[Guest]

https://www.womens-health.com/boards...ahoma-law.html

That law was ruled unconstitutional by an OK county judge (years ago, I might add), prohibiting the state from enforcing the law. I cant post the link to it, but if you google oklahoma's abortion law ruled unconstitutional, you might find it. There was also much debate surrounding why the legislature was passed, knowing it wouldnt stick, and having taxpayers deal with the ensuing costs of the battle. They even knew when they passed it that it wouldnt be enacted.

[Little]

SoCoKen, I believe that WC's intention is to communicate that it was indeed passed by elected officials. A frightening thing indeed.

[Guest]

Look up "Pregnant Women Who Lose Babies Face Criminal Charges in Mississippi, Alabama"
Georgia is looking at passing it, they already have.
You can also look up Oklahoma passing a law last year that prohibits doctors from giving prescriptions for BC.
There is a war on women in the US right now.

"Bei Bei Shuai, 34, has spent the past three months in a prison cell in Indianapolis charged with murdering her baby. On 23 December she tried to commit suicide by taking rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her.

Shuai was rushed to hospital and survived, but she was 33 weeks pregnant and her baby, to whom she gave birth a week after the suicide attempt and whom she called Angel, died after four days. In March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail."

And

"In Alabama at least 40 cases have been brought under the state's "chemical endangerment" law. Introduced in 2006, the statute was designed to protect children whose parents were cooking methamphetamine in the home and thus putting their children at risk from inhaling the fumes." Per the Guardian, UK, 24 jun 2011

Is this what you are referring to? A law that protects unborn children from meth cookers and drug users?

[Guest]

SoCoKen, I believe that WC's intention is to communicate that it was indeed passed by elected officials. A frightening thing indeed.

Indeed. And it was my intent to illustrate that the actions of few politicians in a very conservative state do not make a "war" on women in the US. With our current state of finances in the US, I would be more concerned with the costs of such lunacy.

[Guest]

Little,

When I respond to a poster's post, I respond to the poster.

You have absolutely nothing to fear from me. You see, I am a libertarian who believes in maximum individual freedom and least governmental intrusion in our lives as possible. I have complete faith in Americans to make decisions that are right for them.

I do agree that laws can be found unconstitutional. But a concern of which I'm sure you share is the politicizing of the Court. I am sure this predates FDR's attempt to stack the Court in order to have his unconstitutional laws and concentration of power found legal. The Court should be apolitical. It should follow law that was legislatively created. It should ever create law, for that was not the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Court is not responsible to we, the people. Our congressmen & senators are. They comprise the legislature. They make law. If they make law we don't like, we can give them pink slips. We can't give a justice a pink slip. The Court's constitutionally defined responsibility is to determine whether law is constitutional.

I have no sinister motives. I have no ulterior motives. With me, what you see (or read) is what you get. I am always skeptical of sinister people and ulterior motives.

Reason and logic are my paths to knowledge. If I were to read something or hear something that does not square with knowledge, I will become skeptical. That is why I know there is no war on women, at least not in our country.

Law and fear of law only apply to the law abiding. Criminals only fear law when they're caught, and sometimes even the most hardened criminals have no fear of law. Because right to life is a natural right that comes from God, government is powerless to take that right from us except by due process. This was John Locke's concept. Thomas Jefferson recognized this right when he penned the Declaration of Independence ("...the laws of nature and nature's God..."), and James Madison memorialized our right to defend ourselves from those who intend to harm us when he wrote the Second Amendment. For cemeteries are full up of victims who relied upon others to protect them. With history being a stern warning, when it comes right down to brass tacks we as individuals are responsible for our safety.



Take care,

Taos

[Guest]

SoCalken,

You're argument is sound and implicates a serious flaw in reasoning of a woman's right to choose. For a fetus can suffer legal abortion, yet a person can be charged with murder for the killing of another fetus. So why does the government recognize one fetus' right to life and deny the identical right to another?


Take care,

Taos

[Guest]

Hi rosekitten,

Taos, it's interesting that you mention the "health" concerns of not showering daily. Do you bleach your shower after you use it every day? Studies on topics like this tend to vary widely, but just as your doctor tells you that it's "dangerous" to not, studies I've read indicate otherwise, simply because of the amount of bacteria that lives in a shower.

You are absolutely, 100%, right on the money. The RN I dated was a firm believer in the antiseptic properties of bleach. She even advised to keep a spray bottle containing a bleach solution and periodically wiping down areas where germs are likely to be found such as doorknobs. However, I buy Clorox wipes instead for such application. They're antibacterial. And they're easier.

A physician told me just over a year ago that should contamination be suspected to take a bath with a cup of bleach. He said it will kill most pathogens.

I don't disinfect my shower on a daily basis. But I do periodically squirt it down with a bleach solution between cleanings, because you're right: lot's of stuff, including fungi, grow in our showers.


Take care,

Taos

[Texinator]

A Little, there is absolutely no intellectual basis nor is there any factual proof linking social conservatism to misogyny. If anything, it is nothing more than opinion that completely lacks validity. If you know of and credible research that has supported such a hypothesis, I'd wish that you'd put me onto it.

Little, maybe you might want to engage in a little introspection. I do suspect that you have a lot of prejudices. Moreover, you might want to consider being more tolerant of people who hold viewpoints in opposition to yours, especially your lack of toleration of those who are loyal to their God.

Keeping in mind Little is not violating the rights of any social conservatives, I was wondering why it is important that she not be prejudiced against them, considering you're a libertarian and therefore the opposite of a social conservative?

[CHANDLERS WISH]

A physician told me just over a year ago that should contamination be suspected to take a bath with a cup of bleach. He said it will kill most pathogens.

I am curious as to what he/she views as contamination? I would never in a million years take a bath with a cup of bleach. Bleach that takes stains out of clothes, strips them back to white, strips your hair of it's natural colour, clothes imagine that on our bodies? We do enough bleaching, chemicals to kill ourselves anyway, but I find this to be an extreme.

Little, maybe you might want to engage in a little introspection. I do suspect that you have a lot of prejudices. Moreover, you might want to consider being more tolerant of people who hold viewpoints in opposition to yours, especially your lack of toleration of those who are loyal to their God.

Assuming just for the record in my beliefs makes an *** out of you and me, it's funny how you can presume and be wrong, just like obviously the polititions whom tried to make a law pass and thought that it would. I would know I walk next to her as Admin what you do have though is a highly intelligent woman, whom like you makes her own decisions on life, and life's decisions based on facts. God has nothing to do with this in my opinion, in this topic of discussion.

Do you just for the question at hand, see yourself as OCD? Cleanliness, germs appear to be high on your agenda of oliminating, if off course you don't mind me asking.

Being in Australia, we have no such things happening here it's have more children I can only imagine how women feel when things like this arise, even if not passed.. Is it men? Whom make these calls because I can not see a woman ever trying to put a lable of negativity that ultimately could cause death to that woman, through anti-abortion beliefs for instance, on any women's head for all to see..

[Guest]

Hi Chandler's Wish,

Beach is an antiseptic. It will kill bloodborne pathogens. Check with your local emergency services workers such as paramedics. I'll bet that they carry a 10% bleach solution to decontaminate human blood.

A physician at an extremely highly vaunted Southern California medical center gave me the advice about using bleach to kill pathogen contamination on skin. I'm good with following my physicians' advice. Please feel free to disregard this advice if it's not helpful to you.

Why would you assume that I have OCD? To me it seems like a gimmick to assert superior knowledge. If you have read what I have posted here you'll see that I am active and prone to getting dirty. However, based upon what I know to be true, which evidently doesn't square with you know to be true, good hygiene habits prevent illnesses. Maybe your physician has given you contrary advice. Hence, my opinion is that women, just like men, ought to bathe at least once a day. Maybe physicians at Loma Linda ain't got it going on, but that's not true.

As the topic of this thread indicates, this is my deal breaker. I am sure you have your deal breakers. And you should, for no one ought to ever ask you to compromise your core beliefs. That could be another deal breaker.

Finally, Chandler's Wish, I have never attempted to impugn another for her/his deal breakers because they are personal. It's specious at best to opine that another's deal breaker implicates OCD, especially at a forum like this. If a woman refuses to date me because I believe my country's Founding Fathers got it right, that would be her deal breaker. For I believe in maximum individual liberties with a corresponding limited government that keeps its nose out of citizens' personal affairs. That's the way I roll.


Take care,

Taos