Nothing Like Pro-Choice Democrats Banning Food
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
April 7, 2009 11:49am CST
It is her body, right? Well if two Democrats have their way in Texas no one will be able to eat food cocked in transfat. State Rep. Carol Alvarado of Houston and Sen. Eliot Shapleigh of El Paso, both Democrats, promoted legislation Monday that would ban artificial trans fats in all Texas restaurants and require that all prepared and served food items contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.
Food whatever it is only affect the individual that eats it. What ever I eat does not affect you, neither does what you eat affect me. Even though that it is a women's body when it comes to an abortion yet the food she might eat is not her choice. This is nothing new for Democrat controlled areas like New York city and Philadelphia that elect 100% Pro-Choice Democrats. Once again there is nothing Pro-Choice about the Pro-Choice movement. If you are going to claim to be Pro-Choice then be Pro-Choice about everything.
http://www.star-telegram.com/health/story/1302800.html
7 people like this
12 responses
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
7 Apr 09
This is too weird. What does abortion have to do with trans fat? The idiots that invented trans fat have been killing Americans now for years. It is the worst thing since clorinated water. This stuff sticks to the arteries worse than any other fat and nothing breaks it out. Even when they ream out the arteries with the ballon this stuff just bounces back. It grows faster on stints too when you have one of those put in. Fast food Restaurants do not HAVE to cook with trans fats. They can use other oils that won't kill us. Its not like we are being deprived of something that is GOOD for us or something that we NEED.
The restaurants should be glad to get rid of the bad stuff.
Shalom~Adoniah
3 people like this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
7 Apr 09
This has been going on for so many years that I don't even remember whether trans fats have been banned in Florida or not, but I believe they have been. I seem to remember news reports about McDonald's french fries.
At any rate, trans fats are bad for you and there are alternatives. What you eat does affect others, especially trans fats which raise bad cholesterol, inhibit good cholesterol and clog your arteries, putting everyone who consumes them at a greater risk for heart attacks and strokes. This increases the number of people who need treatment, including hospitalization and surgery for these often preventable diseases, increases medical costs and everyone's insurance rates.
Actually, what I eat is still my choice but, when it comes to fast food, it's not really my or your choice at all when it comes to how the food is prepared. If something is proven to be bad for your health, and is commonly used in the preparation of food for mass consumption...and there are healthier alternatives...then I have no problems with it being banned.
Now, if the government were trying to ban all fried foods, regardless of how they were prepared, I'd have an objection to that.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
7 Apr 09
Well why do not you just quit eating at restaurants that use transfats. No one makes you eat at fast food restaurants. I am sure you eat something that is bad for you, well right now I demand that you throw away all of your food that may or may not be bad for you.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
7 Apr 09
So should we just ban everything that isn't healthy? What unhealthy foods should we consider "illegal" and "ok". Should we take kids from parents who feed their kids "unhealthy" foods?
Spalladino, how little respect do you have for freedom?
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
7 Apr 09
Why do you believe that you have the right to tell me that I should just stop eating McDonald's fried instead of having McDonald's use a different fat in their friers that isn't deadly to people? As I said, there are healtier alternatives that don't add to their costs and won't KILL you.
Here's an example of your double standard, by the way. Why is it that non-smokers can legislate that I can't smoke in restaurants anymore? Why don't all of the folks who object to my smoking just eat someplace else? No one makes non-smokers eat at any restaurant either but I sure as he11 can't light up after a meal.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
7 Apr 09
Silly Gewcew, you know that "choice" and "it's my body" can only be used in defense of abortion on demand, and nothing else.
The government should have free reign to protect us from ourselves in all aspects of our lives. No part of the body is to be kept from government intrusion... except (of course) the uterus.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
7 Apr 09
No, but I am wondering when someone is going to insist that glasses and hearing aids should be provided for free under the American's with Disabilities act. :~D
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4910)
• United States
7 Apr 09
Okay, so basically you all are saying that ALL of us democrats believe exactly the same thing on every little issue.
Does that same philosophy apply to republicans?
Are you ALL elitists?
Just askin'.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
7 Apr 09
Hmmm, did I miss the legislation forcing glasses on those with poor vision who choose not to wear them and hearing aides, too? Might want to add eyes and ears to your list.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
8 Apr 09
They are only pro -choice when it suits them, otherwise they prefer to dictate what people can and cannot do.
That includes what you say, what you eat, and whether or not you smoke... and don't you dare say anything of a Christian or religious nature unless it is a religion that they approve of.
They don't want to hear about lifestyle choices or matters of conscience either.
To me it seems a lot like Fascism.
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4910)
• United States
7 Apr 09
Okay. Fair enough. I do identify myself as being pro-choice.
I have "democratic tendencies" but I DO think THAT is ridiculous.
I can understand, maybe requiring that the food industry put out there what is in their food...maybe, but to require them stop using a certain type of oil.
That just miiight be taking things a tad too far.
I guess that's always the question. How MUCH say do we let the government have in our lives and how much should we decide for ourselves.
On this particular item, I say they are going too far.
But I also thing there might be times when government intervetion/regulation...whatever you want to call it...should be considered.
It makes me think of motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws. There are arguments for and against that as well.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
7 Apr 09
Hey Miamilady! Something we can agree on! :~D
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
7 Apr 09
There is nothing "liberal" about liberals, they do not support liberty, they support government control of every aspect of people's lives. "liberal" ideology actually most closely resembles communism and fascism.
1 person likes this
@PrarieStyle (2486)
• United States
8 Apr 09
It's just like "Islam is the religion of peace" and it lol, treats women better than any other religion...
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
7 Apr 09
Actually I have this tummy because of the trans fats that were unknowingly in the margarine I ate so anything that will get rid of trans fats would be welcome. NOw there are some people who eat anything with trans fats, artificial or natural, who have no problems. However would not a better solution be to let people have a choice? It is sort of like a choice between sitting where the people smoke or having a non-smoking area. I know that in some restaurants, when it comes to spreads, they will put out a dish with pats of margarine as well as pats of butter for you to make a choice.
But then I do not think that it is right to be pro abortion and yet wrong to be pro trans fats. Sort of like the nurse in the school being able to suggest birth control and yet cannot give the pupil a simple tylenol for pain.
1 person likes this
@greysfreak (1384)
• United States
7 Apr 09
I agree. It is totally hypocritical. Pro-Choice people only seem to care about choice before birth, everything after that they want to control and tell you how you should live your life. It is so sickening. I actually have come to realize this in the past year or so, I used to think that it was the republicans were the party that tried to run people's lives, but I have learned quickly that it's the exact opposite!
Now, I have no problem if a restaurant wants to get rid of trans fat, but you are right--if a person wants to consume certain foods, that is their right. I am so just sick of the government trying to run our lives. I see it this way, so I can get pregnant and kill my baby and they will actually support me, but they don't want me to eat at McDonald's or eat a candy bar, if I so choose to? It's hypocrisy.
I so agree with you though, Pro-Choice is not really Pro-Choice. It is really Pro-Convenience in most cases, and sadly enough, sometimes about vanity, except for a small percentage of life-threatening pregnancies--that is a different situation entirely.
@GhostCat (313)
• United States
8 Apr 09
If you really want to eat transfat, I sure you will be able to find a place that will sell it to you. And there are stil a few companies that use it in products, not many though. Ever since the health nuts on the coasts started raising a row about transfats most of the raally popular food producers have been eliminating it from their ccoking process. I doubt you can find it at many national fast food restaurants but you might be able to find it at some local places. But most food production is trying to not use transfats. You might still find it in Hostess products and some of the baked, prepackaged pastries you can pick up in the shop & robs or even your local grocery. Personally, I don't understand why you would want to put the stuff in your body or that or your loved ones.
@PrarieStyle (2486)
• United States
8 Apr 09
Pro-Choice only means someone gets to choose weather you're born or not. After you're born you don't get any more choices.
It's already happened here in the blue state I live in. Luckily I don't eat out much anyway...
1 person likes this
@deejean06 (1952)
• United States
7 Apr 09
Hi gewcew...I believe pro-choice is only for those who are in control of the choices...I also think that trans fats have been banned in New York City and now they're going after salt and the sodium content of the prepared foods in the restaurants.
@Jenniferp (210)
• United States
8 Apr 09
These fats are used because they are cheap. These can be replaced with other oils and the only one who suffers is the cafes bottom line.