Some are, yes. Its not partyline though.

But killing babies is partyline? Or are you values just that twisted that you wish to grant women the freedom to kill babies but deny everyone who wants to try mind altering substances the right to do so?

My aim is for a healthier society. You want to unleash addictive destructive drugs on society while depriving women access to healthcare.

Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

how about having parents take the responsibility for delivering to the schools children who are well beahved , respectful & if not eager to learn, then at least capable of and prepared to behaviour that does not destroy other childrens educational opportunities

and then sexually sterilizing both parents of children who are convicted of any serious crime or failing to do maths homework properly

I don't want to deny any woman acces to *health* care. If the pregnancy is high risk, she shoudl be allowed to abort. Up to a certain point, she shoudl be allowed to abort as I don't believe conception = life. But once it begins to resemble a baby and can feel pain, it is a life and has the same rights and protections afforded the elderly. But you have stated on here that you believe a woman has the right to have a partial birth abortion: a most abhorrent procedure where clearly the child *is* alive and a life of it's own. So you believe in murdering babies, Putin.

As far as "addictive and destructive drugs" - Addictive? Some, yes. Not all, at leats not physically. And even if all were, that cat is already out of the bag with alcohol and tobacco. Destructive? Again, some, yes. Not all. And also, again, that cat is already out of the bag. Alcoholism is destructive to the body and to the homne life of the alcoholic as well as to innocent's around him/her when he/she gets behind the wheel of a car. And tobacco is potentially highly destructive with the increase risk of cancer and what it does to the body and to the individuals and society's pocket books as the cost of treatment is extrememly high while the chance of success is usually lower than a coin toss by the time it is discovered.

'And ora makes this rant but isnt a legalizer. '

I'd prefer to make the rant and let people make up their own minds then tell them i know a solution.

And where is the burden of proof? What we're doing definitely causes damage, but we don't have proof either way what changes we should make, so no politician has the balls to TRY making the world a better place...

Great let's just stick with the status quo, and be happy that Nazis didn''t win the second war, as their status quo might have been a little bit worse (though their PR machine would have been better)

You've argued various illogical conclusions, valid points about causation on both sides. But of society doesn't know what is best for people why not let people make up their own minds?

Oh yes, political capital won from the moral outrage of it all...

We do NOT have evidence based decision making. So why do you pretend that the evidence matters?

' My aim is for a healthier society. You want to unleash addictive destructive drugs on
society while depriving women access to healthcare.'

Then your position should be to ban the current addictive destructive drugs, and anything which is habit forming and reduces quality and lenght of life.

So MacDonalds will be the first to go, then tabaccoo (but we're already on board the slowly grind tabaccoo use out of existance) then alcohol.

Then we will ban cars, not because they kill people in accidents but because the first 30 minutes of exercise you get each day has a bigger impact on your health than giving up smoking (risk factors, no exercise is worse than smoking)

I'm mostly with Draug on the baby murdering, but i might emphasis suffering over pain... And 'you believe a woman has the right to have a partial birth abortion: a most abhorrent
procedure where clearly the child *is* alive and a life of it's own. So you believe in murdering babies, Putin.'

After ~28 weeks the offending clump of cells can survive outside of the woman, so definitely draw the line at requiring a C-section be the medical procedure once it is viable. (for me this raises the moral question of society saying you must live; thus society must be responcible for your well-being, up to a point, not your parents)

Still i suspect 22-24 weeks (and the actual week of conception is likely to be a guess anyway) is the upper mos limit draug would agree to, with maybe 18 weeks being the lowest limit i could be satisfied with. (current irish law is something i am unhappy with)

Anyway... Getting away from baby murderers...

I am sure private companies running prisons could make more profitable use of prisoners by better exploitation of them such as harvesting organs for transplants
from prisoners with the "never to be released" sentences that the popular 3 strikes & your gone for good policies create
The other thing is the explosion in human population--if the principles of supply / demand determine value expressed as a "cost" then surely the endangered animal species are becoming more valuable than humans
for example what is the true "collective" value of an insect species like the honey bee --- the greatest single pollinator species on the planet ???

shouldn't we recognise that Gorilla's as a sustainable wild species are more valuable than a certain number of humans eg 5,000 gorillas in the wild are more valuable than a 100,000 persons dying of AIDS in Africa

Im with you Major. I live in a community where the only industry is social welfare. Where the doctors, nurses, psychologists, therapists, social workers, hospital staff, police & firefighters AND landlords all benefit from government support to themselves and their clients. Aren't most of the prisoners mental cases.
We are wasting our time on them

and listen to Putin33 on the subject of Weed; its true. I used to support its legalization but not anymore

On the issue of abortion- The only reason it exists is that the republicans needed to increase their voter base back in the early eighties. Freaking out alot of stay at home moms who wouldn't otherwise care less about politics. Abortion films were shown at church gatherings to convince by use of horror. The same tactic is used to convince to war

@loowkey, just curious, but have you ever put your hand on a pregnant woman's belly and felt the baby kicking inside? What'd you think when you felt that? Or how about this, have you ever sat with a couple weeping over the loss of a baby through miscarriage? What did you think about their pain? Or have you ever lost a baby yourself? Did you just say, "Meh"? Or did you ever sit with a weeping woman who chokes out through her tears, "I've hated myself for thirty years for killing my baby"?

Some of us don't need "horror films" to convince us the unborn are human.

Did you ever meet a drug addict who is addicted to butane and is incapable of using contraception that has had11 children, most of them have physical and/or mental disabilities because of the drug taking in the womb. All of them without their own mother of father, wards of the state, looking for a mummy and daddy who wants to adopt a half-caste handicapped child with developmental issues.
Horror films are just imagination, the truth is much much sadder and scarier.

' Or how about
this, have you ever sat with a couple weeping over the loss of a baby through
miscarriage? What did you think about their pain? '

Is that not like comparing a fatal road traffic accident to a soilder in Iraq shooting someone for (what he thinks) is a good reason?

One is a loss where nobody meant it to happen, the other is seen as a good thing. They are not the same, and being unable to see that really says something about your levels of empathy.

Ora - So you pick just one of his examples (stated to show the child in the womb is a life) but completely ignore the example he provided with the woman who hates herself for having gotten an abortion.

Perhaps we need horror stories to convince us that war is wrong, that human life is valuable no matter the cultural differences... I mean sure sometimes War helps to win votes, or better oil exploitation 'rights' or even on some rare occasions it is forced upon us by enemies attacking (Japan didn't bother working with the US to become a joint trading power dominating the Atlantic, because their attitude was that dominance would be necessary... As is the current US attitide, even if it will not be possible in the future)

@Draug, are there any people who don't hate themselves? I mean the arguement could have been made without reference to miscarriage. It was stupid and flawed.

That ruined anything else he tried to say in that paragraph. I could have responded with a swift mute, or ignored and went about my merry day.

I was doing some bookkeeping for a very religious man today, on his desk handwritten were the words "God has granted us the freedom to choose, but with it comes the responsibility of the consequences."

I don't understand why so many people can be against people making their own choices, for better or worse. Learn from mistakes, don't dwell on them - is what I would tell that heartbroken woman.

Anyone who wishes to take away the freedom of choice, whichever choice that may be, is without a doubt wishing to harm society.

Platitude platitude platitude platitude platitude is what I think.

I strongly believe that platitude platitude platitude.

Therefore, I'll always support platitude platitude platitude platitude platitude.

Nigee, I'll answer your question though you haven't answered mine. Yes, I have met drug addicts - maybe not one addicted to butane with 11 babies, but I have met people who are having babies that they can't take responsibility for, and on occasion I have held those babies.

Question: Does having a mental or physical handicap diminish the humanity of a baby? How? Why? What other categories of sub-humans are there, if any?

The point is there is no shortage of babies on the planet, the problem is over-population. If you don't like people dying are you anti-army, they kill loads of people. What about guns, they kill a lot of people cars are reasonably dangerous, knives are naughty, what about living in a country that embargoes basic medical supplies so that 250,000 babies and young children in a 'foreign' country die due to lack of clean water. Why would you want to take away a womans right to choose when women are suffering all over our planet for that right to say what happens to their own body ...... let me guess, because you're deeply religious. God would strike you down for your actions, there will be no Rapture for you. It's her body not yours, who do you think you are you pious arrogant sanctimonious twat !!

@Ora - whether someone is slain in an accident or intentionally in war has nothing to do with whether the deceased is a human. Certainly a soldier is authorized and ordered by his government to kill - and for the sake of the discussion let's say the war is justified - but it doesn't change the fact that the guy on the other end of the gun is human. I'm going to guess that the slain soldier's family is as grieved as the auto-accident victim's family.
So show me again where my questions are "stupid and flawed", and then maybe actually answer my questions.

To me, the issue is very simple. In a free society, one who has reached the age of majority has an unalienable Right to do and say what they please so long as those actions don't infringe upon the Rights of another person. This idea that a government can make the use of a substance illegal goes against the very foundations of the freedom that is supposed to exist in our Republic. By taking drugs, owning a fire arm, or any of the other things that people are trying to legislate away, I am not harming anyone, nor infringing upon anyone's Rights. Simply because SOME people take drugs and then infringe upon the Rights of others doesn't mean that my Right to do with my body as I choose should be infringe upon.

It seems to me that people who are so diligent about legislating their way to a safer society only make things more dangerous. The prohibition on alcohol made billions for organized crime, as does the prohibition of "drugs." The bleeding hearts of the world seem to want to supplant personal responsibility for governmental responsibility. They want to pass law after law telling people what they can and cannot do, hoping that in doing so the people will stop doing self-destructive activities. They won't, and the only thing that is achieved with all these laws -- like drug laws -- is turning users into cash cows for organized crime and the judicial/prison industry.

I've always loved the fact that commiting suicide is illegal. What are they going to do? Incarcerate your dead body if you succeed? And if you fail, they have to prove you were trying and the trial will probably make you even more suicidal. And they do this instead of just getting you help. Not to mention, insanity is a defense and I think it would be clear to anyone on the jury that the person who tried to kill themselves is probably not completely of sound mind...

And how does this relate you may ask? If I try to take my life in a way that doesn't risk anyone else's, then they are denying me a right to choose.

Just to clarify, the you/I stuff is not meaning "you" literally or actually referring to myslef. I'm not suicidal.

"It's her body not yours"

Yes, it is her body and if she wants to kill *herslef* she can. But the baby she aborts is *not* her body. It is a baby after a certain point. A life independent of hers. A life with a heartbeat and brainwaves and that can feel pain and dream (what do you think baby kicks are?). She isn't just making a choice for her own body, but for an innocent life.

I could empathize with a govt stance on protecting innocent unborn children if that were for all humanity but I know for a fact that UN/US/UK policy has directly led to untold deaths of thousands of children in foreign countries, in the most simplest of ways, preventing supplies of water purifying tablets reaching Iraqi babies back in the '90's that led to cholera, dysentery, etc. Infant mortality rate was 20%. This is just one example.but I'm sure we could name more. Morality and human rights should not stop at international boundaries.
It's not just about giving birth, it's the quality of life of that child after birth that is more important.
The US & the UK have SuperFat kids, should we not be taking legal action the parents and carers of these children for the physical abuse these children have suffered and the on-going health, social and emotional problems that will inevitably ensue..
Don't you ever see people and think 'they shouldn't be allowed to breed.'.but that is their right, if they have a right to breed no matter how fucked-up or sub-normal they are then they should have the right to terminate, it is a basic human right, just like you decide how many burgers you feed your kids or how much alcohol you drink or how many cigarettes you smoke.
If the bleeding heart Liberals who concern themselves so much about other peoples unborn babies could focus more on the quality of life of children who have been born but are being abused daily by their carers and their teachers then the issue could move on from quantity of life to quality of life.
I'm grateful to that drug addict who has had 11 children because without her we wouldn't have our young daughter Mary-Hannah but does that make it right, no I don't think so. In society today the right to an abortion must be protected and in some cases encouraged, so should some sterilization of both men and women, some people should not be allowed to breed.