Alcohol and the health care costs of cancer 09 05 2026 updated

 So the idea for this article follows from the tail end of the last one.

So one argument in favor of the repeal of Prohibition was perhaps the notion that both the Government and God want you to be happy.  And that alcohol provides that?

But in terms of the health care costs of cancer that is being caused by alcohol being generally spread around, is that fair?

I believe that there is a general assumption of pity involved.  Being that it is not normal to be able to resist the temptation of alcohol?  Along with the above assumptions.

And in the last article I brought up the legal defense of involuntary in toxication.  And it doesn't apply to alcohol.  Funny thing is that is the most common form of intoxication.

But here is another element I find interesting.  How alcohol ruins your life little by little over time.  

WHAT IS THE INVOLUNTARY ASPECT OF THAT?

And again, that is all I have time for.  That all caps would make a good topic for a High School or College Essay.  Oh boy, can you see wealthy parents being in fumes about an assignment like that?

And I will make one more statement here, "Wealth; it facilitates alcoholism and child neglect."

© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy

Ps. 

So lets say that a mother drinks alcohol and gives birth to a child with Downs Syndrome or what is now termed intellectual disabilities.

With all of the arguments that Pro Life people make about that really being a person in the womb, I would ask, "Did that baby have the intent to be born with Downs Syndrome?"

A man gets drunk and gets in a drunken driving accident.  He is guilty of the crime and of having the intent.

A mother drinks alcohol and has a Downs Syndrome child, and in most cases it isn't a crime, although there are new laws that require the protection of a child.  

That person with Downs Syndrome or intelligence disabilities will likely struggle all their life because they are not of academic or other standards.  A person who is intoxicated too, struggles with impaired judgement.

So the Pro Life people want to say it is a person at the moment of conception.  So I would ask, did that person have the intent to be that way?  Did they have the intent to struggle all their entire life with impaired judgement?

******'

So I would also say that there is an element of dissociative disorder in the pro life movement.

I would also argue that animal rights activists have a dissociative disorder.  Namely putting the rights of animals before the rights of people.  The Bible says that animals are to be subdued.  The Bible gets it right.  The disassociation being that someone identifies more with animals than with people.  And don't say it isn't true or that it doesn't mean what I imply it does.

I would say that there is an element of dissociative disorder with the pro life people too.  Why do they identify with the unborn more so than the rest of us walking on two feet attempting to maintain a family and food and a roof over the head?

And here is what I come up with as to the reason of the dissociation.  Perhaps the person who is pro life, the greatest time in their entire life was when they were one with their mother in that womb.  And some mothers talk to those babies.  And perhaps they tell them things.  Things like what the voices that torment someone who is labeled schizophrenic say?  And hence some pro lifers view that as the best times of their life.  After birth it is all down hill for them.  Because they have to meet standards rather than live a spoiled and coddled satanic misanthropic existence. 

And think about that.  Jesus told us in no uncertain terms in the "where do the demons go when they are driven from a person" part of the Bible, that demons are really people.  The go HOME.  They live in a real SWEPT house.  And because of their joining with other demons the END of their LIFE is far worse than the BEGINNING.  Those are no uncertain terms.

© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy

Here is another one, "Did that child have the intent to be born to their mother only to be given to someone not their mother?"

Now ask yourself, what kind of person would argue to the contrary of that?