Re: RC: helmets

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/9/00 10:41:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
rglanville@earthlink.net writes:

<<  Now, the Pro-choice person has made the choice to not wear a helmet.
 Pro-choice person is involved in an accident that has
 left said person unable to take care of themselves because said
 person was not wearing a helmet. Someone else now has to care
 for this person. Because pro-choice person choose not to wear
 a helmet- someone else is left with no choice but to take care
 of this person. Is that fair? >>

Although I am a big proponent of helmets (as you can tell from my posts), I 
am also pro-choice in virtually ALL matters in life.  But that also means the 
choice to have a support system in place (insurance) for when you crash and 
burn, or not.  In other words, no National Health Care (and your private one 
MAY pull the plug if you've violated THEIR standards), and your "significant 
other" also has the free choice to stand by you or not if you make foolish 
decisions.  No one "has" to take care of you--that is also a choice.  In 
order for pro-choice to work, it has to be a total package--in which the 
alternatives cause you to make the right choices of your own volition.

Heidi 
(who no longer EVER gets on a horse without a helmet--not because I "have" to 
but because it is the "smart" choice)