Alot of death and infection from back street abortions.

Get used to this reality, Joey: I have no right to force you to take an unwanted child that needs a father as a random result of you having sex. You have no right to force a woman to abort a child. And you have no right to force women to bear a child.

You don't want women to have abortions? Then I suggest you always wear condoms, you start adopting babies like mad, and you start providing free birth control to every girl over the age of 12.

:zz: No they don't. That information is already there on the freaking bottles, Joey. Federal edict: basic nutritional information has to be available. Oh, and in restaurants, too. The horrible, nasty federales. Taking your freedomz. While you eagerly take away other people's. Heh.

So there is no limit on the number of first trimester abortions (or executions) that can be carried out? That's what I said - you can abort as many babies as you want (every baby has a first trimester), but you can't get a soda larger than 16 oz in New York City.

And what about GenuineRisk's pointing out that the money must be coming from somewhere if they are not collecting the revenue from the woman to pay for it?

As long as I'm not paying for the consequences, and nobody dies as a result, I don't care you screw.

This is one of the problems with liberals: they confuse responsibility with punishment.

Whose fault is it that the child is unplanned and unwanted?

It's not up to the pro-life people to manage the situation of the irresponsible people who get pregnant without a contingency plan for becoming a parent.

Sex is not just for procreation of course - but it does always have the risk of it resulting in that. If you cannot accept the risk, don't engage in the behavior. It's that simple.

If you cannot accept the risk, however small, of a car accident, do not ride in a car as driver or passenger. If you cannot accept the risk of a loss of capital, do not invest in the stock market. If you cannot accept the risk of losing a football game, do not play for the team.

This is only "confusing" because people are letting their loins do the thinking.

Take precautions - minimize the risk - but realize that no precaution is perfect, and in light of that should a pregnancy occur, affirm that you will not murder, and instead your life will take a different course. That is the risk.

Yes, that's a state or local level ordinance thing. But it hasn't reached the nuisance level did. I said the "shot glass" rule because Bloomberg's way of thinking can be applied anywhere, arbitrarily, and result in a nuisance for the customer.

Government ought not be promoting nuisance laws. He should have better things to do, like making sure New York City operates on a surplus and not a debt. If he did that already, great. I confess that I don't know the exact state of NYC's budget this year.

There should be a lot of risks in carrying out a murder, don't you think? And those risks should deter the act.

I don't have to start "adopting babies like mad". Get used to this reality - when the social "safety net" (that has been instead a hammock for many people) breaks, we will return to the true nature of things, where each person bears the consequence for their own actions and is forced to take responsibility since they can't shift it elsewhere.

That is reality. The social spending and the loophole allowing for legal murder only by expectant mothers is the fabrication, the artificial state of affairs.

You've got this bass ackwards.

I know it's there. I was responding to Danzig who thought that even more info could be posted there.

:tro::tro:

Somehow not included in this, they outstrip soda calories by a big margin with their drinks.

I heard initially that it was to also apply to the 20 oz "Venti" coffee size @ Starbucks. But then the stories coming out just highlighted soda.

The thing is - I for instance don't put sugar in my coffee at all - but why would Starbucks continue to carry 20 oz cups at all if the majority of the time the law would not allow them to be used because of the sugar content?

So I would be "participating" in the ban as well, even though 20 oz of black coffee still has zero calories.

it removed government intervention, but nice try. and i'm figuring you're also in favor of the all the limits placed by govt since then (waiting limits, ultrasounds, etc)-you never answered the question i asked, which tells me all i need to know.

separation of church and state is also not explicitly stated.

and many do see it as murder, but many others do not. and much like having the right to bear arms, you don't have to actively participate in a right given you.
so, joey, don't have any abortions. you have every right to your opinions. you do not however have the right to dictate to others based on your opinions. and that's exactly what the supreme court ruled back than. i know many want to have full control over women, but i guess they just don't have that right.

The intervention of the Supreme Court ruling has not been undone - unfortunately for the 40 million plus victims.

Separation of church and state is not an element of the Constitution per se - it comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Of course nearly all of us agree with that principle.

However, the definition of when life begins is as much an element of science as it is of religion, and conservatism (NOT political conservatism - but just the reserve that goes along with making an important and irrevocable decision) dictates that if there is the slightest possibility that this is a murder, it should not be done. Period.

http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks...hocolate-mocha
500 calories per 16oz. I believe I will have a Coke.

you're dodging the question, because you don't want to concede you agree completely with every tactic used to thwart something you personally don't agree with.
the supreme court ruled that it's a right to privacy, and i agree with them. it's none of your business. no one is saying people should agree with the ruling, or that you can't hold your opinion. you have every right to it-but your right to your beliefs doesn't grant you leave to force others to follow your opinions.

i know full well where church and state is found-that was my point. it's not explicitly listed in the constitution, along with a lot of other things.

as for when life begins, no one has answered that question. it's your opinion of when it begins, just like i have mine, and others have theirs. i don't want policy like that set based on feeling, emotion or opinion.
don't agree that it should be done, don't do it.

and joey, i'm not trying to get you to change your mind-that would be impossible.
rather, you just need to understand that not everyone sees things the same way as you.