A Woman can have an Abortion but cannot eat Food cooked in Transfat

Still more proof that Pro-Choice people are anything but! It is hard to say it enough.

So cities around the country has made it illegal to cook food in transfat

right...so why is that not a good thing? Its not like its JUST illegal to cook a womans food in transfat..this is for the better of our elderly, our children, ourselves and so on....Transfat is UNHEALTHY..Abortions ARE NOT..its like comparing apples and bricks..there is no similarity whatsoever..

What an odd comparison! I really do not understand the issue you have with it. Trans fats are bad for you and so are illegal. Abortion is a whole different issue.

There's no valid comparison between a women's choice of abortion and a law prohibiting RESTAURANTS from cooking with trans fats. The woman still has the right to choose whether or not she eats trans fats, she just can't get those trans fats at a restaurant. The issue is not with the choice of the individual, but with the restriction of what the business can and can't use in their products or services. You know, kind of like how abortion clinics can no longer perform partial birth abortions in America (not legally, anyway).

It's the same case, here. A woman can have an abortion just as she can have foods rich in trans fats. There are just restrictions on both.

This is a very good point. Why is it the government's job to decide what is good or bad for an adult to do? They should have the right to choose for themselves. For example if i want to have a hamburger that is rare I should be able to order it that way but I can't. I can though order rare pork chops or soft boiled eggs (which can have salmonella) where is the logic in that one?

As adults we should be able to decide for ourselves what we want to ingest, whether it's good or bad for us. As you pointed out a woman can have an abortion which can be mentally and physically risky but she can't choose to have french fries cooked in trans fat? Adults can choose to have plastic surgery which in most cases is elective surgery. It's still risky and dangerous but they are allowed to do so but heaven forbid they eat rare beef. This just makes no sense to me.

While I do not entirely agree with the comparison I do agree that it is ludicrous. Any person has the right to put what they want in their body as long as they pay for it. Trans-fats are a choice. I ould see making it a law that restaurants have to put warning labels on high trans-fat food, but they have no right to ban the cooking of it. This isn't like second hand smoke. I can't get second hand fat or second hand diabetes or second hand heart attacks from the guy eating a burger right next to me. This makes no sense and is most likely unconstitutional in one way or another.

Dan

I guess in reality she can choose what she eats, it's the restaurants that serve to the general public that can't use the trans fat, or at least that's how I understand it. I really don't see the connection because abortion is about an individual's right and it's a conscious and informed choice but I suppose it could be said it's not as much of an informed choice when you go into a restaurant and order something to eat. What I have more of a problem with is the government dictating that a restaurant can't allow smoking. This is something where it can easily be displayed before someone enters whether a place is a smoking or non-smoking establishment so nobody will be "harmed" by second hand smoke without choosing to be. As far as trans fat being used to cook the foods we get in restaurants I'd prefer if they were simply required to post that fact on the menu so customers can then make an informed choice about that.
Annie