Apparently Tanning Beds are a more Serious Issue than Abortion

In Oregon, a bill is making rounds in their Congress to force teens to need a doctor's note in order to use a tanning bed.

That's right. In Oregon, many elected officials think citizens should NOT be free to choose whether or not to tan. I understand the concept of informing citizens that tanning is a bad idea for skin health, but to outright deny them the freedom to weigh the pros and cons of getting a tan?

This is the epitome of the "nanny-state" isn't it?

Well there's one area where they would dare not force you to get a doctor's note. Abortion. When it comes to whether or not women can tan, the government MUST be all over it! And the "pro-choice" advocates are not actually outraged about it. But when it comes to abortion? Women can waltz into their nearest planned-parenthood and prevent a living human from taking their first breath... without the consent of a doctor.

So if the government tries to protect the LIFE of a human being who can't defend themselves, they are being too invasive into women's lives. But they sure aren't being too invasive by banning something which usually doesn't cause long-term problems if done in moderation.

It just goes to show. The pro-choice nuts don't care about freedom. They don't care about the ability to choose what to do with your body, at least not consistently. They do the raging, the killing innocent humans, in the name of feminism and convenience.

If they really cared about free choice, they would be outraged about these tanning bed bans and protest any lawmaker who decides to limit their freedom. 

So what are the other two reasons someone might be for abortion? The cause of feminism. They want to give women the right to NOT be pregnant for the sole reason that men don't have to be pregnant.

Sure, men never have to get pregnant. At the same time, they never get pregnant with a living human being.

To a sane person, this should just mean that women have an extra way they COULD murder someone. That doesn't give them the right to fulfill that murder in the name of evening the odds with men.

Or maybe they really just don't care about human rights at all. They don't care about free-choice. All they care about is convenience. A baby is inconvenient to have for 9 months right? That's 9 months of their lives that things aren't going perfectly for them.

9 months of inconvenience vs. an entire lifetime of the baby who requires those 9 months. You decide which time-frame is more significant.

Preventing a life is an act of aggression which should be frowned upon by society. Using a tanning bed is an expression of free choice which is not necessarily smart, but not immoral in the slightest. Let's get our priorities straight.