CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The question of the health of pregnant women has become very controversial, because today children are born smaller and weaker than ever before. Very often parents face with different problems such as a birth of a child with pathology under the influence of maternal smoking. The issue is whether pregnant women should be legally prevented from smoking is steel debated. It is very important, as the problem concerns the health of future generation. The number of smokers among women significantly increased because of the rapid pace of life, stress, and the emancipation of women. However, some women cannot get rid of those bad habits even while they are pregnant. So people, think that the government should pay more attention to the conditions, which unborn children are developing in. but there are opponents, who doubt the positive sights of the issue and think that pregnant women, quitting from smoking may face some difficulties, such as stress, negative emotions and mood which can affect the pregnancy. Many people believe that women should be legally prevented from smoking, because maternal smoking negatively influence on mental and physical development of children. However there are some people, who claim, that smoking ban can create some difficulties such as stress, caused by abstinence from smoking
Smoking during pregnancy leads to physical adverse outcomes of infant. First of all, According to Swedish scientists Rydhstroem, who indicated that "Maternal smoking was significantly associated with reduced gestational age, intrauterine growth retardation, stillbirth and neonatal mortality among both singletons and twins. Also everybody know, that the twins are more likely to be affected from smoking than singleton children in general. and women, who are carrying twins, should know effect of such bad habit as smoking on twin births. According to Li the risk of appearing of congenital urinary tract anomalies in offspring was higher among those mothers, who smoked fewer than 10 cigarettes a day. This is explained by the fact, that persist smoking mostly leads to spontaneous abortion and stillbirth. It confirms that even a slight smoking causes abnormalities in the fetus.
Although the risk of smoking during pregnancy is very high, it is still the choice of the mother whether or not she wants to take the risk. Besides, smoking occasionally could help women to reduce the stress associated with being pregnant. Another Swiss scientist suggests that women on their later moths of pregnancy might benefit from smoking as a stress reliever and a mood enhancer.
despite the fact, that some people claim that smoking cessation leads to stress and depression, which disadvantageously affects the process of pregnancy, cigarette smoking leads to a much worse consequences than abstinence from smoking, or human rights violations.
quite honestly, the reason we have a society is to survive together, its just what human beings do in nature, the reason we have laws is to live in that society peacefully. nobody wants to live in a society where everyone can murder. so in my honest oppinion, it doesn't matter what consequences are worse, the government should put humans rights, freedoms, and well being first. HOWEVER, is it fair to do such a thing to a child just because there mother wants to smoke? is that itself a violation of human rights?
Where are your facts supporting your claim? "Smoking OCCASIONALLY COULD?? help women to reduce the stress associated with being pregnant." Does that statement really even tell us anything? Who is this OTHER Swiss scientist that says pregnant women MIGHT benefit from smoking? I don't mean to be rude I just don't see the point in throwing out arguments with no backing, facts, or warrant.
Here are a few real facts:
Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely than other women to have a miscarriage.
Smoking can cause problems with the placenta—the source of the baby's food and oxygen during pregnancy. For example, the placenta can separate from the womb too early, causing bleeding, which is dangerous to the mother and baby.
Smoking during pregnancy can cause a baby to be born too early or to have low birth weight—making it more likely the baby will be sick and have to stay in the hospital longer. A few babies may even die.
Smoking during and after pregnancy is a risk factor of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), deaths among babies of no immediately obvious cause.
Babies born to women who smoke are more likely to have certain birth defects, like a cleft lip or cleft palate.
Would that not be child abuse or neglect? If the baby is born and has an issue due to smoking or develops it down the line is that not neglect/abuse. You are making your child sick, PERIOD! If someone kills a woman that is pregnant they are held accoutable for 2 murders. So I would say smoking is potentially harming a fetus as well. i would even go a step further. No smoking with children in home. If you must smoke go outside. Poisoning a child is illegal and cigarette smoke is poison!
The angle I'd like to approach it from is that if a father becomes subject to legal obligations resulting from a pregnancy that follows consensual sex, it would seem there should also be commensurate legal rights.
I think it should be legal for the father of a child who is still in the womb to take reasonable actions to assure the healthy development of his child.
Unless the sex was not consensual, I think the father should have some legal rights, instead of none, especially since he can be legally held responsible to care for the child after it's born.
Is that so? So Johnny gets Susie pregnant by way of consensual sex, out of wedlock, and law states that Johnny must be allowed to be present during childbirth so he may exercise his legal entitlement to have a say in medical decisions that may effect the well being of his child after it's born? I think you know that this is not the case.
If a woman allows a guy to impregnate her, that is a decision she made that bestows poorly articulated rights and responsibilities on the man. If a man can't legally prevent a woman from poisoning his child while it's in the womb, it's certainly not fair that he should be legally held responsible later on when the child comes out with serious health problems.
In the interest of deeper controversy.. Here's a thought: The man could file a stipulation that states he will not be responsible for the child if it is exposed to Alcohol, Nicotine, Methamphetamines, Cocaine, LSD, Ecstacy, Strychnine etc.. prior to birth. The woman can still do as she pleases, but if she wants to act without regard for the mans concerns, she will have to accept that he's legally released from the resulting responsibility.
My thinking is that if you don't want someone to have legal say about medical decisions made regarding the pregnancy, then don't have sex with them. Further I suppose that if a woman can opt to abort a baby in the absence of a legitimate medical reason for doing so, a man should have the right to opt out for no medical reason as well. So much room for controversy here!!
Women should be legally prevented from smoking, in an angle of law, although article 1 of the international law on human rights, civil and political section states that,
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
However, does it mean that the child in the mothers stomach has the rights to want to stay healthy and grow as a normal child? If the babies were borned abnormal, it would be for life, the get the pain for life, whereas the mother only gets the pain when she starts smoking the that was what she chooses to. The baby will most probably not have a choice to choose whether he/she wants to lead a normal or abnormal life due to the mother smoking.
Now lets look at some negative effect that will inflict on the child if the mother smokes - Babies born to women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to be born:
With birth defects such as cleft lip or palate
Prematurely
At low birthweight
Underweight for the number of weeks of pregnancy
Babies born prematurely and at low birthweight are at risk of other serious health problems, including lifelong disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, mental retardation and learning problems), and in some cases, death. So in the welfare of the child the pregnant women be legally prevented from smoking.
Furthermore, although the mother can destress when smoking and this is proven by scientist in Switzerland, it still remains a fact that smoking will accompany diseases, child can get borned with defects and mother will also be affected.
Here are some of the diseases the mother can get when smoke during pregnancy - Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have:
An ectopic pregnancy
Vaginal bleeding
Placental abruption (placenta peels away, partially or almost completely, from the uterine wall before delivery)
Placenta previa (a low-lying placenta that covers part or all of the opening of the uterus)
A stillbirth
Thus, I conclude that women should be legally prevented from smoking during pregnancy.
my view is different.Pregnant women should not smoke or else their babies are born smaller than non-smokers.babies are most likely to be born dead.Smoking is bad for the babies health also
They should be prevented because if smoke then something will happen to the baby it will not be healthy. Also some of the tar thats inside the thing will probably go into the babys body
According to the American Cancer Society, 10 to 16 percent of women smoke throughout their pregnancies, putting themselves and their babies at risk for a number of health issues. In fact, up to 5 percent of infant deaths would be prevented if pregnant women did not smoke.
Smoking affects every phase of reproduction, including fertility, pregnancy complications, premature birth, low-birth-weight infants, stillbirth and infant death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Women who smoke are more likely than nonsmokers to develop pregnancy complications, according to the CDC. The risk of placenta previa, a condition where the placenta grows too close to the uterus opening, is about twice as high as in nonsmokers. The risk of placental abruption, a dangerous condition in which the placenta separates prematurely from the wall of the uterus, is 1.4 to 2.4 times that of nonsmokers. The risk of premature rupture of the membranes before labor begins is also higher for smokers.
You know what, even if it was outlawed, dumb women would still do it. Right now, smart women don't smoke when they're pregnant, dumb women do. Just because something is outlawed doesn't mean that it won't still happen. Examples? Pot, alcohol in the 1920s and early 30s, driving drunk, prostitution, dealing drugs...I could go on all day. Outlawing it might change a few minds, but the majority of women stupid enough to smoke during gestation will just do it anyway.
So how is it that you are against the change? Not everyone will follow the new rules, therefore we shouldn't create them? I understand what you are saying and absolutely agree with the fact that there are dumb people out there that choose to do whatever they want but I still do not understand why you would be against prevention.
It is true that smoking during pregnancy can lead to serious health problems of mother and the baby but denying anyone of their constitutional right to choose for themselves is not the right answer. Instead, doctors and tobacco companies should warn about the hazardous contents of tobacco and advise pregnant women not to take the risk as it is currently be done. Prohibiting the sell of tobacco to pregnant women would not affect the number of users, but if all the resources would concentrate on advising current and future mothers and target specific audience it would be more reasonable.
But doctors and tobacco companies warn about the risk of negative consequence of smoking cigarettes and it doesnt give significant results. so the government should pass law under which smoking pregnant women will be fined, or women in pregnancy should be banned from buying cigarettes, as well as minors
Moreover, smoking in pregnancy may cause mental health problems and bad habits in offspring. According to American and Canadian scientists children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy demonstrated low levels of attention and poor memory. Also they have such problems of behavior as hyperactivity and aggression. The study discovered the link of maternal smoking even to academic performance so cigarette-exposed children’s skills in spelling and mathematic tasks were lower. According to Batty, the results of IQ test of cigarette-exposed children by age of 3-4 were much lower. So it means that, such children, in contrast to their peers, face some difficulties in learning the material in the school, in doing homework, because it's hard for them to remember information. Often they have difficulties to get on with their classmates as they are not very communicative. These children often have to turn to doctors, psychologists or neurologists, because of frequent headaches. Mothers of such children subsequently experience a sense of guilt from the consequences of smoking, as it has affected their children. in addition Smoking is a risk factor for later consumption of drugs to prevent to such effects is important to understand how maternal smoking affects on the habits of children. Has been proven that smoking during pregnancy increases the risk that her daughter will also be smoking. It turns out, when a pregnant woman smokes, fetal brain is get used to regular
You have no constitutional right to buy or smoke cigarettes! You also do not have a constitutional right to poison children whether fetus or not. What about peoples civil rights to not be unduly harmed by your activities. To live in peace without fear or illness etc. children have no means of escaping the poison of cigarette smoke!
I think we understand the dangers of smoking, and whether a woman is willing to put her unborn child in danger is, eventually, going to be up to her. In fact, I'm not sure how you can really enforce legislation like this.
First, it would require doctors to cooperate with authorities, eliminating the hippocratic oath. This would skew the trust that women have with their doctors.
It would be very similar to the issues of abortion, in where all of a sudden the State is barring women from cooperating with their doctors on how they handle their own bodies. What results? Underground expansion.
Who are the busybodies and what would happen if they "saw" this idea?
Busybodies are the morons who work in Washington and state capitals around the nation in a building with a steeple. These men or women try to micromanage life through legislation.
If they get wind of this idea, they will inevitability try to micromanage more of life.
So how do we determine when it's appropriate for government to act in the interest of public health? What role if any do you think is appropriate for government to play in defending human rights?
Should they so desire, should parents be legally permitted to allow their children to smoke? How about carry weapons?
So how do we determine when it's appropriate for government to act in the interest of public health?
There is no appropriate role for government to act in the interest of public health.
Public health is an myth. Private health is much more important.
What role if any do you think is appropriate for government to play in defending human rights?
NONE, government should be abolished.
should parents be legally permitted to allow their children to smoke?
YES, it is parents duty to permit it or not.
How about carry weapons?
Yes, if the child is able to carry and respect the weapon, then yes. My grandfather had a rife as a child. Did he kill anyone? No. He was taught how to use and respect it.
I'd be interested to see you define government in your own words.
Government is the single most destructive entity in the history of man. Man has continued to struggle against the tides of oppressive government. Today is different because Demcracy reigns supreme, but it has failed. Failed
What man has gotten from government? Poverty=Government, War=Government, Monetary Manipulation=Government, Political Corruption=Government, Racism=Government
99% of all the world's problems can be traced back to government.
How did you come to believe that?
Public health is socialized, and nothing of socialization has ever worked. Prime example, politics. What is politics? It is a process by which groups of people make collectivist decisions. This is why nothing gets done, and all the fighting is about.
That comes across as about as practical and desirable as attempting to do away with the human habit of interpersonal organization.
It only seems impractical because guess what...the government told you that it is impractical, right.
Would I be correct to assume that you also don't support the institution of laws or ordinances of any sort?
Wrong, I support laws. I hope that you are not this dumb. Law enforcement, courts and defense would be provided by private defense agencies that competitively provide security in a open market. Economic activities would be regulated by natural laws of free markets, and private law would govern human behavior.
Government is the single most destructive entity in the history of man. Man has continued to struggle against the tides of oppressive government. Today is different because Demcracy reigns supreme, but it has failed. Failed
What man has gotten from government? Poverty=Government, War=Government, Monetary Manipulation=Government, Political Corruption=Government, Racism=Government
I'd still be interested to see you define government in your own words.
99% of all the world's problems can be traced back to government.
How on earth did you calculate that? Disease would be a better target of blame in regards to "world problems" IMO.
nothing of socialization has ever worked.
Nothing of socialism has ever worked flawlessly.
What is politics? It is a process by which groups of people make collectivist decisions.
So according to you politics, and authoritarian social arrangements are mutually exclusive?
This is why nothing gets done, and all the fighting is about.
Some things get done. I think all the fighting has to do with issues of authority.
It only seems impractical because guess what...the government told you that it is impractical, right.
No, that's just your hastily drawn conclusion about how I form my opinions.
Say you had set out into an orange grove in search of apples and you declared "the search for apples never works", I would say "no shit, you are in an orange grove."
Wrong, I support laws.
It's illogical to think that laws can be established without some form of government.
I hope that you are not this dumb.
I hope you don't have brain damage
Law enforcement, courts and defense would be provided by private defense agencies that competitively provide security in a open market.
Would be? This is how it currently is. The law of the jungle reigns supreme in this global mobocracy.
Economic activities would be regulated by natural laws of free markets
I'd still be interested to see you define government in your own words.
I just did it before. What more do you want?
Government is central planning, that is the fundamental of politics either social or economic.
I'd be interested to see you define government. Oh, wait, I don't care.
How on earth did you calculate that? Disease would be a better target of blame in regards to "world problems" IMO.
It was a guess. Disease is a problem. How does it relate to poverty, war, monetary manipulation, corruption, racism, or sexism?
Nothing of socialism has ever worked flawlessly.
Which is why it doesn't work. Capitalism does work flawlessly.
So according to you politics, and authoritarian social arrangements are mutually exclusive?
Wrong, reread it. Why am I wasting time with you? Politics authoritarian social arrangements, that is what it is. Collectivist is authoritarian. In order to be collectivist, authoritarian must be used to met the agenda.
No, that's just your hastily drawn conclusion about how I form my opinions.
Then I be interested how you think that society would not be able to function without government if government didn't tell you that.
It's illogical to think that laws can be established without some form of government.
Then, your logical thinking is flawed. There is already laws without the form of government. It is called civil law or private law. What didn't you understand about private law before. Here
I hope you don't have brain damage
Probably from your sheer incompetence.
Would be? This is how it currently is.
Wrong, the state has monopolies in all those department, and it is far from a open market. The state will contract these services but only the direct supervisor. No private contractor can legally make arrests or no private mercenary can declare war.
Would be? lol
Just case if you haven't noticed, there are no free markets. The closest is Hong Kong.
That's a lie. unless you think "Government is the single most destructive entity in the history of man." works! Which only a complete retard would
What more do you want?
A debate opponent who doesn't shrink from inquiry.
Government is central planning, that is the fundamental of politics either social or economic.
As pathetically inadequate as that description of government is, it's a step up from your previous bit of drivel.
I'd be interested to see you define government.
Well there skippy, for someone who seems to have given it as little thought as you have I'd start with the word govern which means something like "to regulate the activity thereof"
Oh, wait, I don't care.
Shit for brains doesn't care, how devastating!
It was a guess.
Bravo!
Disease is a problem.
Which pales by comparison to government according to people like you who are clearly lacking in intelligence.
How does it relate to poverty, war, monetary manipulation, corruption, racism, or sexism?
Whoa one thing at a time, I wouldn't want you to bite off more than you can chew.
Which is why it doesn't work.
Never mind that things don't need to work flawlessly to serve a purpose. The wholesale condemning of the concept of government (or other concepts)leaves you ill equipped to play a meaningful part in it's improvement.
Capitalism does work flawlessly.
I didn't expect you to be so thoroughly deluded.
Wrong, reread it.
So if I am wrong then you should agree that it is possible for political organizations, and social arrangements to be non authoritarian.
Why am I wasting time with you?
You have nothing better to do.
Politics authoritarian social arrangements, that is what it is.
Not necessarily brainiac.
Collectivist is authoritarian.
If an authoritarian organization is referred to as collectivist, the reference is a misuse of the word.
In order to be collectivist, authoritarian must be used to met the agenda.
A collectivist organization is necessarily one of decentralized authority or else it's not really collectivist.
Then I be interested how you think that society would not be able to function without government if government didn't tell you that.
You are a dip shit! I never said society couldn't function without formal government.
Then, your logical thinking is flawed.
I have no doubt! I am just waiting for someone skilled enough to help me understand how. I'll be certain not to hold my breath waiting for you to.
There is already laws without the form of government.
A Law as established by an authoritative government, is fundamentally different than readily negotiable agreements made privately.
Probably from your sheer incompetence.
rather evidenced by your sheer incoherence.
Wrong, the state has monopolies in all those department
Which state has the unchallengeable monopoly? THE state!?
it is far from a open market.
It only appears that way to hopelessly closed minded folks like yourself.
The state will contract these services but only the direct supervisor.
Your sadly limited way of looking at things is becoming more and more apparent.
No private contractor can legally make arrests or no private mercenary can declare war.
Legal systems can be modified, and if a private mercenary was so inclined they could declare war.
Just case if you haven't noticed, there are no free markets.
Not for those with the belief system of a slave.
WTF!!!
Decisions made in private are of far more consequence than you appear to realize.
Public law governs now, and it is failing.
It governs some things, but cannot govern other things
I hope you appreciate that I have taken the time to pepper my response with insults to match your style of etiquette. :)
Actually, only a compete retard wouln't think that.
A debate opponent who doesn't shrink from inquiry.
Cry me a river.
Well there skippy, for someone who seems to have given it as little thought as you have I'd start with the word govern which means something like "to regulate the activity thereof"
Congrautlations on giving the Wikipedia definition of Government, "TO GOVERN"
Are these your own words? If you wanted that, I would have directed to the Wikipedia site.
Shit for brains doesn't care, how devastating!
Hey, you are the one who gave from the book definition of government. Everyone knows that government means to govern. Even someone as incompetent as you can grasped this highly complex reasoning.
Which pales by comparison to government according to people like you who are clearly lacking in intelligence.
What don't you understand about disease? Even if all diseases were cured tomorrow, an new strain would emerge, and the problem remains. Diseases will never be cured, problems related to government can.
Whoa one thing at a time, I wouldn't want you to bite off more than you can chew.
Typical, smart ass response with no actual rebuttal that prove that those are not related to government.
Well at least I am chewing on something whereas you are choking.
The wholesale condemning of the concept of government (or other concepts)leaves you ill equipped to play a meaningful part in it's improvement.
Your correct, I am ill equipped to fix something because I want to destroy it.
If you can fix it, WHY IS IT STILL BROKEN?
So if I am wrong then you should agree that it is possible for political organizations, and social arrangements to be non authoritarian.
PLEASE NAME ONE Political ORG and Social Arrangement that doesn't seek force that directly or indirectly uses government as force.
You have nothing better to do.
Other than your MOM.
If an authoritarian organization is referred to as collectivist, the reference is a misuse of the word.
Simply wrong.
A collectivist organization is necessarily one of decentralized authority or else it's not really collectivist.
If not, what then, genius?
Your sadly limited way of looking at things is becoming more and more apparent.
You are a dip shit! I never said society couldn't function without formal government.
Then What?
Legal systems can be modified, and if a private mercenary was so inclined they could declare war.
No shit Sherlock, that is why I am implying, but right now, mercenaries can't declare war.
Not for those with the belief system of a slave.
This argument is laughable.
It governs some things, but cannot govern other things
Thanks GENIUS.
I hope you appreciate that I have taken the time to pepper my response with insults to match your style of etiquette. :)
Well, you started the insults with "How on earth did you calculate that?"
Actually, only a compete retard wouln't think that.
Just keep on showing your ass.
If you can't tell that the statement: "Government is the single most destructive entity in the history of man." is a statement of opinion about how government can be destructive, yet says nothing about the meaning of the word, your reasoning ability is pretty much kaput.
Cry me a river.
Certainly appeals to logic have no effect.
Congrautlations on giving the Wikipedia definition of Government, "TO GOVERN"
I was taking things slow for ya and defining govern, but you weren't even astute enough to correctly recognize what word I was defining...yikes!
Are these your own words?
Just typed them right up without referencing a dictionary of any sort. You certainly better not try that if you want to keep your idiocy a secret.
If you wanted that, I would have directed to the Wikipedia site.
At least what I typed has a reasonable semblance to some commonly recognized definitions. The closest word I could associate with your "definition" was disease. I am beginning to think you are afflicted with a serious one of the mental sort. In which case perhaps I should apologize and let you be.
Hey, you are the one who gave from the book definition of government.
I hadn't even got to that yet. I was trying to get your thinking a little closer to logical by defining "govern" first. Besides that "to govern" isn't a valid definition of government either. But then I guess I shouldn't expect you to notice why.
Governments are established for the purpose of promoting a standard of behavior deemed acceptable. In an authoritarian government, "acceptable behavior" is determined by whoever is at the top of the hierarchy. Noticing that no prevalent government hitherto has been anything but authoritarian and hierarchically arranged, is not an valid argument that such a government cannot be.
If you weren't such a moron, you'd realize that. :)
What don't you understand about disease?
I don't understand how you think government is the cause of more problems than disease.
Even if all diseases were cured tomorrow, an new strain would emerge, and the problem remains.
Yet your feeble brain can't understand how this is also analogously true of government. How sad!
Diseases will never be cured
Not with the hopelessly impractical and illogical obsession of doing away with all forms of disease. (and since you're not so bright I will remind you again to relate it in your mind to your nonsensical condemnation of nondescript "government") If a specific disease is diligently studied it can be cured, take scurvy as an example.
problems related to government can.
But not with a mindset that's illogically oriented towards doing away with all forms of government. Try not to be such a sloppy thinker.
Typical, smart ass response with no actual rebuttal that prove that those are not related to government.
Which seems like all/more than you deserve considering how obstinate and ignorant you are. But since I am sorta into giving people more respect than they seem to deserve...When you typed "those are not related to government" what were you referring to with "those"?
Well at least I am chewing on something whereas you are choking.
Oh that's a good one. touché bro touché!
Your correct, I am ill equipped to fix something because I want to destroy it.
My goodness, there just might be some hope of a cure for those mental hiccups you've got going on upstairs!
If you can fix it, WHY IS IT STILL BROKEN?
Your immature and absolutist mentality is stuck on a limiting ideology of broken/fixed. A smarter question to ask is how can it be improved.
PLEASE NAME ONE Political ORG and Social Arrangement that doesn't seek force that directly or indirectly uses government as force.
I haven't heard that one since the fourth grade. Considering the source though I can't say I'm surprised.
Simply wrong.
Simply wrong, misuse of the word, whatever gets you out of that pesky mental rut you've got yourself in.
If not, what then, genius?
What you want me to produce a label to describe a government purported to be collectivist that really isn't?....pseudo-collectivist
Then What?
Is that like the disgruntled kid who says..... SO!....?
No shit Sherlock, that is why I am implying
What's obvious is that you have no Idea that Laws (and I'm not talking about natural laws like the laws of physics) don't exist without an authoritative government to institute them.
right now, mercenaries can't declare war.
I don't dare ask you to define mercenary, but regardless of what you think, anyone can declare whatever they want.
This argument is laughable.
The serious cannot be understood without the laughable.
Thanks GENIUS.
You are welcome jerky.
Well, you started the insults with "How on earth did you calculate that?"
THAT'S what got your panties in a bunch eh? Now that's laughable!
BTW, it's kinda fun coming up with as many derogatory remarks as possible. :)
I partly agree with you. we can say that everyone has rights to choose whether to drink alcohol or smoke. but it's not beneficial for economy of government at all. there are a large numbers of expenses government have to make to help parents of children with congenital diseases.
This will never, ever happen. The supreme court would rule any legislation of this nature as unconstitutional as per their previous ruling that women have consent to do what they wish with their own bodies (abortion). This would be a HUGE violation of one's individual liberties.
It is not smart, but it is not the governments job to watch over our health. How would you feel if the government made a law that said everyone had to exercise for an hour a day?
+This comment is not for or against abortion If abortion is legal then why would their be a law saying a pregnant woman can not smoke (assuming it is for the health of their baby)
