McCain is toooooooo dumb to be president!!!!!

[top gun]

quick thing on the abortion. I dont agree with abortion period BUT BUT BUT I dont argue in that first three months. Obama not only is for late term abortion 7-9th month he is for letting them die if they should by some miricle be born alive. that is more than wicked more than twisted. that is one sick puppy! but like i said if a candidate was for early abortions, so many of them are, you would never be able to vote if you insisted on no abortion policy.

as for McCain being a mavrick or USED to be a Mavrick. Truth is I dont like him when he used to be a mavrick and i dont like him now that he isnt a mavrick. I just dont like him. I Like Mitt Romney.

I still can not think of a reason to like Obama. the more other people like him the less I do. I saw those pictures of all the idiots in portland WHO BY THE WAY ALL DRINK KOOL AIDE!. and it gave me the creeps it did not inspire me.

Abortion is a very personal subject.

Late term abortions are almost always a physician recommended procedure to protect the life of the mother... not just some elected procedure. The problem is if you outlaw them then the doctors hands are tied in an emergency situation and he either breaks the law and saves the life of the mother or he lets the mother just die.

Let's be clear there's a HUGE difference between believing in a woman's right to choose... and liking abortion. I know first hand because that's ME!

On the McCain thing he was kinda a maverick at one time. He at times went across and voted with Democrats on issues, McCain/Kennedy on immigration for instance. When he ran for President last time for he was steadfastly against many Bush policies. But he couldn't get nominated that way so he just switched his principles to fit the circumstance. It happens... he's not the first won't be the last.

On the Oregon rally I have to say I disagree totally... it was very impressive. 80,000 people 99.9% white coming out in droves to hear a candidate speak that likely will be America's first Black President.

I think some history is being written and we probably don't even know it yet.

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;38361]Tell 'em to get their own job and move out of the trailer park.

My daughters are 28 & 21 years old, out on their own and are doing quite well... thanks for asking.

Like WHAT? Do you ever stop long enough to attach FACTS to your rants?

I mean come on I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer... but you know Bush has vetoed A LOT... Farm Bill just today and needing 60 votes to stop a Pubbie filibuster and 67 to override it's stopped some good legislation. We'd be starting to redeploy out of Iraq and concentrate on Bin Laden in Afghanistan for instance.

Facts? Proof? No, just the usual free-association fiction.

It's nooooot haaaaaaard tooooo knooooow.

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

The study offers ammunition to supporters and opponents of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, which are all but certain to touch off a battle between the president and the Democrats who just took control of Congress.

Why don't we have the right? What is your concept of rights?

There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goals for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.


Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

Nonsense - democrats have supported illegal aliens more than any group in america.

The fact is President Obama will create a system where the businesses that draw illegals to work won't want to face the fines. Couple that with a better more verifiable guest worker program... we have improvement.

What a howler - from the Clown Prince of Howlers! When canadians need a surgery NOW, they head for the US border, as just about EVERYONE knows but you. (The way you come off, they probably were just having a little fun with you.) When canadians need an MRI - they get in a line that can be eight months long - I'm sure they giggle when the state health authority bureaucrat tells them that.

Nothing you just said has even one rational thought connected to it. We are all dumber just for reading it. I have friends in Canada. They LOVE their National Health Care System... ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!

The price of oil has nothing to do with Iraq, einstein.

Wrong yet again... we have destabilized the region with our invasion and the Civil War that followed. It's pretty common knowledge that markets react to instability with higher prices.

What a boneheaded misreading of history - kennedy brought the country closer to nuclear war than at any time during the cold war during the cuban missile crisis. Reagan never came anywhere near that. But you never heard of that, right? Right.

Well you'll have to take that up with Ronald Reagan's son Ron. He's the one who said it... but I'm sure you had a much closer relationship and are briefed much more than the son of the past President and his own family is.

Just might want to consider the old saying... Sometimes it's better to remain quiet and let people assume you're and idiot... than to speak up and remove all doubt!

 

[Pandora]

Late term abortions are almost always a physician recommended procedure to protect the life of the mother... not just some elected procedure. The problem is if you outlaw them then the doctors hands are tied in an emergency situation and he either breaks the law and saves the life of the mother or he lets the mother just die.

Late-term abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States


United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability. In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.

Reasons for abortions.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
Circumstances and reasons for this procedure
IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortion, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions at 21 weeks or later account for 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[11] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of those late-term abortion cases. This is the equivalent of between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.[12]

Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once a pregnant woman has made the decision to have a late-term abortion, she or a doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:





Ok this is what Wikipedia says about the topic. There are much better places on line to find this information but Wikipedia generally seems to be accepted by both the far left and right.



I can find no information that tells me late term / partial birth abortions are done because doctors recommend it.



Think about how stupid this doctor would have to be to recommend something like this. To have a late term / partial birth abortion you have to birth the baby breech. I am not sure if you realize how dangerous it is to have a baby this way. It’s the number one reason women in history died in child birth. It is not a recommended way to have a baby.



Now lets assume a woman was sick with a liver issue and she is 8 months pregnant and the doctor insisted the baby has to come out because it is draining her liver and potentially hurting her body, why would he wait the 2-3 days it takes to position the baby breech? Why not a c-section?



Now the other odd thing is when delivering this baby feet first, if its so important to get the baby out of the mother for the life of the mother, then why does the doctor hold the babies head in side the woman and tell the woman at this point to not push yet. Then he puts a large sharp object in the back of the babies head till he is sure the baby is dead, then tells the woman to keep pushing,



What exactly in this process is good for a woman, good for a child or could be justifiable doctor recommended?



And if by some odd crazy strange chance a child defied all odds and lived through it, usually how this happens is the woman pushes when she shouldn’t and the doctor loses grip on the babies head before he can kill it.



What kind of monster from hell would say and vote that this baby should be left to die?



I will tell you that monsters name



Barrack Hussein Obama

 

[Libsmasher]

[COLOR]Abortion is a very personal subject.

Late term abortions are almost always a physician recommended procedure to protect the life of the mother... not just some elected procedure. The problem is if you outlaw them then the doctors hands are tied in an emergency situation and he either breaks the law and saves the life of the mother or he lets the mother just die.

Once again, Top Gun is upchucking fiction posing as fact. The wiki entry for abortion in the US cites a study for reasons for late-term abortion:

According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[10] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

The study appeared in a journal of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. Top Gun's credibility is zero.

 

[Libsmasher]

Excerpts from an article by an american doctor who travels frequently to canada:

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, calculated in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner. According to the Fraser Institute's work, the shortest median wait was 6.1 weeks for oncology (cancer) treatment without radiation. In some provinces, neurosurgery patients waited more than a year. A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada.

My own personal contacts with Canadians support a recent article in the Montreal Gazette, in which a Canadian woman described the frequent rudeness of unionized Canadian medical staff as compared to the "kindness, discretion, and professionalism" of staff members in U.S. hospitals. Few Canadians can afford to experience health care in the U.S. and thus make this comparison.

In his Wall Street Journal article, Lemieux quotes Professor Livio Di Matteo of Lakehead University in Ontario describing a three-tier system of health care in Canada. The very rich, DiMatteo pointed out, can go to the U.S. for rapid, personalized, high-tech treatment. A second tier, consisting of well-informed, aggressive Canadians, knows how to navigate the government system to gain every possible advantage, like getting to the head of the queue.

The third tier are the unconnected citizens, who make up the vast majority of patients in the Canadian health care system. They must suffer the slings and arrows of a system notoriously oblivious to anguish, discomfort, humiliation, and other affronts perpetrated by unfeeling bureaucrats on patients whose pain is most definitely not felt by those in charge.

A Quebec physician, Dr. Jacques Chanoulli, is suing the Canadian government for not allowing patients to pay for better care. The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case in June. At the same time, 10,000 breast cancer patients who had to wait an average of eight weeks for post-operative radiation treatments over the past seven years have brought a class action suit against Quebec's hospitals.

Two Indian nations, for example, are planning to build private hospitals on tribal lands, where the Canadian government's laws do not apply.

Private hospital companies in India are seeing tens of thousands of patients a year from outside that country's borders. The largest of these firms, Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., has seen 60,000 foreign patients in the past three years. Terry Salo, a Canadian resident of Victoria, British Columbia, availed himself of hip replacement in Madras, India after waiting more than a year for the "free" service in his home province.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15034

 

[top gun]

NO Obamanation;38680]Late-term abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States

Reasons for abortions.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions.

1987 survey... a 21 year old survey is very out of date.

I can find no information that tells me late term / partial birth abortions are done because doctors recommend it.

The contingency for Life of the Mother is in every abortion decision I've read. Doctors would be the ones that would know if that was relavant.

The reality is abortions have been going on ever since there has been pregnancy. Legal or illegal still goes on. You cannot force a woman to carry a fetus against her will. It's just impossible to do. She'll just throw herself down the stairs, take some homemade toxic potion, run a coat hanger up inside herself or go to some unsterile backstreet abortion clinic.

Women should have reproductive rights. The standard for abortion as it is now... allowable up to viability (could most probably live on it's own outside of the womb) is an interpretation I agree with.

 

[top gun]

I'll not really get into a lot of cut & paste on do Canadians like their National Health Care System because I personally know Canadians and have spent hours interested in knowing what they as people using that type of system think of it.

I'll post this just to balance the point but I go not by this but my face to face conversations where I've been able to ask questions and get direct answers.

Why Canadians Love Their Health Care and Their Country
OPINION by M. DAVID LOW, M.D.

Most policy analysts are only comfortable with the usual and tangible metrics of health-care access, cost and quality.

The real answer might come as a surprise to those analysts.

Although it is accessible, cost-effective, and provides good quality care, Canadians love their health-care system for what they think it represents about them and their basic values.

Those values are remarkably consistent across the country -- when the issue is health care, Canada has no "red" or "blue" states.

A full 90 percent of Canadians believe that no one should be denied health care simply because they don't have money.

Fairness and equity are values that most Canadians like to think their country stands for. Because they see and hear so much about the real and imagined horrors perpetrated by the U.S. health-care nonsystem, Canadians like their system even more by comparison.

I do think Canadians would be less fervent about their system if health-care delivery in the United States didn't look so awful by comparison.

But, put bluntly, democratic countries tend to get the health-care systems they deserve, based on history, culture and national values.

Most of the debates about health-care reform in the United States that I have seen and heard over the last 30 years have focused on details of how care is paid for, rather than on the fundamental question of what values should drive the provision of care.

So, is money the only value driving the American health-care system? If so, it is more than a bit misguided.

If we truly want to make the system better, as Americans we should find an answer to the hard questions.

What does the present way of apportioning health care in our country say about us and our values? What would we want it to say?


Understanding the Canadian System

Canadian health care is not socialized, as it is in Great Britain. It is not even one system.

Each province and territory has its own provincially administered insurance plan.

These plans are conditionally and partially supported by federal funds. The conditions require the provinces to provide insurance that is universal, covering all citizens and legal residents for all necessary medical and hospital services, on the same terms and conditions -- no co-pays, no deductibles, and no lifetime or yearly limits.

Each province must accept the other provinces' plans.

 

[Pandora]

1987 survey... a 21 year old survey is very out of date.




The contingency for Life of the Mother is in every abortion decision I've read. Doctors would be the ones that would know if that was relavant.

The reality is abortions have been going on ever since there has been pregnancy. Legal or illegal still goes on. You cannot force a woman to carry a fetus against her will. It's just impossible to do. She'll just throw herself down the stairs, take some homemade toxic potion, run a coat hanger up inside herself or go to some unsterile backstreet abortion clinic.

Women should have reproductive rights. The standard for abortion as it is now... allowable up to viability (could most probably live on it's own outside of the womb) is an interpretation I agree with.

People are going to kill eachother even if it is against the law, but we still have laws saying we can not go around doing it. People will rob each other even if the law says we can not, just giving up and chaning the law is not the right thing to do.

 

[Pandora]

1987 survey... a 21 year old survey is very out of date.




The contingency for Life of the Mother is in every abortion decision I've read. Doctors would be the ones that would know if that was relavant.

The reality is abortions have been going on ever since there has been pregnancy. Legal or illegal still goes on. You cannot force a woman to carry a fetus against her will. It's just impossible to do. She'll just throw herself down the stairs, take some homemade toxic potion, run a coat hanger up inside herself or go to some unsterile backstreet abortion clinic.

Women should have reproductive rights. The standard for abortion as it is now... allowable up to viability (could most probably live on it's own outside of the womb) is an interpretation I agree with.

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability

 

[top gun]

People are going to kill eachother even if it is against the law, but we still have laws saying we can not go around doing it. People will rob each other even if the law says we can not, just giving up and chaning the law is not the right thing to do.

This really isn't the abortion thread but I'll quickly explain my position in a couple ways.

First... no one can or should be allowed to force another to give up control of their body so they might use it. Evolved way past an embryo or fetus my brother is a full blow self sufficient person. If he needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match in the world and he would die if I did not supply it... would I be legally obligated to provide my body for his use. Of course not. It's my body and I have full control over how it is to be used.

In the abortion scenario a woman cannot/should not be coerced into being a government forced incubator... or brood mare.

Secondly on the "killing life" angle. The law provides for all kinds of killing that is not deemed illegal.

The death penalty for instance: Many people have been put to death through the legal system that were totally innocent. The system knows it is not infalable... yet the death penalty is still allowed.

Military service during a draft: Many people have been forced to kill & been killed drafted into military service against their will. The government deems that they have a right to force this death to happen.

Collateral damage: Often in a war or conflict setting there is a collateral damage estimate before action is taken. Often it is that assessments conclusion that a certain number of innocent civilians will be killed if the action is implemented. However the attack is still allowed.

I say all this to point out all of these things are avoidable yet they are allowed under our laws. That being the case a woman certainly would control what is or is not allowed to transpire inside her own personal body.

It's not a perfect world. Abortions should be avoided with great selectivity if not abstinence, better sex education and better birth control methods. But at the end of the day the person with both the burden and the decision should not be me, or you, or the government. It must be the actual woman involved.

I'll clip this on because it highlights in a humorous way conservatives anti Choice anti Woman agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

 

[Pandora]

This really isn't the abortion thread but I'll quickly explain my position in a couple ways.

First... no one can or should be allowed to force another to give up control of their body so they might use it. Evolved way past an embryo or fetus my brother is a full blow self sufficient person. If he needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match in the world and he would die if I did not supply it... would I be legally obligated to provide my body for his use. Of course not. It's my body and I have full control over how it is to be used.

In the abortion scenario a woman cannot/should not be coerced into being a government forced incubator... or brood mare.

Secondly on the "killing life" angle. The law provides for all kinds of killing that is not deemed illegal.

The death penalty for instance: Many people have been put to death through the legal system that were totally innocent. The system knows it is not infalable... yet the death penalty is still allowed.

Military service during a draft: Many people have been forced to kill & been killed drafted into military service against their will. The government deems that they have a right to force this death to happen.

Collateral damage: Often in a war or conflict setting there is a collateral damage estimate before action is taken. Often it is that assessments conclusion that a certain number of innocent civilians will be killed if the action is implemented. However the attack is still allowed.

I say all this to point out all of these things are avoidable yet they are allowed under our laws. That being the case a woman certainly would control what is or is not allowed to transpire inside her own personal body.

It's not a perfect world. Abortions should be avoided with great selectivity if not abstinence, better sex education and better birth control methods. But at the end of the day the person with both the burden and the decision should not be me, or you, or the government. It must be the actual woman involved.

I'll clip this on because it highlights in a humorous way conservatives anti Choice anti Woman agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

I could not get your youtube to work
and I think that capital punishment is just wrong! Life is so valuable

First, sorry to hear about your brother and I agree you should not be forced to help him, but it is very nice of you to do it.


When you say pro choice, I wish you would finish the sentence and say pro choice to have an abortion, or just say what it really is. Pro abortion.

Are you really pro choice? Pro choice for a woman to do what ever she wants with her own body? Or just pro choice to abort her child?

I am very very very pro choice for a woman or a man to do what they want with their own body and never be forced to do things to their own body that is against their will, as long as it does not hurt another soul.

Example….

I wish I would not be forced to put a seat belt on my body, I hate them and if it was not a law I would almost never wear one.

I wish I could go without a helmet when on a motorcycle.


I wish if I wanted to commit suicide I could work out a nice clean way without it being a crime. Even in Oregon it’s a crime if you don’t do it the government’s way.

But I think its wrong for me to kill myself by bombing myself up in my car while parked in your garage, and especially if you are in the garage too 

Ok back to McCain,

He sucks a fatty BUT oh I am hoping he picks Romney, I could really rally behind that

 

[top gun]

NO Obamanation;38827]I could not get your youtube to work
and I think that capital punishment is just wrong! Life is so valuable

It should if any of the others work. I click on it, it comes up.

First, sorry to hear about your brother and I agree you should not be forced to help him, but it is very nice of you to do it.

It was an "if" senario... my brother is fine. But I agree "nice" but not "mandated".

When you say pro choice, I wish you would finish the sentence and say pro choice to have an abortion, or just say what it really is. Pro abortion.

Are you really pro choice? Pro choice for a woman to do what ever she wants with her own body? Or just pro choice to abort her child?

Absolutely Pro Choice. I'd almost always recommend everything else before an abortion. But I've also known friends and family over the years that have went to other way. I guess I'm glad that when they did decide they had to go that way they were able to not put their own life at more risk and had a safe medical procedure and not undergo something much worse.

Ok back to McCain,

He sucks a fatty BUT oh I am hoping he picks Romney, I could really rally behind that

Well we are not in disagreement on the first half... but his running mate really doesn't matter at all to me. If it's not Obama this country won't even recognize itself after 4 more years of McBush policy.

I'm hoping Obama picks Senator Jim Webb as his running mate. Super strong military cred and has a son in Iraq right now. Comparatively young (of course if we're comparing to McCain Methuselah is young ). Known for being a straight shooter... good public speaker. Helps with Virginia.

We'll know pretty soon.

 

[Dr.Who]

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability

So does this mean that (100% - 4.2% - 1.4% - 6.2%) about 88% of abortions are after viability? Perhaps some were done before 13 weeks. Not that I think that makes much difference.

BTW, here is a cool picture. The description of what happened is inaccurate since the baby was under anesthesia but it is a cool pic still.

http://www.abortiontruths.net/samuel.html

 

[Dr.Who]

This really isn't the abortion thread but I'll quickly explain my position in a couple ways.

First... no one can or should be allowed to force another to give up control of their body so they might use it. Evolved way past an embryo or fetus my brother is a full blow self sufficient person. If he needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match in the world and he would die if I did not supply it... would I be legally obligated to provide my body for his use. Of course not. It's my body and I have full control over how it is to be used.

Right. No one should be forced to give up control of their body for reasons that are anything less than really important. So the ones that are not yet born should be allowed to not have their bodies ripped apart or poisoned or stabbed, etc. Which is more important privacy or life?

Perhaps all the women who have these alien invaders (sarcasm) inside them should get a ceasarian?

About that last point - no you don't have full control over your body. Your control ends where your body ends and another's begins.

Should I be allowed to chop off my hand? What if I am holding on to your finger?

 

[Dr.Who]

I wish I would not be forced to put a seat belt on my body, I hate them and if it was not a law I would almost never wear one.

I wish I could go without a helmet when on a motorcycle.

I have no problem with that as long as when you get taken to the ER I don't have to pay for your treatment involuntarily. But as soon as I am forced to pay for your treatment through taxes then I have a say-so.