U.S. House passes "Protect Life Act"

[Cecilie1200]

Let me help everyone out here.

Abortion Laws = big government.

There, I solved your stupid dillema.

Giving the government control over a woman's uterus is about as big as it gets.

So you all know, The Soviet Union under Stalin had this particular gem of a law. (Basically what every conservative wants supposedly)

On June 27, 1936 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR issued a decree that prohibited abortions, while increasing financial help to mothers, families with multiple children, expanding the availability of obstetrical services and childcare facilities, more strictly enforcing child support obligations, and providing for minor changes in the divorce law.[4] Abortion was allowed only in exceptional cases, such as a severe threat to a woman’s life or health, or upon indication of debilitating hereditary diseases of the parents.

Interesting how STOPPING the government's involvement with abortions is "giving the government control over a woman's uterus". As a woman, I personally do not feel that someone who is NOT paying for my medical procedures is controlling any part of my body.

If I ever again wish to have help in thinking like an utter drooling moron, I'll definitely call you. You're clearly the expert in that area.

 

[Unkotare]

Giving the government control over a woman's uterus is about as big as it gets.

Empty emo sloganeering.

 

[Photonic]

Giving the government control over a woman's uterus is about as big as it gets.

Empty emo sloganeering.

My point is that ending abortion is WHAT THEY WANT, this is just a step.

My point is that giving the government control over parts of your body doesn't' get any bigger!


Look to the USSR for the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who ask the government to step in on such issues are statists, without a doubt.

Conservatives want the government to interfere in a person's private life.

Well, then, they are not conservatives, are they?

 

[Photonic]

Those who ask the government to step in on such issues are statists, without a doubt.

Conservatives want the government to interfere in a person's private life.

Well, then, they are not conservatives, are they?

Those laws that regulate how you can have sex.

Those always make me laugh.

 

[Unkotare]

What absolutely stupid, emotional misdirection. Women everywhere sure as hell want the government to have a lot to do with their uterus and every other body part. Referencing a Soviet law is about as clumsy and ham-handed an attempt at distraction as can be imagined. Gee, did the Soviet Union have a law against clubbing your elderly neighbor to death if he or she was an inconvenience to you? Well then, anyone in the US today who would 'intrude' on the 'right' of someone to club their elderly neighbor to death must be just like Stalin! Whoa! USSR man! Whoa!

How fucking stupid can you be?

 

[Unkotare]

Those who ask the government to step in on such issues are statists, without a doubt.

Conservatives want the government to interfere in a person's private life.

Well, then, they are not conservatives, are they?

EVERYONE wants the government to interfere in a person's private life. The very second a crazed killer indicates an interest in ending your 'private' life you will agree whole heartedly.

 

[Photonic]

What absolutely stupid, emotional misdirection. Women everywhere sure as hell want the government to have a lot to do with their uterus and every other body part. Referencing a Soviet law is about as clumsy and ham-handed an attempt at distraction as can be imagined. Gee, did the Soviet Union have a law against clubbing your elderly neighbor to death if he or she was an inconvenience to you? Well then, anyone in the US today who would 'intrude' on the 'right' of someone to club their elderly neighbor to death must be just like Stalin! Whoa! USSR man! Whoa!

How fucking stupid can you be?

About as stupid as you can imagine, because it's all in your imagination.

Since I live in the real world, I don't want the government regulating body parts. Stalin would actually agree with the conservative agenda on this. It gives more power over the people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8]Complete History Of The Soviet Union, Arranged To The Melody Of Tetris - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

 

[Unkotare]

Those who ask the government to step in on such issues are statists, without a doubt.

Conservatives want the government to interfere in a person's private life.

Well, then, they are not conservatives, are they?

Those laws that regulate how you can have sex.

Those always make me laugh.

Really? How about the ones that regulate having sex with minors, or against someone's will, or in a manner that causes death? Do those make you laugh? You sick freak.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

I recognize how long the likes of you would survive in a state of nature.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't want the government regulating body parts.]

Yes you do.

 

[Photonic]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

I recognize how long the likes of you would survive in a state of nature.

Eagle Scout motherfucker, nature is my BITCH.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

I recognize how long the likes of you would survive in a state of nature.

Eagle Scout motherfucker, nature is my BITCH.

That's great, you wore the kerchief and little short pants until long past when it got creepy. Way to go. In an actual state of nature (maybe you don't understand the term) you wouldn't last as long as an ice cream cone in July.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

I recognize how long the likes of you would survive in a state of nature.

Far longer than you, without a doubt. I would be the ultimat libertarian: as the first among a society of equals, we would terrorize the sheep like you.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

I recognize how long the likes of you would survive in a state of nature.

Far longer than you, without a doubt. .

Guess again. You would be digested and pooped out before sundown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quote it all, fraidy: "Far longer than you, without a doubt. I would be the ultimat libertarian: as the first among a society of equals, we would terrorize the sheep like you".

You would be the camp's butt boy, Unkotare, for the guys who wanted one. You would have no chance at all. Folks like you are so predictable, so easy to manage, to dominate. You make me laugh.

 

[Photonic]

Unkotare might not recognize how risible are his remarks.

I recognize how long the likes of you would survive in a state of nature.

Far longer than you, without a doubt. I would be the ultimat libertarian: as the first among a society of equals, we would terrorize the sheep like you.

It's ok, he just can't handle that his agenda is the same as Stalin's.

It's too much for him.

 

[emilynghiem]

I was just discussing this whole health care bill with a pro-life advocate friend of mine,

how just PASSING the health care bill -- where government dictates and mandates in the private area of health decisions without consent of the people affected --

TOTALLY contradicts the ENTIRE argument for "pro-choice" defenses based on Constitutional freedom from government infringement on individual choice!

I told my friend that Obama has literally opened the door for all Pro-Life legislation to railroad whatever standards the majority can come up with, right over the consent of dissenters.

The Pro-Life movement should be celebrating the health care bill, either as a precedent to pass any laws they want, or as proof that the liberal Democrats who supported it are not pro-choice after all, but pro-politics.

Anyone can follow this precedent, and abuse majority rule to pass laws without consent of constituents.

The only way such a bill COULD have been defended Constitutionally, is if it had been passed by consensus of the public. You can pass any laws you want that way, if everyone agrees to the changes!

Without consent, you are going to get a fight.

And with something as sensitive as making people buy health insurance (instead of paying directly for any services they may use) without any option to opt out and handle their own health care privately or spiritually by "choice" they have totally gone against any sense of what "pro-choice" means, and Constitutional principles of consent of the governed.

If Obama still can't see this, he is completely blinded by politics. That's fine, but don't complain about pro-life legislation, bullying, or anything else pushed by the same methods!
Ridiculous!

==========
Note: I guess the equivalent irony: if it only takes ONE atheist to be offended and sue through Courts to remove crosses from veteran memorials or religious words off street signs, then it should take only "ONE person who believes in Constitutional free choice" offended by the religious imposition of the health care bill to sue to remove that @#$%.

Why is it okay for the minority dissenter to be protected in one instance, but not in the other? How are dissenting "Constitutional beliefs" not respected, INCLUDED and protected equally as dissenting views regarding "Christian beliefs"? Am I crazy for asking
to respect religious and political beliefs equally under Constitutional standards?
=========================
Sorry I just had to add that. I did consider suing just to make this point! Either I'm insane for my views, or the political conflicts are, one or the other. Either way calls for correction.
I just want this resolved, as it makes no sense to me!

 

[Unkotare]

You would be the camp's butt boy, .

A "camp"? Wait a minute, would this camp have any rules? How would they be set? Who would enforce them?

You idiots can't think past your own noses, that's why you'd end up in the fossil record within hours.