Any "hypocrisy" or contradiction on the part of conservatives in this area is nothing more than a failure (deliberate or otherwise) by liberals to understand our position.
So their wellbeing does not include their life? Or an objection on its behalf is not predicated on any responsibility for it? Walk me through this.
Afterward, walk me through how invoking "that undefinable peculiar-to-each-person area that the law has no business encroaching," obviates any obligation to children law compels women bear, rather than granting women exclusive (i.e. peculiar to them) authority over when to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. a life whose status as a being is legally and medically "undefinable.") That basically uses "my body (and tax money and other property,) my choice" to reject the same legal responsibility for the post partum children of others that conservatives DEMAND for prenatal children.
Again, whether liberals dismiss children before but not after birth or conservatives do the opposite it is condradictory. It would make more sense for pro-choicers to say, "to Hell with child poverty; they are no more my concern after than before birth," or conservatives to say, "'suffer the little children,' both born and unborn."
- Preventing a 14 year old girl from having consensual sexual relations
- Preventing her from having an abortion
- Telling her parents about the abortion OR pregnancy without her permission
- Letting her smoke a post-coital cigarette
Aparently a woman's right to choose what she does with her body ends at the top of the uterus.
If nothing else, you always provide a cautionary example against my temptation to put words in the mouths of philosophical foes.
Age of consent is no less than 16 in any US state, and no less than 17 in almost half. Most states modify that in cases where ALL parties are minors, but I am not sure whence you pulled 14 as the age liberals want consensual sex to be legal, because even the most liberal US state laws define that as statutory rape. In CA and OR it is 18 or nothing. Want parental notification? Exempt cases with strong evidence it is "rapist notification." Forcing that 14 year old to ask her rapist father if she must die bearing her brother-son violates the Eighth Amendment as much as he violated her.
Want an abortion ban? Produce proof beyond reasonable doubt a fetus is a person and abortion will be murder; proving it is "alive" means nothing: Semen is a human life, but if killing it were murder every boy on Earth would be in prison for life well BEFORE the age of consent. For that matter, an egg is a human life; does God murder billions of humans monthly? Without proof, well, sorry, as much as I agree life begins at conception, forbidding anyone do anything based on what one believes, or even knows but cannot prove, is untenable: It violates natural laws affirmation and assurance of liberty, and often of (proven, uncontested) life as well.
As far as cigarettes, liberals more often than not share the same view of drugs—even (especially) harmful recreational ones—that you just endorsed; conservatives often list that among liberalisms many flaws. Just yesterday I saw a staunch conservative despairingly respond to point-by-point liberal rebuttals of his unsubstantiated anti-Obama rants with "just smoke more dope and tune out." I would continue, but have said my piece, and want to go have a cigarette.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
*NM*
- 19/08/2013 11:45:22 PM
949 Views