Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: A-P Legalize Prostitution

Expand Messages
  • becca111@webtv.net
    Robert, Making prostitution legal would do precisely what you say you don t want. If legalized, there would be all types of laws and stipulations imposed by
    Message 1 of 65 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Robert,
      Making prostitution legal would do precisely what you say you don't
      want.
      If legalized, there would be all types of laws and stipulations imposed
      by the government. Who wants to have the job to make sure everyone is
      having "sex" to the government's satisfaction?

      People can turn a blind eye to the harmful behaviors that continue to
      promote abuse toward women...but, so many of these women are obviously
      in some fashion mentally ill or they would have too much respect for
      themselves to participate in the act of continually degrading
      themselves..

      When interviewed most prostitutes admit that their "job" makes them feel
      less than human.. Many are doing drugs because they can't deal with the
      stigma and being branded as a "worthless" sex object. Why not spend
      money to train them for a decent job and help them out of their dire
      situation instead of trying to monitor and control such private
      behavior?

      Many young teens prostitute themselves to afford their drug
      habit..making it legal..wouldn't include them because they aren't of
      age...so, it wouldn't really solve the problem to say we condone it to
      make it better....better for whom?

      When it gets personal...most admit they wouldn't want their daughter
      walking the streets selling her body...most wouldn't want the local
      "privatized" legal version to be attached to their child's life...even
      if they were an adult...so, why the fuck would we say ok....to
      legalization?
      We wouldn't...

      Bec
    • Robert Somershoe
      Rainbow. Before I answer your questions, just keep me informed about the progress of your so-called Cultural War. I can always use a good chuckle. You asked
      Message 65 of 65 , Dec 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Rainbow. Before I answer your questions, just keep me
        informed about the progress of your so-called Cultural
        War. I can always use a good chuckle.

        You asked me:

        "But are you really any different? Are you so
        bright? What power is it that is on your side,
        atheist? What force keeps feeding you the goodies
        while others who may be more worthy are denied your
        good fortune? (I am thinking of the trail of tears.)"

        Am I different from who? Since I don't make fun of
        religious people and their beliefs, the implication
        behind that question has no basis. I am quite content
        with my "brightness", for what that's worth. I am not
        aware of any "power on my side", unless you count my
        Green Hornet ring, of course. The force that "keeps
        feeding me the goodies", as far as I can tell, is hard
        work, the desire to make the right choices in life,
        and love of family. I don't claim to be more, or less,
        worthy than anyone else when it comes to that. But I
        will say one thing; It wasn't a bunch of Atheists who
        drove the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. True?

        You then asked:

        "Is abortion murder in your opinion? Will whoever you
        elect make a Constitutional amendment to make it
        murder? Ban flag burning? (Ron Paul is ok on flag
        burning but what about your representative and
        senator?)"

        I would not vote for someone who would ban flag
        burning or call abortion, prior to the viability of
        the baby, murder. The Republican Senator, Arlen
        Specter agrees on both. The Democrat Senator, Bob
        Casey Jr, agrees with me on flag burning but is
        actually very Pro-Life. My Representaive, Alyson
        Schwartz, is a liberal Democrat who is okay with Flag
        Burning and late-term and/or Partial-Birth abortions.

        I, personally, think that people who burn the American
        Flag are ignorant and idiotic. But there is no way in
        hell that I am gonna tell someone that they can't buy
        a piece of cloth and burn it. That is ridiculous. And,
        let's face it; In the hands of someone that hates this
        country, that's all it is...a piece of cloth.

        As for abortion, I think it should be the Mother's
        choice, until the baby is viable. Viability is when
        the baby is able to survive outside the womb (after
        the 26th week, last I heard). My constitutional
        rationale is that prior to viability, the over-riding
        constitutional concern is the woman's right to her
        person. Once the baby is viable, I think it's right to
        life takes precedence.

        Now, if the mother can't carry to full term, or even
        if she just doesn't want to, for whatever reason,
        fine. Take the baby. But you don't need to kill it. I
        can't think of one situation where it is necessary to
        KILL the baby to protect the mother's health. It is
        coming out either way. It is basically a preemie. That
        should be protected life. But, until viability,
        absolutely the Mother's decision.

        So, most of your rant, at me, on abortion was
        unnecessary. The same with the CIA financing Black Ops
        thru coke smuggling. The same with election day fraud,
        another bi-partisan ailment. You seem to do this alot.

        You asked, "What will your conservative, Libertarian
        or Reform party heroes have to do to you to make you
        understand?"

        Well, I have no Reform Party heroes. And I am not sure
        who my "conservative" heroes would be. What type of
        conservative are you referring to? And the Libertarian
        Party hasn't done anything to me. Unlike you, I do not
        vote for parties that have a TRACK RECORD of
        corruption. So, a more apt question might be what does
        your party's heroes have to do to you before you wise
        up?

        As for Ron Paul; I met him in 1988. I voted for him on
        the Libertarian ticket. At that time, the stance he
        articulated to me on abortion was very similar to
        mine. Why he has strayed from that, I couldn't tell
        ya. But I can guarantee you that he would have a hard
        time trying to win the Libertarian nomination now. It
        is a bit of a shame too. Because he gets it so right
        on sooo many other issues. I can't vote for him unless
        he wins the Republican nomination. Which isn't gonna
        happen. I will be waiting for the Libertarian
        convention before I decide what I will be doing in
        '08.

        But something does occur to me on this issue. The
        Supreme Court has been dominated by Republican
        appointees for over 2 decades now. While they
        controlled both houses and the presidency for six of
        those years. And Roe v Wade still stands. Something
        tells me that this is, to a large degree, more of a
        political football than anything else.

        As for what the Bible really says about abortion, I
        will leave that you Christian Folks to work that out.
        It's none of my business, and not really a factor, for
        me, in this debate.

        What are we debating again? lol

        Getting late. Busy day tomorrow. I will get to your
        last Fair Tax post this weekend.

        All thoughts and replies welcome. Peace. Robert.

        >
        > Ron Paul 2008 " Issues " Life and Liberty
        > Congressman *Ron* *Paul* is the leading advocate
        > for freedom in our
        > nation's capital. *...* That experience has made
        > me an unshakable
        > foe of *abortion*. *...*
        >
        > http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty
        >
        >
        > Abortion is a minor issue, right? And Ron Paul
        > says:
        >
        > In Congress, I have authored legislation that
        > seeks to define life
        > as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
        >
        > *I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which
        > would negate the
        > effect of /Roe v Wade/ by removing the ability
        > of federal courts to
        > interfere with state legislation to protect
        > life. This is a
        > practical, direct approach to ending federal
        > court tyranny which
        > threatens our constitutional republic and has
        > caused the deaths of
        > 45 million of the unborn.*
        > **
        >
        >
        > Did you know that? Why didn't you know it? Why
        > couldn't you have
        > GUESSED IT, Robert?
        >
        > He would define life as being from conception on?
        > No question that it's
        > alive but what is it? That is still a question.
        >
        > Who has Mr. Liberty unfairly accused literally of
        > committing murder so far?
        >
        > For the first 14 days there is no differentiation
        > between the cells!
        > What kind of "human being" is that? It's a human
        > product but it's
        > certainly not a being.
        >
        > Know how I know? *Because it can't be counted. It
        > is NOT an
        > individual.* In fact it is so utterly divisible at
        > this point that if
        > it splits it becomes identical twins. Even after
        > gastrulation (at 14
        > days) if it splits it may completely disconnect and
        > become identical
        > twins still, but if the disconnection is incomplete
        > it become conjoined
        > or siamese twins.
        >
        > And tell me, libertarian, how your Mr. Liberty could
        > figure out that
        > states should morally allow abortion while the
        > federal government should
        > not or worse, explain how states have the right ONLY
        > to AGREE with Ron
        > Paul but not the right to allow abortion.
        >
        > Robert, while it is probable that post partum
        > depression could give the
        > impression that a fetus is a living human being when
        > one is lost during
        > miscarriage or abortion the biological facts at the
        > level of the fetus
        > do not support that assumption. Hormonal changes
        > may account for that
        > perception in the mother as much or more than any
        > spiritual phenomenon.
        >
        > (Maybe not! But even so, it's clear that the embryo
        > at this point is
        > uninhabitable and uninhabited. Missing a bus is not
        > the same as getting
        > run over by one.)
        >
        > So what's up with Ron Paul? Why is he on the same
        > side as the
        > churches? Why is he ignorant of the science?
        >
        > And if the churches were in any way interested in
        > truth why are they on
        > the wrong side too?
        >
        > Behold!
        >
        > Psa 139:13 For You have possessed my inward
        > parts; You have covered
        > me in my mother's womb. :14 I will praise You;
        > for I am fearfully
        > and wonderfully made; Your works are marvelous
        > and my soul knows it
        > very well. :15 My bones were not hidden from
        > You when I was made in
        > secret and skillfully formed in the lowest parts
        > of the earth. :16
        > Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my
        > members were
        > written, the days they were formed, and not one
        > was among them. (MKJV)
        >
        > Is this proof that it is a human being from
        > conception? Aren't all our
        > members written in our DNA? A strand of hair, a
        > skin cell, these have
        > all that information and in fact scientists are
        > discovering ways to use
        > these non-embryonic cells to create stem cells for
        > medical processes
        > such as regrowing nerve tissue, *heart cells (which
        > do beat right there
        > in the petri dish)*, etc.
        >
        > Another point refuting the asumption that this
        > scripture proves
        > biblically that conception is the beginning of life
        > as a human being, is
        > the question of whether this is account was narrated
        > from inside that
        > "being" or as one looking at the process from
        > outside?
        >
        > It's from outside, as you'd expect. At this point
        > the temple (as it
        > were) has no walls, roof, windows...
        >
        > (The reference to "earth" in Hebrew might also be
        > interesting also but
        > not today...)
        >
        >
        > Here's another alleged Biblical proof that the
        > "fetus" [sic] is a human
        > being at conception.
        >
        > Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the belly I knew
        > you; and before you
        > came forth out of the womb I consecrated you,
        > and I ordained you a
        >
        === message truncated ===



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Looking for last minute shopping deals?
        Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.