[CS-FSLUG] National Safety Council Urges Total Ban on Cell Use While Driving

[Legatus]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:30, Stephen J. McCracken
<smccracken at hcjb.org.ec> wrote:
> Just to make us think:
>
>> I don't agree with any restriction...
>
> ...on doing "x" while driving.
>
> ...on whether I marry someone of the same sex.
>
> ...on whether a homosexual adopts a child.
>
> ...on whether a woman has an abortion.
>
>> Its micromanaging our [lives].
>
YOU ARE TROLLING

That is a very small bit of what I said, and the post was related to
driving specifically. I don't care what people do while driving so
long as their car is moving in a safe manner, and there are plenty of
laws to enforce related to how the car is moving, that have nothing to
do with the specific things that are being done by the driver.

As for the rest, I would be a Christian Pro-Life Libertarian, so

I believe marriage should not be state sanctioned, but is a matter for
churches. Under the law, I appreciate the need for common law relating
to people who have lived interdependent lives when it pertains to
property ownership, child custody, and other issues that are related
to marriage now.

Adoption is a tough one from my libertarian stand point, but I can't
ultimately fault the state for allowing this, because there are not
enough families stepping in to adopt children from the state. I have
fostered and adopted three children. We have helped two families get
their lives together, so that the state returned their children that
were in our care. Christian families are not doing their part in this,
and thus have left the opening for the state to give children to the
safest homes they can find.  I personally find that anyone who defines
themselves by their sexual behaviour or deviance is a danger,
homosexual or otherwise. I certainly don't walk around telling people
I am heterosexual out of hand, and someone who did would disturb me.

Like I said, I am pro-life. I believe that a person's rights end where
another's begins. The baby has a right to life, and is a person. When
rights are in conflict, I do not favor the idea that the one with the
most power wins. This is essentially the argument for abortion. The
baby is helpless and the mother is not, so the mother can do what she
pleases. So when rights are in conflict, life issues trump all others,
then contractual arrangements between the parties, and after that it
comes down to property ownership.

My responses are not comprehensive, but should be considered some food
for thought.

-- 
JD Runyan


Emo Philips  - "I was sleeping the other night, alone, thanks to the
exterminator."