Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 04, 2010, 06:47:40 AM
-
I seriously want to hear any "Pro-Choice" poster here explain to me why you consider the choice to have an abortion and right to not have the government dictate your health decisions but you are all SILENT on my my choice not to purchase PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE if I dont want to buy it under ObamaCare.
Yet, the vocal "pro-choice" crowd is absolutely silent on ObamaCare's massive intrusion on all aspects of your health care and decisions.
It just goes to show that the left wingers, liberals, progressives, marxists, don't give a flying shit about choice or rights, only about their assumed right to kill a baby and have someone else pay for it.
Please prove me wrong on this.
-
while you pro choice ppl are at it...please explain why you feel that only the women should have a choice of whether or not to walk away from the pregnancy...
-
while you pro choice ppl are at it...please explain why you feel that only the women should have a choice of whether or not to walk away from the pregnancy...
because its our body, grant it we didnt get there alone so guess its a double edge sword
-
because its our body, grant it we didnt get there alone so guess its a double edge sword
What about the "pro-choice" crowds' silence on the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance from private corporations?
Sort of "anti-choice" no?
-
What about the "pro-choice" crowds' silence on the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance from private corporations?
Sort of "anti-choice" no?
true, as I pay for me and my daughters own medical insurance out of pocket
-
true, as I pay for me and my daughters own medical insurance out of pocket
Get ready to pay a lot more under ObamaCare.
A lot more!
-
Get ready to pay a lot more under ObamaCare.
A lot more!
Well I would drop mine and just worry about my daughter then...she comes first
-
I am Pro-Choice. However, I do not think you should be restricted from purchasing any kind of health care you want or choose.
I do not think that abortions should be covered in any regards by government health care or funds.
-
I am Pro-Choice. However, I do not think you should be restricted from purchasing any kind of health care you want or choose.
I do not think that abortions should be covered in any regards by government health care or funds.
What about choosing NOT to buy somwething from a private corporation as this current billr equires under penalty of law and fines by the IRS?
Do you realize that the IRS is essentially the debt collector and enforcer for this?
-
I dont think any insurance should be allowed to abort a pregnancy
-
because its our body, grant it we didnt get there alone so guess its a double edge sword
agreed but 9 months gestation doesnt equal 18 years child support payment ::) its our bodies that must pay child support payments, why do we get no say?
momma I get supporting you during the pregnancy but its your choice and after the fact it should be your responsibility not ours if we choose to walk away as you have the right to...
-
while you pro choice ppl are at it...please explain why you feel that only the women should have a choice of whether or not to walk away from the pregnancy...
That isn't really a "pro choice ppl" type of thing. More like a "female, her body and her decision" type of thing.
Granted there is no real compromise on this or level playing field in the man's regards and options. On the flip side of the coin, what if there were laws that granted the MAN the decision and legal right to have a woman undergo an abortion just because he wanted to?
This is just one of those issues where no clear cut outcome is available and every time it is discussed each side plays Devils Advocate on the issue.
-
agreed but 9 months gestation doesnt equal 18 years child support payment ::) its our bodies that must pay child support payments, why do we get no say?
momma I get supporting you during the pregnancy but its your choice and after the fact it should be your responsibility not ours if we choose to walk away as you have the right to...
you get a say but ultimately the woman will either terminate the pregnancy. Clearly its not fair. Good point tonymctones
-
What about the "pro-choice" crowds' silence on the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance from private corporations?
Sort of "anti-choice" no?
I am against it as a lot of progressives are. I only support a Universal Single Payer system for everyone and Private Insurance if you want it. No mandate.
Let me ask you 333366, why do you support mandatory auto insurance? I do not and therefore will not comply. Auto Insurance should be just that, AUTO insurance and cover the car and if you don`t want to cover your car, you should not have to. 2 States in America see it this way, a shame that more don`t follow suit.
-
That isn't really a "pro choice ppl" type of thing. More like a "female, her body and her decision" type of thing.
Granted there is no real compromise on this or level playing field in the man's regards and options. On the flip side of the coin, what if there were laws that granted the MAN the decision and legal right to have a woman undergo an abortion just because he wanted to?
This is just one of those issues where no clear cut outcome is available and every time it is discussed each side plays Devils Advocate on the issue.
disagree abuot the no clear cut outcome...
I see your point about the hypothetical about the man forcing a women to abort a child but it is in a fact creating a straw man.
My point is along the lines that women have the right to walk away from a pregnancy via abortion Ill i think is fair is to provide men the same rights. I dont mean forcing her to abort I mean not paying child support if he chooses not to.
both ppl were needed to get into the situation but you provide only one with options and not only that but you make the other persons life dependent on the one with options...that my friends is what they called getting screwed up the ace with no lube
-
I am against it as a lot of progressives are. I only support a Universal Single Payer system for everyone and Private Insurance if you want it. No mandate.
Let me ask you 333366, why do you support mandatory auto insurance? I do not and therefore will not comply. Auto Insurance should be just that, AUTO insurance and cover the car and if you don`t want to cover your car, you should not have to. 2 States in America see it this way, a shame that more don`t follow suit.
Because you are not forced to drive an automobile. That is a choice to you make.
-
What about choosing NOT to buy somwething from a private corporation as this current billr equires under penalty of law and fines by the IRS?
Do you realize that the IRS is essentially the debt collector and enforcer for this?
I don't think you should be forced to buy anything from anywhere you don't want. Even if you don't want to have any sort of that thing (health care) at all.
It is your (and others) health we are talking about here. Health equates into "life and life extension" through treatment, prevention and care. If you don't want health care to enhance and extend your own life, that is your choice. But for those who do want it, it should be available to them. For those who can't afford private corp premiums, there should be some kind of assistance available to them. Studies have shown that in the long run it is cheaper to help someone with routine health care and screenings than it is much later when illness or bad choices have caught up with them and care for them through sickness and afterwards. (assuming they survive whatever the situation pertains too)
But that doesn't mean I think you should run out and throw free health care up in the air like confetti in a parade. Especially to those who take no pro-active actions to contribute to it. Working, preparing for work (students), etc...
-
yes but getting in the "ace" wont get ya knocked up tonymctones (sorry couldnt be helped)
-
yes but getting in the "ace" wont get ya knocked up tonymctones (sorry couldnt be helped)
LOL as I was typing that I could see the replies coming ;D
-
Because you are not forced to drive an automobile. That is a choice to you make.
Exactly. So why shouldn`t you have the choice of protecting your car or not protecting your car. You don`t buy house insurance in case your neighbors house catches fire. If you had house insurance and your friend accidentally set fire to it, you wouldn`t expect HIS housing insurance to cover your damages.
I can`t believe you fail to see the scam of mandatory auto insurance. Its just as bad if not worse than a mandate for health insurance yet you roll over like a coward. I predict you will roll over like a coward for mandatory health insurance as well if it comes to that. You sir, are a coward.
-
I am Pro-Choice. However, I do not think you should be restricted from purchasing any kind of health care you want or choose.
I do not think that abortions should be covered in any regards by government health care or funds.
Covering abortions would actually save the economy more money in the long run. Less population, less strain on resources, so it goes...
-
Exactly. So why shouldn`t you have the choice of protecting your car or not protecting your car. You don`t buy house insurance in case your neighbors house catches fire. If you had house insurance and your friend accidentally set fire to it, you wouldn`t expect HIS housing insurance to cover your damages.
I can`t believe you fail to see the scam of mandatory auto insurance. Its just as bad if not worse than a mandate for health insurance yet you roll over like a coward. I predict you will roll over like a coward for mandatory health insurance as well if it comes to that. You sir, are a coward.
::) ::)
The two are not even remotely close and we have been over this many times over.
-
HERE IS EXACTLY MY STANCE:
-
I am against it as a lot of progressives are.
This explains a lot about you. Progressivism is the disease that is killing this country.
Do you really know what you stand for?
-
because its our body, grant it we didnt get there alone so guess its a double edge sword
So then your against what the Biden commision accomplished by making steroids a controlled substance?I mean its my f'n body,what right does some piss ant in Washington have to tell me what to put into it.
-
So then your against what the Biden commision accomplished by making steroids a controlled substance?I mean its my f'n body,what right does some piss ant in Washington have to tell me what to put into it.
I honestly dont know about that one Billy have not heard of that
-
HERE IS EXACTLY MY STANCE:
::) ::)
We spend hundreds and hundreds of billions on social welfare every day so spare me the dramatics.
-
I honestly dont know about that one Billy have not heard of that
Do you support ALL drugs being made legal?
-
Do you support ALL drugs being made legal?
Alot of me..yes. and a part no..what can I say im a woman cant make up my mind
-
So then your against what the Biden commision accomplished by making steroids a controlled substance?I mean its my f'n body,what right does some piss ant in Washington have to tell me what to put into it.
Thats a fallacy. The legislation gave full power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services solely determine what should be outlawed.
The HHS Secretary was Republican Tommy Thompson and he determined what should be outlawed.
Sorry, in the end, it was HIS decision.
-
Thats a fallacy. The legislation gave full power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services solely determine what should be outlawed.
The HHS Secretary was Republican Tommy Thompson and he determined what should be outlawed.
Sorry, in the end, it was HIS decision.
Good way to divert from answering the question.
-
Covering abortions would actually save the economy more money in the long run. Less population, less strain on resources, so it goes...
sorry hoss you need alot more reasoning than saving money to be for abortion
killing off elderly ppl at a certain age would save money too, mentally disabled ppl as well, physically disabled ppl too...
I guess your in favor of all of those too?
-
sorry hoss you need alot more reasoning than saving money to be for abortion
killing off elderly ppl at a certain age would save money too, mentally disabled ppl as well, physically disabled ppl too...
I guess your in favor of all of those too?
Of course he is Tony. TA is a "progressive" and Beck has already exposed their Dr. Jack agenda.
-
Thats a fallacy. The legislation gave full power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services solely determine what should be outlawed.
The HHS Secretary was Republican Tommy Thompson and he determined what should be outlawed.
Sorry, in the end, it was HIS decision.
Joe Biden is the Anti-Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Vice presidents get accused of falsely taking credit for big things even when they don't.
Maybe that's why, hot as the topic is these days, Biden never mentions that he led the way to having steroids made illegal in this country.
But, hell if he didn't: In May 1989, back when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden called a hearing about the use of steroids in the NFL. According to a Washington Post report on the hearing, Atlanta Falcons guard Bill Fralic told the committee that "approximately 75 percent" of all "linemen, linebackers and tight ends" in the league used steroids. NFL czar Pete Rozelle testified at the same hearing that random testing detected that only "6 to 7 percent" of players were juiced, but Biden said he "would have trouble not believing Fralic."
Biden had sponsored S.1829, a Senate bill making steroids a controlled substance, in the 100th congress, and, according to the vice president's office, later wrote the Senate version of a House bill that outlawed possession of the drugs.
Again: Biden is the anti-Arnold!
(Full disclosure: I occasionally play in a really bad band with people who work for the vice president. We could use some performance enhancers.)
WRONG AS USUAL!!!Biden got them banned and it was his assanoine speech screaming "dam the science steroids need to be banned "that was the nail in the coffin for freedom.This jerkoff has done more to steal freedom from Americans then ANYONE in history.Please,dont argue with me about steroids,your oiut of your league.
-
Good way to divert from answering the question.
Read the Legislation: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2195&tab=summary
Authorizes the Attorney General, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to exempt from regulation under the Controlled Substances Act any compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any anabolic steroid that is intended for administration to a human being or an animal and that does not present any significant potential for abuse because of its concentration, preparation, formulation, or delivery system.
Here is another REPUBLICAN BUSH APPOINTEE you can blame as it was HIS Decision after hearing from Tommy Thompson.
BLAME REPUBLICAN BUSH APPOINTED JOHN ASHCROFT
(http://richmerritt.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/john_ashcroft.jpg)
-
I didnt know steroids were legal during clintons' term.
-
sorry hoss you need alot more reasoning than saving money to be for abortion
killing off elderly ppl at a certain age would save money too, mentally disabled ppl as well, physically disabled ppl too...
I guess your in favor of all of those too?
Sorry Hoss, an unborn fetus is not a person.
-
Read the Legislation: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2195&tab=summary
Authorizes the Attorney General, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to exempt from regulation under the Controlled Substances Act any compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any anabolic steroid that is intended for administration to a human being or an animal and that does not present any significant potential for abuse because of its concentration, preparation, formulation, or delivery system.
Here is another REPUBLICAN BUSH APPOINTEE you can blame as it was HIS Decision after hearing from Tommy Thompson.
BLAME REPUBLICAN BUSH APPOINTED JOHN ASHCROFT
(http://richmerritt.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/john_ashcroft.jpg)
Your an idiot.Thompson followed the recomendations made by Joe the Pussy Biden and the bill was written by Biden.It was that commision that did it.The health and human services department would never even have considered it, unless the dumb ass Biden commision brought these recomadatiuons foreward.Now,most of the drug laws in this country,including the drug czar were also Bidens fault.It was Joe Biden who did this and he is the biggest robber of freedom in the history of this nation.
-
I didnt know steroids were legal during clintons' term.
They weren`t. Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 became law on November 29, 1990, when President Bush signed the Omnibus Crime Control Bill.
In 2004 there was another Bill to amend the first bill in 1990.
-
By the way,your confusing the laws.Steroids were made a controlled substance in 1997 I believe after the Biden commision..The law you are reffering to is the pro-hormone law
-
By the way,your confusing the laws.Steroids were made a controlled substance in 1997 I believe after the Biden commision..The law you are reffering to is the pro-hormone law
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/19532890
U.S. Federal Law
The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 became law on November 29, 1990, when former President Bush signed the Omnibus Crime Control Bill. The law applies in every Federal court across the country. It places steroids in the same legal class - Schedule III -- as barbiturates, LSD precursors, veterinary tranquilizers like ketamine and narcotic painkillers like Vicodin. Simple possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000. Simple possession by a person with a previous conviction for certain offenses, including any drug or narcotic crimes, must get imprisonment of at least 15 days and up to two years, and a minimum fine of $2,500. Individuals with two or more such previous convictions face imprisonment of not less than 90 days but not more than three years, and a minimum fine of $5,000, just for simply possessing. Selling steroids, or possessing them with intent to sell, is a federal felony. An individual who sells steroids, or possesses with intent to sell, is punishable by up to five years in prison (with at least two additional years of supervised release) and/or a $250,000 fine. An individual who commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a drug offense faces up to ten years imprisonment (with at least four additional years of special parole) and/or increased fines.
The Anabolic Steroids Control Act can be enforced and violations prosecuted in every state.
-
Right,thats the one that made them a controlled substance.THATS The Biden commision.The other one that that dope Thompson did was for making pro-hormones as illegal as steroids[probably the second dumbest law ever].Biden was the lunatic that made steroids a controlled substance.
-
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/19532890
U.S. Federal Law
The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 became law on November 29, 1990, when former President Bush signed the Omnibus Crime Control Bill. The law applies in every Federal court across the country. It places steroids in the same legal class - Schedule III -- as barbiturates, LSD precursors, veterinary tranquilizers like ketamine and narcotic painkillers like Vicodin. Simple possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000. Simple possession by a person with a previous conviction for certain offenses, including any drug or narcotic crimes, must get imprisonment of at least 15 days and up to two years, and a minimum fine of $2,500. Individuals with two or more such previous convictions face imprisonment of not less than 90 days but not more than three years, and a minimum fine of $5,000, just for simply possessing. Selling steroids, or possessing them with intent to sell, is a federal felony. An individual who sells steroids, or possesses with intent to sell, is punishable by up to five years in prison (with at least two additional years of supervised release) and/or a $250,000 fine. An individual who commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a drug offense faces up to ten years imprisonment (with at least four additional years of special parole) and/or increased fines.
The Anabolic Steroids Control Act can be enforced and violations prosecuted in every state.
And who controlled the congress at that time TA and actually wrote the bill?
-
No it wasn`t a "Biden Commission"
H.R.4658
Title: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide criminal penalties for illicit use of anabolic steroids and for coaches and others who endeavor to persuade or induce athletes to take anabolic steroids, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] (introduced 4/26/1990)
-
Check this out. Even the DEA and FDA did not want them criminalized. Turning a blind eye to Science:
United States
The history of the U.S. legislation on anabolic steroids goes back to the late 1980s, when the U.S. Congress considered placing anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act following the controversy over Ben Johnson's victory at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. During deliberations, the American Medical Association (AMA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all opposed listing anabolic steroids as controlled substances, citing the fact that use of these hormones does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for such scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.[105] The same act also introduced more stringent controls with higher criminal penalties for offenses involving the illegal distribution of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone
-
Sorry Hoss, an unborn fetus is not a person.
why b/c they arent self sustaining? b/c the law says so? why is an unborn fetus not a person
there have been cases when a person is tried for double homicide when killing a pregnant women...
-
why b/c they arent self sustaining? b/c the law says so? why is an unborn fetus not a person
there have been cases when a person is tried for double homicide when killing a pregnant women...
BRITISH EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST AND AUTHOR Richard Dawkins Former Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford; author of "The God Delusion" and "The Greatest Show on Earth."
The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy
Q: The conservative Christian group Focus on the Family is sponsoring a pro-life ad, featuring football star Tim Tebow, during Sunday's Super Bowl. Should CBS show the ad? Should CBS allow other faith-based groups to buy Super Bowl ads promoting their beliefs on social issues? Is a major sporting event, or a TV ad campaign, an appropriate venue for discussing such vital and divisive culture-war issues like abortion?
I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.
The following is what passes for logic in the Tebow mind. His mother was advised by doctors to abort him, but she refused, which is why Tim is here. So abortion is a bad thing. Masterful conclusion.
It is a version of what, following the great Nobel-Prizewinning biologist Peter Medawar, I have called the Great Beethoven Fallacy.
Versions of the Great Beethoven Fallacy are attributed to various Christian apologists, and the details vary. The following is the version favoured by Norman St John Stevas, a British Conservative Member of Parliament. One doctor to another:
"About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?"
"I would have terminated the pregnancy."
"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."
It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this spectacularly stupid argument. Setting aside the simple falsehood that Ludwig van Beethoven was the fifth child in his family (he was actually the eldest), the falsehood that any of his siblings was born blind, deaf or dumb, and the falsehood that his father was syphilitic, we are left with the 'logic'. As Peter Medawar, writing with his wife, Jean Medawar, said,
"The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious . . . the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse."
If you follow the 'pro-life' logic to its conclusion, a fertile woman is guilty of something equivalent to murder every time she refuses an offer of copulation. Incidentally, 'pro life' always means pro human life, never animal life although an adult cow or monkey is obviously far more capable of feeling pain and fear than a human fetus. But the profoundly un-evolutionary nature of this terminology is another story and I'll set it on one side.
The sperm that conceived Tim Tebow was part of an ejaculate of (at an average estimate) 40 million. If any one of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow's ovum instead of the one that did, Tim would not have been born, somebody else would. Probably not such a good quarterback but - we can but hope - a better logician, who might have survived the home schooling and broken free. That is not the point. The point is that every single one of us is lucky to be alive against hyper-astronomical odds. Tim Tebow owes his existence not just to his mother's refusal to have an abortion. He owes his existence to the fact that his parents had intercourse precisely when they did, not a minute sooner or later. Then before that they had to meet and decide to marry. The same is true of all four of his grandparents, all eight of his great grandparents, and so on back.
Religious apologists are unimpressed by this kind of argument because, they say, there is a distinction between snuffing out a life that is already in existence (as in abortion) and failure to bring life into existence in the first place. It's not a distinction that survives analytical thought, however. Look at it from the point of view of Tim's unborn sister (let us say), who would have been conceived two months later if only Tim had been aborted. Admittedly, she is not in a position to complain of her non-existence. But then nor would Tim have been in a position to complain of his non-existence, if he had been aborted. You need a functioning nervous system in order to complain, or regret, or feel wistful, or feel pain, or miss the life that you could have had. Unconceived babies don't have a nervous system. Nor do aborted fetuses. As far as anything that matters is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies. At least, that is true of early abortions, which means the vast majority.
The fact that the Tim Tebow advertisement is a load of unthought-through nonsense is no reason to ban it. That would infringe our valued principle of free speech. The best that the rest of us can do is point out, to anyone that will listen despite our lack of money to pay for such advertisements, that it is nonsense. As I have just done.
-Richard Dawkins
-
why b/c they arent self sustaining? b/c the law says so? why is an unborn fetus not a person
there have been cases when a person is tried for double homicide when killing a pregnant women...
I believe in some states it when the fetus could function on its own. To b\me I call BS its a child once I dont get my monthly visitor
-
Check this out. Even the DEA and FDA did not want them criminalized. Turning a blind eye to Science:
United States
The history of the U.S. legislation on anabolic steroids goes back to the late 1980s, when the U.S. Congress considered placing anabolic steroids under the Controlled Substances Act following the controversy over Ben Johnson's victory at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. During deliberations, the American Medical Association (AMA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all opposed listing anabolic steroids as controlled substances, citing the fact that use of these hormones does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for such scheduling under the Controlled Substance Act. Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.[105] The same act also introduced more stringent controls with higher criminal penalties for offenses involving the illegal distribution of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone
Advocates of steroid law reform are very disappointed that Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama selected Senator Joseph Biden as his vice presidential nominee. Senator Biden was the chief architect of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 that criminalized the possession of anabolic steroids for non-medical purposes. Biden also wrote the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 which opened the door for significantly harsher penalties for steroid possession and steroid distribution; this has resulted in the increased prosecution of steroid users over the past few years who are treated as dangerous criminals with the worst penalties for the non-medical use of steroids in history. Senator Biden has been on his anti-steroid crusade for almost two decades.
Steroid law expert Rick Collins revealed in testimony to the United States Sentencing Commission that the typical non-medical steroid users has been misrepresented to the public and to legislators.
The “typical” steroid user has been presented as fitting one of two profiles: either the million dollar sports star, or the hapless teenager seeking to emulate him
The overwhelming majority were gainfully employed, health conscious adult males, between 25 and 45 years of age, using hormones not for athletic performance but to improve their appearance. These users typically are non-smokers who follow exercise routines including both strenuous weight training and cardio programs, and adhere to healthful diets. Do they put too high a premium on superficial appearances? In my opinion, absolutely. Are they overcompensating for underlying self-esteem issues? Perhaps, in many cases. Are they assuming risks that might potentially be harmful to them? Probably, yes, as do smokers, drinkers, and extreme sports enthusiasts. But however misguided we may judge nonmedical users of these hormones to be, I seriously question whether they are the sort of dangerous criminals deserving of extended prison terms
Their motivation, whether labeled as vanity or an excessive quest for self-improvement, is unlike the motivation that drives the use of every other controlled substance. However misguided steroid use without medical supervision may be, it is long-range, goal-oriented behavior. Steroid users are the virtual antithesis of the typical drug offender.
Yet Senator Joseph Biden had no problem criminalizing anabolic steroid use for gainfully employed, largely white collar, middle class, otherwise law-abiding steroid users. Those who have seen the steroid documentary Bigger Stronger Faster were given a glimpse of Senator Bidens deep-seated psychological antipathy toward steroid users. Joe Biden is angry he was not good enough to make the baseball team and wants revenge.
Senator Biden has admitted that his anti-steroid zealotry originated with his failure to make the sports team in college; he was certain he was outperformed by some steroid user! As a senator, he has used his power and influence to get back at those superior athletes in sports who may have been using steroids. Of course, he is only figuratively punishing those athletes from his college days by criminalizing anabolic steroids for all individuals who use steroids for non-medical purposes.
Rick Collins sent me an email shortly after the announcement of Biden as Obamas VP nominee with a link to Radley Balkos disappointment over the Biden nomination.
Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. (emphasis added)
I agree that Barrack Obamas nomination of Senator Joseph Biden is the worst possible pick for those of us interested in reform of anabolic steroid law. We know he is prone to exaggerating (the dangers and side effects of anabolic steroids) when he is angry but that is no excuse. We do not feel that federal drug policy, and specifically steroid law, should be based on the exaggerations of an angry man!
Related Posts
Barack Obama Attacks Joseph Bidens Position on Anabolic Steroids
Anti-Steroid Crusader Chosen as Obama Presidential Assistant for Legislative Affairs
NPC Bodybuilder Joseph Mobareki Arrested on Steroid Distribution Charges
Congress Wants to Add Growth Hormone and DHEA to Controlled Substance Act
New French Laws Imprisons Individuals for Personal Use of Anabolic Steroids
Posted by Millard Baker on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Filed under Steroid History, Steroid Law, Steroids in Popular Culture, Steroids in Sports Tagged with anabolic steroid control act, barrack obama, joseph biden, rick collins, Steroid Law
There was no reason for this.Joe Biden was a total failure as an athlete and blamed it on others use of steroids.In fact,the first steroid ever banned was dianabol.That was pushed through by some jerkoff senator because his pussy son couldnt play at Notre Dame.These senators and congressman are a joke!THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THEM!!!!!
-
Great George Carlin post TA. I'm not normally a fan of his at all but he brought some interesting humor to this discussion.
As for this mandate i've already said i don't agree with it. Most liberals don't. Olbermann did a special comment on how he would personally NOT buy insurance because he is a self insured individual. I totally agree with him. Insurance reform should bring about choice and options for those who need it not force those who do not want it.
On abortion i completely disagree with tony that a man should be able to walk away. That is such utter bullsh*t. The law may seem unfair but who gets saddled with the burden of raising the child almost every time? The woman. Far too many men walk away from their obligations not only for child support but for helping raise the child itself. It will always and should always be a womans right to choose, if you don't like it don't fu*k her. Simple as that.
-
Advocates of steroid law reform are very disappointed that Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama selected Senator Joseph Biden as his vice presidential nominee. Senator Biden was the chief architect of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 that criminalized the possession of anabolic steroids for non-medical purposes. Biden also wrote the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 which opened the door for significantly harsher penalties for steroid possession and steroid distribution; this has resulted in the increased prosecution of steroid users over the past few years who are treated as dangerous criminals with the worst penalties for the non-medical use of steroids in history. Senator Biden has been on his anti-steroid crusade for almost two decades.
Steroid law expert Rick Collins revealed in testimony to the United States Sentencing Commission that the typical non-medical steroid users has been misrepresented to the public and to legislators.
The “typical” steroid user has been presented as fitting one of two profiles: either the million dollar sports star, or the hapless teenager seeking to emulate him
The overwhelming majority were gainfully employed, health conscious adult males, between 25 and 45 years of age, using hormones not for athletic performance but to improve their appearance. These users typically are non-smokers who follow exercise routines including both strenuous weight training and cardio programs, and adhere to healthful diets. Do they put too high a premium on superficial appearances? In my opinion, absolutely. Are they overcompensating for underlying self-esteem issues? Perhaps, in many cases. Are they assuming risks that might potentially be harmful to them? Probably, yes, as do smokers, drinkers, and extreme sports enthusiasts. But however misguided we may judge nonmedical users of these hormones to be, I seriously question whether they are the sort of dangerous criminals deserving of extended prison terms
Their motivation, whether labeled as vanity or an excessive quest for self-improvement, is unlike the motivation that drives the use of every other controlled substance. However misguided steroid use without medical supervision may be, it is long-range, goal-oriented behavior. Steroid users are the virtual antithesis of the typical drug offender.
Yet Senator Joseph Biden had no problem criminalizing anabolic steroid use for gainfully employed, largely white collar, middle class, otherwise law-abiding steroid users. Those who have seen the steroid documentary Bigger Stronger Faster were given a glimpse of Senator Bidens deep-seated psychological antipathy toward steroid users. Joe Biden is angry he was not good enough to make the baseball team and wants revenge.
Senator Biden has admitted that his anti-steroid zealotry originated with his failure to make the sports team in college; he was certain he was outperformed by some steroid user! As a senator, he has used his power and influence to get back at those superior athletes in sports who may have been using steroids. Of course, he is only figuratively punishing those athletes from his college days by criminalizing anabolic steroids for all individuals who use steroids for non-medical purposes.
Rick Collins sent me an email shortly after the announcement of Biden as Obamas VP nominee with a link to Radley Balkos disappointment over the Biden nomination.
Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. (emphasis added)
I agree that Barrack Obamas nomination of Senator Joseph Biden is the worst possible pick for those of us interested in reform of anabolic steroid law. We know he is prone to exaggerating (the dangers and side effects of anabolic steroids) when he is angry but that is no excuse. We do not feel that federal drug policy, and specifically steroid law, should be based on the exaggerations of an angry man!
Related Posts
Barack Obama Attacks Joseph Bidens Position on Anabolic Steroids
Anti-Steroid Crusader Chosen as Obama Presidential Assistant for Legislative Affairs
NPC Bodybuilder Joseph Mobareki Arrested on Steroid Distribution Charges
Congress Wants to Add Growth Hormone and DHEA to Controlled Substance Act
New French Laws Imprisons Individuals for Personal Use of Anabolic Steroids
Posted by Millard Baker on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Filed under Steroid History, Steroid Law, Steroids in Popular Culture, Steroids in Sports Tagged with anabolic steroid control act, barrack obama, joseph biden, rick collins, Steroid Law
There was no reason for this.Joe Biden was a total failure as an athlete and blamed it on others use of steroids.In fact,the first steroid ever banned was dianabol.That was pushed through by some jerkoff senator because his pussy son couldnt play at Notre Dame.These senators and congressman are a joke!THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THEM!!!!!
Again the facts don`t back your assertion. Here is the bill: There was no "Biden Commission" in 1990
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.4658:
H.R.4658
Title: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide criminal penalties for illicit use of anabolic steroids and for coaches and others who endeavor to persuade or induce athletes to take anabolic steroids, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] (introduced 4/26/1990) Cosponsors (3)
Related Bills: H.R.5269
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:HR04658:@@@P
H.R.4658
Title: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide criminal penalties for illicit use of anabolic steroids and for coaches and others who endeavor to persuade or induce athletes to take anabolic steroids, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] (introduced 4/26/1990) Cosponsors (3)
Related Bills: H.R.5269
Latest Major Action: 5/17/1990 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Mazzoli, Romano L. [KY-3] - 4/26/1990
Rep McCollum, Bill [FL-5] - 4/26/1990
Rep Smith, Lawrence [FL-16] - 4/26/1990
-
READ RICK COLLINS' BOOK.IM TOO TIRED TO LOOK IT UP.rICK SPEELS IT OUT VERY CLEARLY.BIDEN WAS THE BIGGEST OFFENDER OF THIS.The sad thing is that ANY senator or congressman gets behind these dumb laws,then holds hearing after hearing after hearing is the biggest waste of time,money and effort ever.By the way FUCK JOE BIDEN I USE THEM ANYWAY AND EVERYTIME I STICK A SYRINGE IN I THINK OF HIS SMIRKING FACE.
-
READ RICK COLLINS' BOOK.IM TOO TIRED TO LOOK IT UP.rICK SPEELS IT OUT VERY CLEARLY.BIDEN WAS THE BIGGEST OFFENDER OF THIS.The sad thing is that ANY senator or congressman gets behind these dumb laws,then holds hearing after hearing after hearing is the biggest waste of time,money and effort ever.By the way FUCK JOE BIDEN I USE THEM ANYWAY AND EVERYTIME I STICK A SYRINGE IN I THINK OF HIS SMIRKING FACE.
Why don`t you just read THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION? THAT IS THE HORSE`S MOUTH!
You are bending yourself into a pretzel and believing false information. Why not seek out the primary source and read it for once? I gave it to you.
-
Why don`t you just read THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION? THAT IS THE HORSE`S MOUTH!
You are bending yourself into a pretzel and believing false information. Why not seek out the primary source and read it for once? I gave it to you.
Joe Biden wrote the senate bill!!!You keep adding shit on it.The commision was by Biden,he wrote the legislation.He sponsored it.THOSE are the facts.Why would a guy like Rick Colins or any other expert bring false information?
Schedule Three - The Hard Way!
by John Romano and Rick Collins
Some of you were still playing with Hot Wheels when anabolic steroids became neighbors with Valium and cocaine as far as the government was concerned. I vividly remember being part of the story that Michael Zumpano told on HMR of the reps from Organon and Searle and other drug companies pulling up to Gold's Gym in Venice and dispensing gear to those of us who ordered it. How we went from hormones being considered an innocuous item that could be purchased directly from the drug companies to being a scheduled narcotic is as mystifying as it is insane. For those of you too young to know, or too old to remember, I thought it might be a good idea to give you all a little primer as to how possession of testosterone - a naturally occurring hormone in your body - went from no one caring to getting you five years in federal prison.
The great German chancellor Otto Von Bismarck once said that "laws are like sausages, it's better not to see them being made." In the case of scheduling anabolic steroids, nothing can be truer. The actual process to criminalize and schedule steroids was a deeply involved and convoluted process that amounts to perhaps the greatest abuse of power and obfuscation of due process I have yet come to know. As far as I know, there is only one place to learn the details of how Congress bamboozled the public in passing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, and that is in Rick Collins' book, Legal Muscle: Anabolics in America (available at Legal Muscle Books: Legal Muscle Books: Anabolics in America). Hence, I will be quoting liberally from it. Even if you have no interest in steroids and the law, the very notion of Congress acting in the so-called "public interest" in scheduling anabolic steroids is as sanctimonious as it is invidious and every tax-paying American ought to know how it happened. Bear in mind though, this is an extremely abbreviated version of the story. The actual process occupies hundreds and hundreds of pages of Congressional transcript testimony. Rick Collins is about the only guy who ever read it all. From his painstaking view of the matter, the following is a brief summation of the greatest travesty to ever befall an adult male in America.
.....During the mid-eighties, anabolic steroids were classified as prescription medicines, required to be prescribed and dispensed by licensed physicians. Their federal regulation came under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Eventually, after much banning and warnings against their use by the athletic communities, the press began reporting widespread public usage.
Members of subcommittees in both the House and Senate drafted bills and scheduled hearings to address the issue. In 1987, a House bill was introduced making it a felony to distribute steroids without a valid prescription. The next year Ben Johnson tested positive for Stanozolol (winstrol) at the 1988 Olympics in Soul, south Korea, and was stripped of his gold medal. The subsequent outrage piqued and Senator Joe Biden (now Vice President Biden) introduced a similar Senate bill. President Reagan signed the resulting legislation as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The new law punished traffickers of anabolic steroids for non-medical reasons with up to three years in prison (up to six years if sold to minors under 18 years). Subsequently, a new bill was proposed to create the "Anabolic Steroid Restriction Act of 1989" which would criminalize using the mail to transport or sell steroids.
Since the new bills and laws imposed no federal controls on the manufacture and prescription of anabolics, they didn't prevent steroid products from being diverted to the black market. For this reason, a few doctors began suggesting controlled substance status for anabolic steroids, and for some reason, got the attention of Congress.
The process by which drugs are to be added to the controlled substances schedules falls under the authority of the Attorney General. The factors to consider as to the drug in question include:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
After review, John Lawn, Administrator of the DEA, concluded that anabolic steroids should not be made controlled substances. Health and Human Services Secretary Otis Bowen agreed. Neither agency viewed anabolic steroids as meeting the criteria for a controlled substance.
At this point, a new law had criminalized steroid trafficking and the appropriate agencies had concluded that scheduling anabolics was inappropriate. The issue would seem to have been resolved. But members of Congress, it would be seen, had other ideas.
In July of 1988, the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary convened to consider a bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to add methandrostenolone (dianabol) as a Schedule I controlled substance.
The hearing provided an opportunity for the legislators to hear what the experts thought about the actual health dangers and the idea of scheduling steroids. Charles Yesalis, Sc.D., professor of health and human development at Penn State University and probably the world's foremost expert on steroids, repeatedly stressed to the subcommittee that the medical side effects were mostly temporary, and presented a balanced and objective assessment:
"Steroids do have a medical use. From an epidemiological point of view of the health dangers, I am much more concerned about heroin; I am much more concerned about cocaine; I am much more concerned about cigarettes than anabolic steroids. This is not to say steroids are not potentially dangerous rather, from what we know currently, I am more concerned about the other drugs - and you could likely add the abuse of alcohol to that list - than anabolic steroids."
Regarding the issue of steroids' addictive potential, Dr. David Bever, an associate professor of health education at George Mason University who had recently conducted a study about steroid usage among bodybuilders and power lifters in the D.C. area, said: "We did not find that it was habituating..."
Clearly, the experts from the scientific community were lending little support for scheduling. But what would the DEA have to say? Gene Haislip, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA's Office of Diversion Control, was called to testify. But rather than supporting the bill, Mr. Haislip flat-out opposed it on behalf of DEA. He pointed out the inappropriateness of steroid hormones in the Controlled Substances Act, stating, "The Controlled Substances Act is built entirely and exclusively around drugs which are principally psychoactive and are abused almost exclusively by virtue and because of that property. All of these drugs can be described either as narcotics, stimulants, depressants or hallucinogens." The DEA position, he made clear, was to continue its opposition to scheduling steroids, stating that the DEA was not "the appropriate body to enforce any measures of this kind."
In April of the following year, the Senate conducted its own investigation. The Senate's Committee on the Judiciary addressed "The Steroid Abuse Problem in America, Focusing on the Use of Steroids in College and Professional Football Today." As the designated voice of the American Medical Association (AMA), Dr. Edward Langston had come to acknowledge that steroid abuse is a significant problem but to oppose scheduling. The AMA opposed scheduling because "abuse of steroids does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence as is required for scheduling...." Dr. Langston also pointed out that other effective and appropriate approaches to the problem existed, including the recently enacted Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
Dr. Yesalis once again gave an objective review, and explicitly recommended against scare tactics, saying, " increased death, probability of death or morbidity could be taking place, but people apparently are not dropping like flies. And I think we have to be careful not to lose further credibility."
It wasn't what Rep. Dan Lungren wanted to hear. After sparring with Dr. Yesalis, the congressman went after Dr. Bever. The manner in which politicians who knew next to nothing about the subject matter were attacking qualified experts was becoming...suspicious.
What Drs. Yesalis and Bever got was nothing compared to what was given to Dr. Langston of the AMA. The physician had barely finished his presentation when the onslaught began. Dr. Katz, the psychiatrist whose flawed work had been criticized by Dr. Yesalis, took the first swing by declaring the AMA statement as voiced by Dr. Langston "shocking" and "ridiculous." Those were compliments compared to what Senator Biden had to say. It was painful to read, and must have been even worse to watch as the doctor was forced to defend himself against a skilled inquisitor. Was the AMA position weak? Probably. Still, something was going on. Was it coincidence that only the witnesses whose testimony presented speed bumps in the path of scheduling were castigated and ridiculed? It was evident that Senator Biden, along with the subcommittees of both the House and the Senate, had a certain game plan in mind.
Congress was able to call witnesses at the various hearings whose stories would help support the criminalization idea. Former Olympic track and field athlete Diane Williams testified about the masculinisation she suffered due to steroid use, breaking down and unable to continue after confessing to sprouting facial hair and the growth of her clitoris to "embarrassing proportions." Steve Courson, former player for the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, offered articulate but questionable testimony by suggesting - without any basis in fact -- that his heart problems were linked to his past steroid use. Pat Croce, conditioning coach for the Philadelphia 76er's and Philadelphia Flyers, insisted "steroids must be considered a controlled substance, no different than cocaine. Steroids, cocaine; the same connotation." In contrast to Dr. Yesalis, Mr. Croce went on to vigorously tout scare tactics, in addition to criminal prosecutions, as the best approach.
It was Kenneth Kashin, MD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine, who spoke the language that Congress was looking to hear, opining that "steroid use can cause an addiction with similarities to alcohol, opiate and cocaine addiction." He talked about "dangerous criminal-like behavior while intoxicated on anabolic steroids" and individuals who have "lost control of their behavior."
When all was said and done, despite the position of the DEA, AMA, and the recommendations of the most knowledgeable experts, Congress scheduled steroids as Schedule III controlled substances under Title 21 of the United States Code, which regulates Food and Drugs. The legislation was called the "Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990."
What motivated Congress to ignore the advice of the experts and forge ahead with scheduling? Page after page of congressional testimony focuses on two issues and two issues only.
The primary issue: the unfair advantage that steroid-enhanced professional and top-level athletes have over those who don't use steroids. That's why the great majority of witnesses at the hearings weren't physicians, pharmacologists or addiction specialists; instead, they were athletes, coaches, trainers and sports officials, mostly from professional and college football.
The secondary consideration of Congress was the message that steroid use in top-level sports sends to our youth. This consideration surfaces repeatedly, expressed by numerous witnesses and legislators alike. The focus of Sen. Biden in his opening remarks was on the "stars on the athletic field as the role models in our schools, in our colleges, and in our lives." While some health concerns were expressed about teen use of steroids, the greater concern was for the demoralizing effect that steroid use by sports stars would have on teens.
Given the obvious predisposition of Congress, it is questionable how objectively the legislators listened to the health risks information. It's difficult to imagine that they could have been impartial, given their agenda and motivations. The hyperbolic testimony about health risks and the shaky "hypothesis" about addictive potential upon which Congress chose to rely seem like icing to disguise the true dish they were serving to America. With all due respect to Diane Williams, her unfortunate experience hardly justifies railroading the criminalization of steroids for adult men. As for the addiction "hypothesis," Congress knew that the only way to get a substance scheduled was to establish its potential for abuse and dependency. However flimsy and unsubstantiated, the theory was just what Congress needed as the "missing ingredient" to justify scheduling.
So, there you have it. Thousands of otherwise law-abiding Americans - not kids, but mature adult males - have been arrested, handcuffed, searched, arraigned, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the personal use of anabolic steroids. Virtually none of them have been Olympic athletes or NFL players. They're not cheating in sports; they're not even playing sports. Yet they are being vacuumed up into the criminal justice system by a law that was never enacted to address them. Hundreds of transcript pages were devoted to promoting fair play at the elite and collegiate levels. Nobody ever mentioned the idea that the thirty-five-year-old guy using a moderate amount of juice to enhance the effects of his training would be arrested and prosecuted. No teens are looking up to him. He's not cheating any other athletes. He's not bothering anybody.
In the zeal of Congress to solve the problem of athletic cheating, the typical mature adult male steroid user was turned into a criminal desperado, and remains so today, by a law that was passed with barely a thought to the issue.
Article Source
-
;D
Citing John Fucking Romano as a source.
AGAIN, read the ACTUAL LEGISLATION of 1990. There was no "Biden Commission" in 1990 when steroids were criminalized with George Bush`s Omnibus Crime Bill of 1990.
-
Billy,
I personally think Democrats and Republicans share equal blame for making all drugs illegal. The War on Drugs is an Epic Failure.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has even praised making steroids illegal. It takes a great politician to err on the side of Science and Fact, despite what the dumb public may believe or by just doing what is politically expedient. There are only a handful of Republicans and Democrats willing to do that, certainly not enough to repeal these stupid laws.
Furthermore, the public at large is dumb as a brick when it comes to drugs and personal freedom.
All in all, the blame can be spread and blanketed to our entire culture and not concentrated in one area.
My feeling is that we err on Science and Evidence and Personal Freedom.
-
Billy,
I personally think Democrats and Republicans share equal blame for making all drugs illegal. The War on Drugs is an Epic Failure.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has even praised making steroids illegal. It takes a great politician to err on the side of Science and Fact, despite what the dumb public may believe or by just doing what is politically expedient. There are only a handful of Republicans and Democrats willing to do that, certainly not enough to repeal these stupid laws.
Furthermore, the public at large is dumb as a brick when it comes to drugs and personal freedom.
All in all, the blame can be spread and blanketed to our entire culture and not concentrated in one area.
My feeling is that we err on Science and Evidence and Personal Freedom.
When I heard John McCain say the night before the election that the one thing he would change in sports is more drug testing and more anti-steroid shit,it broke my heart to vote for him.He is typical of the stupidity of Washington.
-
When I heard John McCain say the night before the election that the one thing he would change in sports is more drug testing and more anti-steroid shit,it broke my heart to vote for him.He is typical of the stupidity of Washington.
The only reason I voted for McLame
1. Palin
2. SC picks
3. Check on Pelosi
Thats it. otherwise he sucked!
-
I believe in some states it when the fetus could function on its own. To b\me I call BS its a child once I dont get my monthly visitor
ok but when you follow the logic of a fetus being able to function on its own that means that those ppl who cant should also be up for abortion...again elderly, mentally and physically disabled ppl cant function on their own should we abort them?
-
On abortion i completely disagree with tony that a man should be able to walk away. That is such utter bullsh*t. The law may seem unfair but who gets saddled with the burden of raising the child almost every time? The woman. Far too many men walk away from their obligations not only for child support but for helping raise the child itself. It will always and should always be a womans right to choose, if you don't like it don't fu*k her. Simple as that.
the double standards you just put forth makes me sad i put your name up for liberal mod ;)
first off your ok with one unfairness but not the other... ::)
lol the women also has the right to choose NOT TO FUK THE GUY...simple as that so why does she get a choice and not the man?
-
ok but when you follow the logic of a fetus being able to function on its own that means that those ppl who cant should also be up for abortion...again elderly, mentally and physically disabled ppl cant function on their own should we abort them?
I DONT follow that..I said Once I stop getting my monthly period its a child. I do believe in the right to choose yes.
-
I DONT follow that..I said Once I stop getting my monthly period its a child. I do believe in the right to choose yes.
I know I was just commenting on your first thought about a fetus becoming a human when they can function on their own
stick around momma its good to have new blood in here that arent trolls
-
I know I was just commenting on your first thought about a fetus becoming a human when they can function on their own
stick around momma its good to have new blood in here that arent trolls
yea well it wont last, they seem to find their way everywhere
-
yea well it wont last, they seem to find their way everywhere
LOL oh there are plenty of them here as well but we dont get many new posters who actually debate and talk any more.
-
thats because they are busy posting their "swole" bodies, saying the make this or that, or posting or lack their of chicks they are porking