Posted on 03/04/2012 4:08:27 AM PST by iloveamerica1980
Opinion piece:
So do we have the right to put into our bodies whatever we want?
Ron Paul fans have attempted to rebuke me in my response to Dr. Paul's recent statement "Why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?" in my previous post here
I suggested that not everything available to put in our bodies is beneficial nor wise to ingest. The Bible says: With freedom comes great responsibility. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
To which a commenter named Paul responded: "Of course what Paul might ask is where in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 does the text say we are responsible for what *someone else* puts into their bodies? Does mandated good behavior bring people closer to God? Does Jesus teach us that we gain righteousness by behaving well? By believing in laws to make us good? Christianity is based on our own good behavior no matter what others do around us or to us. There is no command that we make others behave well."
I answered: "The Christian has the responsibility to live out God's Word as written and tell others the truth within it. Dr. Paul used the word "we" including himself. Isn't he also a Christian? We cannot command others to behave well, but the Christian should certainly not encourage people to put in their bodies whatever they want!"
In fact, Dr. Ron Paul is a self ascribed Baptist. Taking Dr. Paul's comment to it's logical and eventual conclusion, those who continue to put "whatever they want" into their bodies will have an affect on the rest of society. Just take a look at the unrestrained society of Sodom and Gomorrah if you doubt this. Many lifestyle choices lead to serious health issues, death of self as well as the unintentional deaths of others who "got in the way". Everyone should agree that the Government has the right and responsibility to "interfere" with the rights of individuals for the common good at a certain point. At which point, we will never entirely agree. Hence, the purpose of democracy.
Politically, I agree with Dr. Paul on quite a bit and admit that even he would be a better alternative as President than out current leader who I believe is governing against the will of the people. (My current favorite is Rick Santorum.) But like any politician, Paul must be held accountable for his ideas and values when they extend beyond the perimeter of public safety and the greater common welfare.
What do you think?
James R. via Dittos Rush 2-18-12
No, Ron Paul is a little too old for Fluke sluts. ;-)
No flame from this direction, joe. You have nailed it.
Probably not. Except in favored locations such as the Pacific NW, hunter-gatherers didn't live in villages. They lived in smallish bands, nomadic or semi-nomadic, that might come together seasonally into larger groups to exploit resources of particular areas. But most parts of the world will not support a village-sized sedentary population without agriculture.
Very sound logic. ;-)
I think Paul borrowed that question from Monica Lewinsky....................
If Brown screws himself up with drugs, Smith and Jones are revealed as fools, not empowered to force Brown to better behavior. If Brown screws other people up through using drugs, that's something else and not what RP is talking about here.
I’m well aware that grains were not originally part of our original diet, until we went agricultural.
But neither necessarily were proteins highly available, as it wasn’t always easy getting our hands on food that can move. :)
We ate a lot of roots, since roots don’t run very far very fast and we used a lot of plants in our diet. Plants don’t necessarily imply grains. Grasses, roots, fruits, whatever we could grab and found delicious, basically.
Except the times we resorted to cannibalism. Those weren’t good times, I reckon.
I meant village in terms of the tribe or clan. I wasn’t implying a settled lifestyle.
When your “Smith and Jones” are represented as the US Government under Obamacare then we’re all screwed!
There is a great deal of argument over how effective early Man was at hunting, particularly larger animals.
One end of the spectrum is your notion, that animals provided a relatively small part of his diet.
The other end has the first men to arrive in America exterminating most of its megafauna within a few centuries of arrival. The Clovis extinction idea. To be fair, the current is running at present against this theory. Similar extinctions occurred more recently in New Zealand, Australia, Madagascar, etc.
My POV is that in every environment on earth that we know of historically Man was The apex predator. Pygmies regularly hunted and killed elephants and Eskimos hunted and killed polar bears without firearms. I suspect our prehistoric ancestors were fully as capable.
Apparently Sandra Fluke can - and we get to pay for it - and now we get to STFU about it too!
OK. A valid point.
My point is that the hunter-gatherer tribe or clan was in most places pretty small, probably no more than a couple dozen people. More like a large family than a tribe, really.
Back then to a very considerable extent people adapted to their environment rather than the other way around. Our ability to change the environment was quite limited.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Big Tobacco" don't it? Also a new twist on the age old question "do you smoke after sex? Don't know, never looked....." And so on.....
The prohibition on drugs is an attempt to limit the amount of devastation which We The People are then on the hook for fixing. I don't deny that the War on Drugs has failed. There is a lot of devastation, and the prohibition has not really limited it.
But we should stop paying for the cleanup. People who make bad choices should suffer all the consequences. If we got rid of the Nanny State, people would find that the bad aspects of drugs would quickly outweigh the "fun" aspects of drugs.
Step 1) Eliminate the Nanny State
Step 2) Legalize drugs
Doing it in reverse order would be really, really stupid (you'd never get people to agree to removing the safety net after so many additional people were using drugs.
I’ve raised a daughter who, fortunately, didn’t get involved with any drug use, even though one of her boyfriends did. She now has a great husband and is finishing medical school.I like to think that what she was taught here at home helped her make responsible decisions. if she had become addicted to hard drugs and ruined her life or gotten killed, as terrible as I’d have felt, I don’t think I’d have blamed the Govt. for not doing enough.Keeping people from using harmful substances of any type that can ruin their lives or kill them IS a worthy cause, I just don’t think depending on a corrupt government to do it through selective law enforcement is the way to do it.IMHO
Explaining that TNT is a high explosive, and it would kill the patient would have no impact on Paul. He'd just watch, and wait.
The man has NO CONCEPT OF FUTURE ~ just a great ever present now which is remarkably value free, and nothing bad ever happens.
Dopers kill. I think it’s a good idea to use government to keep the barbarians away from the town.
On this point Congreesman Paul is correct.
Yes!
People killing, robbing other people to support drug habit=crime
People killing, ruining themselves using drugs=natural selection.
drugs hurt the person using them and that is their business and none of the governments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.