You need to brush up on your reading comprehension, first, seeing as I never said anything remotely close to "right not to an abortion".
That's not something like "People have a right to live in a region that doesn't allow abortions".
By the way, it is ironic that you used a logical fallacy (the strawman) to claim I need to brush up on my logic skills.
:rofl
Wonder why you have no credibility? Wonder no longer.
Just curious, does the same logic apply to arsenic? Do the companies "have a right to put as much arsenic into their product as they want to." Or a can baby formula company put as much dog feces into its product as it wants to without telling anyone?
I see no problem with regulatory oversight.
I just disagree with intrastate trade being regulated by the Feds. Interstate trade is all theirs.
Should we have no speed limits at all, or no regulation of alcohol though?
Well speed limits are another argument, but yes, we do have be reasonable. The point of my post is that just because something another person does can affect you, that doesn't give you the right to control them.
Yes, that's what you really said.
It makes as much sense.
Do people have a right to freedom of religion, but also a right to live where there are no Muslims or Jews too? Or freedom of the press, but also a right to live in a place where they don't have to see other people reading stuff they don't like?
Hmmm. How exactly does one have a right to something and also a right to live where nobody can get it at the same time?
A food manufacturer isn't going to sell something as immediately dangerous as arsenic in their food
However, it is still up to the consumer to have reasonable knowledge of what they're buying. The amount of salt per serving, serving sizes, and how the amount makes up daily recommended intake are all on the container. I would consider that within the realm of reasonable knowledge.
Right. But sometimes it does. That's the whole basis of civil society - some things you are free to do despite their effect on others, some you're not.
No it isn't, which is why you need to brush up on reading comprehension.
The first step is to make an effort to understand what you are reading instead of inventing completely different meanings and steadfastly adhering to theses inventions.
If you put no effort into understanding, you will never achieve understanding.
Yes, they have that right. And they can exercise said right by moving to a region where these people aren't present. It's not like every neighborhood has a mandatory Muslim or Jew or guy reading certain books.
If someone they don't like moves next door, they merely have to move again to exercise their right.
Are you in favor of banning people's right to move into the neighborhood of their choosing?Do you not believe it is the right of a person to move to a place of their choosing?
It's about choice. It is impossible to prevent a woman from exercising her right to abort her child. She will always be free to use a coat hanger in her own home. That's why abortion is a right.
If it could not be self-administered (and I don't give a rat's ass about safety, there is no right to have an abortion safely) it would not be a right.
What isn't a right is legal access to a service-provider for abortions.
This is why your argument is a strawman. You mistakenly believe that my statement that a woman has the right to an abortion extends beyond the simple right to abort the fetus and into the right to have a service provided at cost.
Not all rights are freely exercised.
And I don't consider what I eat to be any of your business. Yes, it could raise the costs in the future slightly. However, I see this as a reason to privatize more care instead of using some control of my life as an excuse to control more.
And that's fine.
As long as you acknowledge that there are cases where it is the business of government to regulate things, and you stay consistent.
So do you think the government should stop all regulation of food, including screening for deadly diseases?
I just can't respond without laughing. I'm sorry, but it's clear this is going to be hopeless.
If something is a clear and present danger like significant amounts of cyanide in the food maybe. Something like salt, no.
It's about choice. It is impossible to prevent a woman from exercising her right to abort her child. She will always be free to use a coat hanger in her own home. That's why abortion is a right.
So you're saying since it's impossible to stop someone from killing an absolute stranger that murder is a right.
You've a nice touch at refusing to use logic.
Yes. It is a right. It's one we as a society have decided is not an inalienable one.
It goes without saying that we were talking about inalienable rights only.
So it's a matter of how fast you die?
Absurd. Fed Gov't just loves intervening in the public's life, don't they?
What's next? Are they going to prohibit sugar because it has a proclivity to make kids hyper?
Seems the guv't doesn't remember what happened the last time they prohibited a substance (not including the massive WODs failure).
Salteasies and saltleggers will be all the rage.
I don't think the idea is to make salt illegal.
I know, but in essence, they're prohibiting high-salt content, which tastes better to a good portion of the pop.
I know, but in essence, they're prohibiting high-salt content, which tastes better to a good portion of the pop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?