Less choice coming for New York City

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

What was the penalty in 1972 and prior?

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Yeah, but New York says that you can't make that decision. They don't trust you to make that decision. You're thinking in terms of having complete information to make the decision with, which is certainly a reasonable way to look at it.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. There are legal limits on when abortions can be performed. And taxpayer dollars don't pay for any of it.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. There are legal limits on when abortions can be performed. And taxpayer dollars don't pay for any of it.

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?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

"If I wanted the government in my vagina, I'd screw a Senator".

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

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Isn't the punishment being legally responsible for 18 years of emotional and financial expense you didn't want? Bet that's a great life for that unwanted, unplanned child!

Of course, the anti-abortion folks don't care about fetuses once they breath oxygen, and they sure as hell don't want any financial support to the mother and child after the kid is born.

Thinking sex is only for procreation is ridiculous. And the new, "no birth control for you, either!" bullshi.a.t by those that want to own women and keep them barefoot, pregnant and dependent - well, that's not gonna work, fellas.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The size of beer bottles, the volume of alcohol that can be served in "one serving" in bars, etc. is very heavily controlled in some jurisdictions.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And corporations fought very hard in the 1960s against having to do that.

Here in NYC, places like Starbucks and movie theaters are required to list the calories on what they sell. I know it's really affected what I buy. Eight hundred calories for a lousy dish of movie nachos? Fuggedaboutit.

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

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Where did I say I was for government intervention?

I am against the government intervention that continues to keep the massacre of babies in utero legal.Had the Supreme Court not acted in 1973, the deadlock in the case would have prevented the killing of that human being, and of course the erroneous precedent that one parent alone can order the execution of her would-be child would never have been established.

The fathers aren't off the hook either. It's wrong to set up that situation and then be nowhere to be found. Everybody should learn a little self control instead of acting mentally like children, who then don't want children.

Find a dictionary printed prior to 1973 and you may find a word : aborticide.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not quite the same. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution and explicitly stated. Abortion is "deemed" a right because a majority of Justices in 1973 found a "right to privacy" that was not written down in the Constitution, and used that as a basis for another unwritten right.

Also, abortion cannot be used in self-defense like a firearm can. 200 million plus firearms in the country and only the smallest fraction is ever used in a crime.

Every abortion means that a life was snuffed out - many of us see that as murder, regardless of the age of the victim, and regardless that there were no witnesses except the doctor who killed the victim.

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

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.

[Danzig]

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.