appears to be PTSD and suffer psychological issues   
   due to their choice to either have an abortion and/or their choice to   
   NOT have an abortion for money issues or for convenience...   
      
   If they already have mental issues then abortion might be the proper   
   treatment, but if NOT then it might be the cause of mental issues that   
   can lead to suicide and self destructive behavior like alcoholism and   
   risky sexual encounters... and more.   
   >   
   > But with increasingly strict restrictions on immigration, particularly how   
   the Right's claimed   
   > justification has been a "We're Full", this population increase   
   justification for there to be a right   
   > for the State to interfere with individual freedoms no longer is valid.   
   Similarly, the basics of the   
   > separation of Church and State does not form a legal basis for State   
   intervention just because   
   > *some* (not all) religions believe that a fetus's life is more important   
   than the mother's life.   
      
   The U.S. Constitution says life, liberty and property(Pursuit of   
   happiness) are RIGHTS... it says nothing about killing a human life   
   being a RIGHT, and self defense is only valid when your own life is in   
   imminent danger.   
      
   Which is why keeping and bearing arms is Constitutional but killing a   
   baby in the uterus because they have the wrong color eyes or hair is NOT.   
      
      
   --   
   -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)