Greater Good VS Personal Choice

[Kathianne]

Here's coming to you, soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7091047.stm


'Get tough' call on public health
Government ministers should shrug off media accusations that they are running a nanny state and introduce tougher public health measures, experts say.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the time had come to consider a whole host of interventions in the UK after the introduction of a smoking ban...

...

"But the government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices."

...



He said: "We need the government to provide more leadership."

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, added: "Their call to examine the impact of 24-hour licensing is particularly welcome as this is most likely to impact on the health of the nation in the long-term."

The government said it was taking steps to protect public health and defended its record on alcohol in particular.

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said: "The government has introduced a comprehensive strategy to tackle the health and social affects of harmful drinking across the board."

[avatar4321]

we need people showing more leadership. not government. We need government getting out of our way.

[Kathianne]

we need people showing more leadership. not government. We need government getting out of our way.

First they came after the smokers...

[April15]

First they came after the smokers...

Thank goodness for that! Now I can breathe better when in public places.

[Trigg]

Thank goodness for that! Now I can breathe better when in public places.

I agree, next the gov. needs to look at sweets.

I get sick and tired of seeing fat people on the beach, it just isn't a good sight. They drive up the health costs of everyone else, just because they can't control their eating.






*sarcasm, folks*

[Hagbard Celine]

Thank goodness for that! Now I can breathe better when in public places.

It is wonderfully refreshing isn't it? Plus you no longer have to completely surrender everything you wear to the wash immediately after going out.

[Mr. P]

First they came after the smokers...

Then Trans fat in NYC...

[Immanuel]

First they came after the smokers...

And next they'll come after the liberals...


Thank goodness for that! Now I can breathe better when in public places.

... then what will you do April15?

Or maybe next it won't be the liberals, but rather women who have had abortions? Men with pot bellies? Your teen-aged daughters?

Sooner or later one of these untouchable classes is going to hurt all of us.

Immie

[April15]

The conservatives will kill all the libbys with or without a law. This is one who is ready to fight back!

[Hobbit]

Funny, I always thought personal choice *was* the greatest good.

[Hagbard Celine]

Funny, I always thought personal choice *was* the greatest good.

Hmm. Yet you support making abortion illegal....Awkwaaaard.:poke:

[Hobbit]

Hmm. Yet you support making abortion illegal....Awkwaaaard.:poke:

Oh please. You know and I know that choice was never the issue. The issue is how you think of the fetus. I think that a fetus is a person, and that the right of that person to live trumps the right the mother has to make a choice. You, on the other hand, believe a fetus is not a person, and therefore has its right to live trumped by the mother's choice. It's not about any perceived right to make a choice. It's about whether that right overrides the right of the fetus. The whole 'well, you're just against allowing women to make a choice' is a red herring.

[Hagbard Celine]

Oh please. You know and I know that choice was never the issue. The issue is how you think of the fetus. I think that a fetus is a person, and that the right of that person to live trumps the right the mother has to make a choice. You, on the other hand, believe a fetus is not a person, and therefore has its right to live trumped by the mother's choice. It's not about any perceived right to make a choice. It's about whether that right overrides the right of the fetus. The whole 'well, you're just against allowing women to make a choice' is a red herring.

No, I think a fetus is a person. But I think the mother's bodily rights supercede those of the growing fetus inside her. I think if she wants to abort it, she should be able to do so in a way that will ensure her safety. If you really valued personal choice as much as you say you do, it would cover this issue as well.

[Mr. P]

Oh please. You know and I know that choice was never the issue. The issue is how you think of the fetus. I think that a fetus is a person, and that the right of that person to live trumps the right the mother has to make a choice. You, on the other hand, believe a fetus is not a person, and therefore has its right to live trumped by the mother's choice. It's not about any perceived right to make a choice. It's about whether that right overrides the right of the fetus. The whole 'well, you're just against allowing women to make a choice' is a red herring.
It's more about any perceived right to interfere with a choice that one does not agree with..IMO

[JohnDoe]

Oh please. You know and I know that choice was never the issue. The issue is how you think of the fetus. I think that a fetus is a person, and that the right of that person to live trumps the right the mother has to make a choice. You, on the other hand, believe a fetus is not a person, and therefore has its right to live trumped by the mother's choice. It's not about any perceived right to make a choice. It's about whether that right overrides the right of the fetus. The whole 'well, you're just against allowing women to make a choice' is a red herring.The baby to be, NEVER TRUMPS the mother's health, because the baby has not achieved personhood untill its first breath, WITH OR WITHOUT abortion being legal. In any health circumstance, the mother wins out over the child to be, unless the mother gives up her right to live, in order to save her unborn child....the Doctor has his obligation to save the living and breathing mother.

And that is just the way it is and has been in all societies from the beginning, as far as I know?

jd

[Hobbit]

The baby to be, NEVER TRUMPS the mother's health, because the baby has not achieved personhood untill its first breath, WITH OR WITHOUT abortion being legal. In any health circumstance, the mother wins out over the child to be, unless the mother gives up her right to live, in order to save her unborn child....the Doctor has his obligation to save the living and breathing mother.

And that is just the way it is and has been in all societies from the beginning, as far as I know?

jd

Once again, you miss the entire point. The bolded portion is what is in dispute. If a fetus is a person, then the right of a mother to make a choice is outweighed by the fetus's right to live. If it's a choice between the mother and the child, then the rights are on equal footing and it's the mother's choice. Other than that, I don't see how anybody can think a fetus is a person and still support abortion.

Speaking of which, Hagbard, if a fetus is a person, but the mother's right to choose abortion trumps her child's right to live because the child affects her body, then why stop with abortion. An infant is completely dependent on the mother for life. The little bugger costs thousands a year and can, in fact, cause a huge interference in the mother's life, not to mention such physical and psychological conditions as heavy stress and post-partem depression. Given this, why isn't infanticide legal? I mean, who am I to hold a gun to a woman's head and say, "You have to raise this child." I mean, it's her child, right?

[April15]

Who is more important; the host or the hosted? I say the host as without them no hosted can exist.

[manu1959]

The baby to be, NEVER TRUMPS the mother's health, because the baby has not achieved personhood untill its first breath, WITH OR WITHOUT abortion being legal. In any health circumstance, the mother wins out over the child to be, unless the mother gives up her right to live, in order to save her unborn child....the Doctor has his obligation to save the living and breathing mother.

And that is just the way it is and has been in all societies from the beginning, as far as I know?

jd

that isn't true....scott peterson was charged with two murders and found guilty of both....

[Little-Acorn]

The abortion issue may involve several of the issues you have described. But what actually keeps it going on the American political scene, has nothing to do with abortion per se.

The main concern of liberal politicians pushing the abortion issue, is the appointment of judges that do or don't support the interpretation of the Constitution as protecting a right of privacy so all-encompassing that it includes a "right" to abortion.

Those supporting such an all-encompassing right are, of course, completely wrong. The Constitution doesn't support such a thing, and never did - it's a "right" made up out of thin air.

And THAT'S what the liberal politicians are after - judges who recognize "rights" and other features in the Constitution, that don't actually exist. The "right" to abortion, simply makes a convenient litmus test. If a judicial appointee supports the "right" to abortion, he'll support anything, no matter how unconnected to the actual Constitution it is. And that's the kind of judge liberals want. Their entire agenda, cannot survive without them.

Yes, abortion is an important issue, and to many people it's the MOST important issue.

But to liberal politicians, it is secondary to the pushing of their entire agenda. It's just a handy way to determining if a judge will also support the kind of twisted "interpretations" of the Constitution that will permit the Federal government to control more and more of people's lives and economies.

[Kathianne]

The abortion issue may involve several of the issues you have described. But what actually keeps it going on the American political scene, has nothing to do with abortion per se.



who is the YOU?

[Little-Acorn]

Sort of means "You all", though I'm not southern. Hobbit, Hagbard, Mr.P, JohnDoe, etc. all talked about various issues.

I merely wanted to point out that, while such issues are important, the attention paid to JUDGES as a solution, rather than legislators, indicates that there is more at stake than only abortion "rights". The Constitution does not favor liberal politicians and their overall agenda. It was designed to limit the central (Federal) government to only the things that were written in it, plus whatever was added via the amendment process. The rest was to be left to lower government and/or private people and groups. So the lib politicians need judges who will buy remote and farfetched arguments, basically changing the meaning of the Constitution to allow the central government to assume powers that in fact aren't in the Constitution.

Judges who rule that there is a Constitutional "right" to abortion, can be counted on to render such silly and extra-constitutional rulings in many other fields, too. They are what the liberal politicians want, in fact they depend on them.

[Roadrunner]

In my opinion, the woman's right to choose is at the point when she decides if she want to become pregnant or not. That's the core of the whole problem. Why take the chance on getting pregnant when contraceptives are available? Of course, such women don't like to take responsibility for their own actions. They know the lawyers will step in an make everything right.

[JohnDoe]

that isn't true....scott peterson was charged with two murders and found guilty of both....

what i stated is absolutely correct, the baby to be does not trump the mother to be in any health issue.

And also, the death to Laci Peterson's child to be, Conner, was not and never was considered a "person" or to have achieved "personhood", but considered a victim.


california law...12022.9. (a) Any person who, during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, knows or reasonably should know that the victim is pregnant, and who, with intent to inflict injury, and without the consent of the woman, personally inflicts injury upon a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the pregnancy shall, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed by the felony or attempted felony of which the person has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of five years in the state prison. The additional term provided in this subdivision shall not be imposed unless the fact of that injury is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by the trier of fact.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting the applicability of subdivision (a) of Section 187 of the Penal Code.


The new federal lacy or connor peterson Law passed in 2004


The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 34 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[3]

[JohnDoe]

Btw, let me say that these laws that cover the unborn child as a victim also, IF the mother is killed are very good laws and are needed.

The number one reason for death, in Pregnant women is not high blood pressure, is not breast cancer, is not from heart disease, is not from the delivery process of their child, but is from them being murdered, by their spouse or by the "father to be".

[Trigg]

Btw, let me say that these laws that cover the unborn child as a victim also, IF the mother is killed are very good laws and are needed.

.

I completely agree.