Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson Signs Into Law A Near-Total Abortion Ban

[Cecilie1200]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

Nope. There's a very large difference between saying, "Your life has value, therefore I will stop you from jumping off that ledge rather than just walking past", and trying to take full responsibility for the finances and personal decisions of other people. You seem to want to see this as some all-or-nothing binary: either we are all complete islands unto ourselves, doing whatever we want and utterly ignoring each other, or we are a complete collective with no individual boundaries.

 

[Dayton3]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

Providing "free stuff" for everyone is not necessarily an indicator of how society values life.

 

[there4eyeM]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

Surely, you are not suggesting that we do not already?

No, although we have moved quite a ways that direction, and are continuing to move that way.

Or, rather, it already is and the "do we want to" question is about the continuous instead of the future tense.

 

[there4eyeM]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

It devalues your life as, and because, it devalues life itself. Life is like a spirit that can be affected by how it is regarded and treated. Much of history and life is and has been determined by people whose thoughts and feelings are not those to which we are "naturally disposed".

 

[bodecea]

Can't stop cousins having babies.

 

[Dayton3]

Can't stop cousins having babies.

What makes you think that is any kind of a problem in Arkansas? Giving in to mindless stereotyping I see.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

Nope. There's a very large difference between saying, "Your life has value, therefore I will stop you from jumping off that ledge rather than just walking past", and trying to take full responsibility for the finances and personal decisions of other people. You seem to want to see this as some all-or-nothing binary: either we are all complete islands unto ourselves, doing whatever we want and utterly ignoring each other, or we are a complete collective with no individual boundaries.

To commit a suicide is also a personal decision. As well as a personal decision is to live a life on food stamps rather than getting a job. The difference between them is the former is based mostly on emotional reasons, but the latter is on personal preferences of life. And because of that the former can be prevented more 'easily'.

I am not discouraging people from helping the ones who want to commit a suicide. On the contrary. Moreover, I support those who would offer their hand to those who lost their footing. But that wasnt my point.

My point was about a state's stance for people who want to end their lives. Of course, the police should be engaged if someone wants to jump from a bridge or cut their veins. But what about voluntary euthanasia? Isnt that a right of a person to choose the end of their life?

 

[Dayton3]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

Nope. There's a very large difference between saying, "Your life has value, therefore I will stop you from jumping off that ledge rather than just walking past", and trying to take full responsibility for the finances and personal decisions of other people. You seem to want to see this as some all-or-nothing binary: either we are all complete islands unto ourselves, doing whatever we want and utterly ignoring each other, or we are a complete collective with no individual boundaries.

To commit a suicide is also a personal decision. As well as a personal decision is to live a life on food stamps rather than getting a job. The difference between them is the former is based mostly on emotional reasons, but the latter is on personal preferences of life. And because of that the former can be prevented more 'easily'.

I am not discouraging people from helping the ones who want to commit a suicide. On the contrary. Moreover, I support those who would offer their hand to those who lost their footing. But that wasnt my point.

My point was about a state's stance for people who want to end their lives. Of course, the police should be engaged if someone wants to jump from a bridge or cut their veins. But what about voluntary euthanasia? Isnt that a right of a person to choose the end of their life?

No..

 

[JGalt]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

I can't be achieved. China has free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc. And in spite of those things, human life is worth nothing. They also have slave labor, rolling execution vans or an AK round to the head, and a vibrant market in human body parts.

Anybody who believes there is an idyllic utopia of socialism wouldn't really enjoy the true misery that comes with it.

 

[JGalt]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

Nope. There's a very large difference between saying, "Your life has value, therefore I will stop you from jumping off that ledge rather than just walking past", and trying to take full responsibility for the finances and personal decisions of other people. You seem to want to see this as some all-or-nothing binary: either we are all complete islands unto ourselves, doing whatever we want and utterly ignoring each other, or we are a complete collective with no individual boundaries.

To commit a suicide is also a personal decision. As well as a personal decision is to live a life on food stamps rather than getting a job. The difference between them is the former is based mostly on emotional reasons, but the latter is on personal preferences of life. And because of that the former can be prevented more 'easily'.

I am not discouraging people from helping the ones who want to commit a suicide. On the contrary. Moreover, I support those who would offer their hand to those who lost their footing. But that wasnt my point.

My point was about a state's stance for people who want to end their lives. Of course, the police should be engaged if someone wants to jump from a bridge or cut their veins. But what about voluntary euthanasia? Isnt that a right of a person to choose the end of their life?

All of your "rights" were given by God and instituted by those people who believe in Him. There is no "right" to end one's life and truthfully, God detests suicide as much as He does any other sin.

One who commits suicide will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but will be eternally-damned to the lake of fire in their afterlife.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

I can't be achieved. China has free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc. And in spite of those things, human life is worth nothing. They also have slave labor, rolling execution vans or an AK round to the head, and a vibrant market in human body parts.

Anybody who believes there is an idyllic utopia of socialism wouldn't really enjoy the true misery that comes with it.

Man, I understand and fully agree with this. My post was to show to which extremes things may come in the argument about 'invaluable' human live. I am certain there are a lot of people who support the 'free stuff', rationalizing it in this way.

 

[ESay]

You can't do drugs, you can't prostitute yourself, and you can't kill yourself

Why is that? And who is to prevent you from that? A vice squad?

Well, yes, law enforcement DOES prevent you from doing all those things, as much as they possibly can.

Yes, that is true. The question is to what extent they should be involved in these cases.

Well, that requires answering a deeper and more fundamental question: Do we want to live in a society that treats people as disposable?

I think that the first question should be: Do we want to live in a free society? And what a free society actually is?

I think you should consider that the more important of those two words is "society". We have come to erroneously equate freedom with anarchy, which would be the antithesis of any society at all.

Yes, there should be the golden mean. Basically, the rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I think it's more than just "Your rights can't interfere with my rights." We are a society; we are social animals. For all that we keep moving away from it, we are naturally disposed to value, care about, and empathize with each other. And we are interconnected and interdependent on each other. In a philosophical yet very real way, for me to say, "It does not matter if that person's life is thrown away" is to devalue my own life.

Well, in theory a person's life has the highest value. In theory. But how can this be achieved on practice? What should a society look like to be in line with this principle?

In theory, this society should include free health care for all, universal pensions for the old, vast social programs for the poor, state housing for the homeless etc.

Nope. There's a very large difference between saying, "Your life has value, therefore I will stop you from jumping off that ledge rather than just walking past", and trying to take full responsibility for the finances and personal decisions of other people. You seem to want to see this as some all-or-nothing binary: either we are all complete islands unto ourselves, doing whatever we want and utterly ignoring each other, or we are a complete collective with no individual boundaries.

To commit a suicide is also a personal decision. As well as a personal decision is to live a life on food stamps rather than getting a job. The difference between them is the former is based mostly on emotional reasons, but the latter is on personal preferences of life. And because of that the former can be prevented more 'easily'.

I am not discouraging people from helping the ones who want to commit a suicide. On the contrary. Moreover, I support those who would offer their hand to those who lost their footing. But that wasnt my point.

My point was about a state's stance for people who want to end their lives. Of course, the police should be engaged if someone wants to jump from a bridge or cut their veins. But what about voluntary euthanasia? Isnt that a right of a person to choose the end of their life?

All of your "rights" were given by God and instituted by those people who believe in Him. There is no "right" to end one's life and truthfully, God detests suicide as much as He does any other sin.

One who commits suicide will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but will be eternally-damned to the lake of fire in their afterlife.

I am not an atheist. But now is the 21st century and we should admit already that any religion isn't true enough to dominate over humans lives. That is just a way to explain their idea of God based on 'local' social, historical and cultural background. No religion or religious view should have a monopoly in a free society.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is easy to talk about 'God'. It is ridiculous to speak for 'God'. Those who claim to believe in 'God' often evidence no understanding of what 'God' could possibly be. Thus, they shame themselves and make it more difficult to discuss 'God'. It is impossible to see how this would ingratiate them with any deity.

 

[Missourian]

Just remember that all life is precious unless it's a liberal or an illegal.

Hell...I'd save an illegal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just remember that all life is precious unless it's a liberal or an illegal.

Hell...I'd save an illegal.

Succinctly, you have spot lit the difference between the Left and the Right.

 

[LuckyDuck]

1. How difficult is it to simply put on a condom?! If you can't wait that long, you're too immature to be having sex.
2. Abortions should be allowed in cases of incest or rape. I also fail to see the need to wait so long that the abortion would be considered late term. Once you've established that you're pregnant, if you don't want it, abort it. But, don't wait until the final trimester.