Ive noticed a lot of democratic politicians and other liberals make the argument that a woman has the right the choose what to do with her own body or other similar arguments that make the same point.

Ok so why do we have:

Medical Safety and Licensing boards
The FDA
Illegal Drug laws

Most of the people who make that argument, except for a few nutty libertarians endorse at least one or two of those. But clearly the very purpose of such laws is to prevent people from making decisions about their own body because they believe people incapable of making those decisions for themselves.

11/1/2005 11:45:35 AM

This sounds like a slippery slope.

There is a difference between not forcing a woman to go through a dangerous and painful birthing process and the things you've listed.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ]

11/1/2005 11:49:54 AM

wtf, it is not the same thing at all

the FDA makes sure that my Tylenol won't fuckin kill me, and I'm pretty happy with that

Illegal drug laws are a different animal.

Ensuring products are safe for the public != telling the public they can't toke up

11/1/2005 11:52:53 AM

^, ^^ Those posts might mean something for an argument about whether arbortion should be legal or not, but it doesnt make a difference if we are talking about someone's rights.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ]

11/1/2005 11:53:26 AM

I am talking about someone's rights

Making sure that the stuff at CVS is safe (the main purpose of the FDA) is not violating anyone's rights.

11/1/2005 11:58:19 AM

DON'T FORGET SEATBELTS

11/1/2005 12:00:22 PM

Quote :

" Making sure that the stuff at CVS is safe (the main purpose of the FDA) is not violating anyone's rights."

Yes it is, by telling a woman she cant take a particular drug because the FDA considers it unsafe is violating her right to choose what to do with her own body, period.

I think its perfectly fine to be in favor of those things and believe abortion should be legal but if you believe that you cant argue that the woman has any sort of right to choose what to do with her body.



[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2005 12:00:47 PM

the fda doesn't tell her she can't take it

the fda just says it can't be sold as a drug

walk into any GNC, holistic medicine store, or fucking gas station in america and you can find all sorts of pill that isn't licensed or tested by the FDA

if she wants to take dog piss and root bark, and someone is willing to sell dog piss root bark, she can take dog piss root bark

11/1/2005 12:03:24 PM

The FDA does ban drugs from the market, you cant walk into a gas station and purchase any type of designer drug they havent approved, you cant take a lot of drugs without a prescription, again preventing her from making decisions regarding her own body.

Quote :

"the fda just says it can't be sold as a drug"

Well then the states should be able to ban doctors from performing abortions and not violate her right to choose right?

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2005 12:13:33 PM

talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old

who wants to get his point across, so no matter what is said, it doesn't matter, your point will not relent

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:19 PM. Reason : HA, THATS WHY HIS NAME IS "CLEAR FIVE"]

11/1/2005 12:15:06 PM

My full time job revolves around FDA regulations.

They are a REGULATORY body which ensures that products sold as medicinal drugs are safe (as well as foods). If people want to inject grass into themselves they can do that.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ed]

11/1/2005 12:15:22 PM

Quote :

"Most of the people who make that argument, except for a few nutty libertarians endorse at least one or two of those. But clearly the very purpose of such laws is to prevent people from making decisions about their own body because they believe people incapable of making those decisions for themselves."

Well, yes. So... what's your point again? The argument against abortion is not that a woman cannot make an informed decision about the safety of the procedure. It's that she as a matter of morality cannot expect to control her body even if she knows what' best for herself.

Not that I am expecting to put the whole abortion debate to rest, but your particular examples are totally irrelevant.

11/1/2005 12:17:05 PM

^^thank you

you can buy all sorts of stuff the FDA would never approve

SOMEONE JUST HAS TO BE WILLING TO SELL IT

OMG CAPITALIZM IS TRAMPLING ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS

11/1/2005 12:17:05 PM

Quote :

"Those posts might mean something for an argument about whether arbortion should be legal or not, but it doesnt make a difference if we are talking about someone's rights."

What type of rights are we talking about?

On any rights, distinctions are made. For example, you don't have the right to kill someone. This becomes a little more grey when it comes to war or the death penalty etc.

11/1/2005 12:22:30 PM

imo, you're partially correct. I promote the fda and medical safety boards, but only on a basis wherein a certain product is endorsed or not endorsed. Same goes for drugs. I think that the government can go ahead and check on this stuff and license products or people and give their stamp of approval, but if i want to take a drug, eat a food, or go to a healer that isn't licensed, that's my choice.

11/1/2005 12:23:05 PM

Quote :

" Well, yes. So... what's your point again? The argument against abortion is not that a woman cannot make an informed decision about the safety of the procedure. It's that she as a matter of morality cannot expect to control her body even if she knows what' best for herself."

Im not arguing against abortion, Im arguing about whether people actually believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body.

I dont really have any problem with abortion being legal with restrictions.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2005 12:24:42 PM

you're a fucking moron

and your thread sucks

11/1/2005 12:31:24 PM

Quote :

"Im not arguing against abortion, Im arguing about whether people actually believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body."

OK, but once again. Even though I have a lot of problems with FDA, the argument for its existence is not that we need to reverse an informed choice made by an individual, but that without FDA you cannot physically make an informed choice.

It's kind of like stopping a woman from pushing a button that would electrocute when she thinks it'll dispense her a candy.

- OMF, you just overruled her decision what to do with her body!!1
- No, I didn't. She never made such an informed decision because she never could.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2005 12:40:38 PM

this thread does suck, i concede

11/1/2005 12:50:20 PM

well, you're only 5 years old
you'll have better threads

11/1/2005 12:54:08 PM

This thread is fucking ridiculous.

Banning the sale of rat poison as food is infringing on a woman's right to choose! OMG!!!

11/1/2005 1:01:27 PM

11/1/2005 1:03:47 PM

the first two keep doctors and big businesses honest and safe
they make sure nobody ELSE does anything bad to your body

the third is just a dumb idea

I'm a nutty libertarian and I agree with 2 out of 3 of those things

oh... and I strongly support Roe v. Wade

11/1/2005 1:09:29 PM

THE DOT IS RESTRICTING MY RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR MADE OF MATCHBOOKS

11/1/2005 1:46:46 PM

Quote :

"It's kind of like stopping a woman from pushing a button that would electrocute when she thinks it'll dispense her a candy."

What the fuck are you talking about? MathFreak, he wasn't arguing the FDA should not exist, he was arguing it should not have the right to put people in jail for selling shit. If all the FDA did was require I label my pain medication as "POISON, WILL KILL YOU" before I sell it then everything would be fine, but that is not what the FDA spends 99% of its time doing. It threatens to put people in jail for selling drugs people are eager to purchase simply because they are potentially dangerous.

When I hear stories of people dying because the drug that could have saved their life was potentially too dangerous to sell, then I just have to wonder sometimes. I don't think doctors+patients are as stupid as your story about the women and the electric chair assumes.

[Edited on November 1, 2005 at 1:57 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/1/2005 1:54:11 PM

*sigh* please to learn to read

11/1/2005 1:57:57 PM

^ *sigh* please learn the difference between spreading information and arresting people for seeking the treatment they need.

11/1/2005 2:00:30 PM

like marijuana?

11/1/2005 2:01:42 PM

the FDA doesn't enforce drug laws, buddy

DEA

11/1/2005 3:05:54 PM

Of course, all of this is kind of moot. No pro-lifer gives a shit about restricting a woman's right to do anything with her body. We give a shit about restricting a woman's right to do something to someone else's body.

Being against abortion is analagous, at least in this facet, with being against murder. In both cases, I suppose, I'm telling you that you can't use your body to kill someone else.

There may be many, many arguments in favor of the right to an abortion that are very, very strong. The "OMF U D0N'T WANT W0M3N 2 HAV3 T3H L1B3RTY!!!" line is not one of them.

11/1/2005 3:16:07 PM

BIG P O PP A
NO INFO FOR THE D E A

11/1/2005 3:16:20 PM

Go pop one out.

11/2/2005 1:23:22 AM

there's a big difference between having the right to do something, and the ability to do something.

many of those laws concerning drugs are for safety, because people generally aren't capable of discerning what they should and should not take for health reasons. most can't even read the names of the substances in them, thus, the laws, made by those who know what they're talking about.

11/2/2005 3:03:05 AM

^ Ok, you have defended and justified requiring a person get a prescription from a doctor first, preferably one able to read, but what does that have to do with the FDA?

11/2/2005 8:08:47 AM

Because abortion should not be called a "right". Rights do not take aways rights from other people, doesnt matter if they have been born or not.

11/2/2005 9:28:54 AM

"people"

11/2/2005 11:36:11 AM