Pilot's Political Orientation

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

"There ought to be limits to freedom"
-George W. Bush


Yes, and the limits ought to be other people's freedom, nothing else.

"Pete" wrote in message
...

Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't
ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one)


The "you can't control my body" argument of the pro-abortion crowd never
made sense to me. As I see it, in a free society a person owns their own
body. It's their property. They can do whatever they like with it. Tattoo
it, pierce it, amputate a limb, alter it any way you want. It's yours. You
want to inject drugs into it? That's fine by me, just don't operate a motor
vehicle on a public road while you're under the influence. You want to rent
it out to a lonely man for a short time? Fine. You can do anything you
want to your own body, even destroy it. But you can't do that to the body
of another, including an unborn body. That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another. The "you can't control my body" argument is
actually an argument AGAINST abortion.

Gene Seibel wrote:
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
.com...

I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Few of us will
change our minds, unless we have no convictions to start with.

You don't change your mind when someone offers a better
explanation/argument?


Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.



That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.

Neither was taxation... sigh.

Matt

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

Susan B. Anthony advocated banning abortion based on men forcing their women
to abort. She was successful in nearly every US State. The issue of who's
money is it has much to do with abortion.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.


Well, then, let's not prohibit abortion, let's just prohibit the ending of a
life not your own.



When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.


Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...


Dude wrote:

snip


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due
to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.


All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too
involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better
off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have
been
better off without college.

That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip



That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?


Explain.