Abortion, if you object does that mean you want to control women's uteri

[Canna Sylvan]

We get it, you're an uncaring asshole. You don't need to prove it by bragging about it when you give blow jobs to your lover Harrekin with likes when he flaunts his amoralist rants.

 

[Trolling]

I prolly fight with Harrekin more than I agree with him lol. Like I've stated before and can't say enough, I take each post with a grain of salt which means I don't hold grudges, I've been using the internet and forums way too long to do that anymore. I'm just saying you don't have to bring up now healthy or how much being a vegan rocks, it gets annoying is all.




And you're are kinda right in a sense. We might have another war just because the Syrian leader wants to start using a chemical weapon
on his people, fuck the middle east, let them kill each other off already.

 

[Harrekin]

We get it, you're an uncaring asshole. You don't need to prove it by bragging about it when you give blow jobs to your lover Harrekin with likes when he flaunts his amoralist rants.

Take your pills man, you're living at both poles with your self righteous butthurt.

Since when is being fat ok? You can't even refer to a fat person as fat and that's what Id call "enabling".

Being fat needs to be wrong again, that's how you cure people of obesity related illness, stop them being obese.

 

[canndo]

Take your pills man, you're living at both poles with your self righteous butthurt.

Since when is being fat ok? You can't even refer to a fat person as fat and that's what Id call "enabling".

Being fat needs to be wrong again, that's how you cure people of obesity related illness, stop them being obese.

Fat people? I blame Bush.

 

[ArcticGranite]

Yep, you weren't aborted, so you have no opinion on others having the "right" either.

I'll decide if I need a carrot eating bunny hugger to define rights to me, or not!

 

[Harrekin]

Fat people? I blame Bush.

Epic.......

 

[Red1966]

I agree. Government needs to ban all unhealthy foods and force veganism on the populace because people are too stupid to eat properly on their own.

I agree. Government needs to force people to eat their own.

 

[Red1966]

ROFL! If you need the government to tell you what not to eat, you deserve to be a fat unhealthy fuck. Fruits, vegetables, lean meats... it's pretty simple If anything, there should be higher taxes on businesses that promote unhealthy diets. Don't they have a cigarette tax to combat all the ailments that smoking tobacco can lead to?

They have a cigarette tax, but it doesn't combat the ailments, or even use of, tobacco.

 

[Harrekin]

They have a cigarette tax, but it doesn't combat the ailments, or even use of, tobacco.

It pays for Obamas cigarettes tho.

 

[UncleBuck]

They have a cigarette tax, but it doesn't combat the ailments, or even use of, tobacco.

you're not too bright, are ya stormfront red?

Tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what_we_do/state_local/taxes/

 

[UncleBuck]

It pays for Obamas cigarettes tho.

pays for a lot more than that! obama quit smoking a while back, by the way.

Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing smoking. Higher tobacco taxes also save money by reducing tobacco-related health care costs, including Medicaid expenses. States can realize even greater health benefits and cost savings by allocating some of the revenue to programs that prevent children from smoking and help smokers quit.

i'm a smoker and i fully support heavy cigarette tax increases. we impose greater costs on society than you could really imagine.

 

[Harrekin]

pays for a lot more than that! obama quit smoking a while back, by the way.

Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing smoking. Higher tobacco taxes also save money by reducing tobacco-related health care costs, including Medicaid expenses. States can realize even greater health benefits and cost savings by allocating some of the revenue to programs that prevent children from smoking and help smokers quit.

i'm a smoker and i fully support heavy cigarette tax increases. we impose greater costs on society than you could really imagine.

Should cannabis be taxed at the same level?

How come (in your mind) people should be allowed make the choice to smoke cannabis but not cigarettes?

 

[ChesusRice]

Should cannabis be taxed at the same level?

How come (in your mind) people should be allowed make the choice to smoke cannabis but not cigarettes?

Yes Cannabis should be taxed at a higher level. But there should be no taxes on growing your own.
An even better scenario (opposed by some figure out why) is make Weed Legal to possess and grow
Illegal to sell

 

[ginwilly]

Yes Cannabis should be taxed at a higher level. But there should be no taxes on growing your own.
An even better scenario (opposed by some figure out why) is make Weed Legal to possess and grow
Illegal to sell

wouldn't that law discriminate against those that don't have the resources, space, ability to grow? I know it's better than illegal, but at least illegal has the same effect on everyone. Not everyone can grow, some apartment complexes won't allow it, some work out of town or any other myriad of reasons a person wasn't able to grow.

You proposal is still better than status quo, but is inherently an unfair law.

 

[Harrekin]

wouldn't that law discriminate against those that don't have the resources, space, ability to grow? I know it's better than illegal, but at least illegal has the same effect on everyone. Not everyone can grow, some apartment complexes won't allow it, some work out of town or any other myriad of reasons a person wasn't able to grow.

You proposal is still better than status quo, but is inherently an unfair law.

Chesus wants it "sort of" legal cos it suits him.

He doesn't paint his house till the city cite him for it either.

Chesus is God of his world, fuck everyone else.

 

[ChesusRice]

wouldn't that law discriminate against those that don't have the resources, space, ability to grow? I know it's better than illegal, but at least illegal has the same effect on everyone. Not everyone can grow, some apartment complexes won't allow it, some work out of town or any other myriad of reasons a person wasn't able to grow.

You proposal is still better than status quo, but is inherently an unfair law.

Pot, dirt autoflower seed table

Unless you are homeless
You can grow

 

[desert dude]

Yes Cannabis should be taxed at a higher level. But there should be no taxes on growing your own.
An even better scenario (opposed by some figure out why) is make Weed Legal to possess and grow
Illegal to sell

So, maintain the status quo. Keep the black market. Great idea, Cheesy. Exactly what I have come to expect from you.

 

[UncleBuck]

Should cannabis be taxed at the same level?

the answer is dependent on the costs it imposes on society, which we don't know yet.

How come (in your mind) people should be allowed make the choice to smoke cannabis but not cigarettes?

people should have the choice to smoke both, and should foot the costs of each instead of passing them onto society. if the mechanism that does this is a tax on the user, so be it.

 

[ginjawarrior]

pays for a lot more than that! obama quit smoking a while back, by the way.

Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing smoking. Higher tobacco taxes also save money by reducing tobacco-related health care costs, including Medicaid expenses. States can realize even greater health benefits and cost savings by allocating some of the revenue to programs that prevent children from smoking and help smokers quit.

i'm a smoker and i fully support heavy cigarette tax increases. we impose greater costs on society than you could really imagine.

actually we don't. a sad fact is that smokers die younger faster and cheaper than healthy livers that combined with tobacco taxes we pay more back than we receive

"The actual numbers for lifetime from 20 years old medical costs were:

The lifetime costs were in Euros:
Healthy: 281,000
Obese: 250,000
Smokers: 220,000"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/



​

 

[Truncheon]

i'a woman who dares to exercise autonomy over her own body

My understanding is that pregnancy, by definition, involves two bodies. The question is, should the little one be allowed to exercise autonomy? I don't see any moral distinction between deeming someone non-person based on youth, or based on skin color, it's the same error. And I'm not the one who designed it so that babies are inside of women for their first nine months.

The answer to the OP's question is, no. Restricting abortion is not a matter of "controlling a woman's uterus". No more than banning public urination involves controlling someone's bladder. A reasonable person says you have full autonomy over your bladder, but you can't pee in the public fountain. Likewise, you have full control over your uterus, but you can't kill the baby that's in there except in exceptional cases such as rape or imminent death due to pregnancy. Some due process required, to ensure you're not fibbing, since generally speaking we don't allow no-fault killing of people.

Restricting abortion comes from a concern for innocent youth, who by the laws of nature ... like us all ... spends his first nine months inside a womb. Being young and concealed shouldn't justify unilateral killing in the absence of due process. It's no different than the morality of slavery.