Thanks, Anna.
I'm not an abortion happy person... like you said, it's a grey area. If you are against abortion- don't have one. period.
Women seeking abortions must view an ultrasound
- Thread starter emkay64
- Start date
Thanks, Anna.
I'm not an abortion happy person... like you said, it's a grey area. If you are against abortion- don't have one. period.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
I understand your frustration and pain in this story Merc, but these are not the kinds of people who would have gotten an abortion anyway so even thought it is heart wrenching to see this kind of story, it is not part of the abortion discussion.
Your other points about children being gifts and some people not respecting that gift is, in fact how is killing the baby showing more respect for the gift? I still do not see where anything you have said supports a good reson to have irresponsibility based abortions as easy. Life is a gift, babies are a gift, and it makes no sense at all to kill something that is precious. If the adults are not showing proper respect and care for their children then do as you mentioned and increase penalties for their actual actions, don't condone 1.4 million killings a year just because some of them "might" not properly care for their children.
As far as adoptions are concerned, I don't think your being fair, to the best of my knowledge it is extremely rare for an adoptive home to turn out bad, there screening process is so severe these days most of these placements turn out to be very good for the children, and considering the alternative is they get killed, I am sure they would want even a medicore life over death, that is how I would feel.
You know what bothers me about these discussions? No insult to you but it seems to me most of these discussions seem to concentrate on the lest common issues with the average abortion. Defenders of abortions talk about rape and such but these things account for between 1 and 2 percent of the total number of abortions performed in America (depending on what study you prefer). Even your comment that abortions will save some children from later abuse is really not a reasonable point because you can't say for sure they will be abused and killing just for a preventive measure is also trying to play God. How many of those aborted children would not be abused and is it fair to that dead baby to be forced to die just because some other children might be abused?
I am involved in the Florida Guardian ad Litem, I used to do case work but now I am mostly involved in fundraising and petitioning our lawmakers. I was very involved in pushing Jessica's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law
And I helped several other groups push for similar laws in many States but unfortunetely there are still States who do not think this kind of law is good for them. The way to fight child abuse is not to kill the children who some may believe are at risk to be abused but instead to provide a strict method for dealing with the rare cases of real abuse such as the situation you describe.
I believe a severe child abuse case like what your talking about should have both parents facing the death penalty and everyone else who knew directly, saw the child and never called police should face a minimum 10 year sentence for their enabling and helping in the death of a child.
Anna, please take a second and read what I have to say, more often than not you seem to assume things and beliefs for me that I do not have and I would like a chance to really get along better with you.
Yes, I support laws and laws are supposed to represent the morals and beliefs of society. I also believe killing just to escape taking responsibility for a choice already made is wrong. But after those two main reasons I am also very concerned with the long term damage done to all women who get abortions. It is proven that most women still suffer over their choice to kill their children even 20 years later so when we see how much harm is caused by what appears to be a short term solution, why can't you agree that maybe "some" tiny steps to reconnect humanity to the process is needed?
Abortions are a symptom of a larger problem of irresponsibility. We cannot improve things unless we can deal with the reason why women turn to abortions. Most abortions are to women who already have children and either did not use any protections, or used protections irregulary during the month they conceived. Not consistently using protections is why almost all unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion happen, so how do we get women and men to use protections? This is the real issue, not abortions, we have to stop making irresponsibility so easy for people to get away with in society.
Abortions will not see any real decline until we can get people to start taking responsibility for their reproductive activities.
I refuse to just give up on humanity and believe that we must kill babies because people will never take responsibility for themselves. I believe people will take responsibility for their actions but only to the point you make people take responsibility. How many people would pay their electric bill if they would never turn it off for non-payment? The less you require out of people the less they do.
I have no doubt in my mind that if we take steps to hold parents more responsible for their reproduction, that they will learn and be more careful, sure there will be a short term learning curve but never forget that Americans have been working around problems for a long time based on taking responsibility for their own lives, most of the problems we have today are caused by Government telling people and companies that they are not responsible for their actions. In the early days of America most people struck out on their own, took up a piece of land and provided for their own existence without asking for handouts.
I don't think asking people to take responsibility for their own reproductive systems is too much to ask.
Your other points about children being gifts and some people not respecting that gift is, in fact how is killing the baby showing more respect for the gift? I still do not see where anything you have said supports a good reson to have irresponsibility based abortions as easy. Life is a gift, babies are a gift, and it makes no sense at all to kill something that is precious. If the adults are not showing proper respect and care for their children then do as you mentioned and increase penalties for their actual actions, don't condone 1.4 million killings a year just because some of them "might" not properly care for their children.
As far as adoptions are concerned, I don't think your being fair, to the best of my knowledge it is extremely rare for an adoptive home to turn out bad, there screening process is so severe these days most of these placements turn out to be very good for the children, and considering the alternative is they get killed, I am sure they would want even a medicore life over death, that is how I would feel.
You know what bothers me about these discussions? No insult to you but it seems to me most of these discussions seem to concentrate on the lest common issues with the average abortion. Defenders of abortions talk about rape and such but these things account for between 1 and 2 percent of the total number of abortions performed in America (depending on what study you prefer). Even your comment that abortions will save some children from later abuse is really not a reasonable point because you can't say for sure they will be abused and killing just for a preventive measure is also trying to play God. How many of those aborted children would not be abused and is it fair to that dead baby to be forced to die just because some other children might be abused?
I am involved in the Florida Guardian ad Litem, I used to do case work but now I am mostly involved in fundraising and petitioning our lawmakers. I was very involved in pushing Jessica's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica's_Law
And I helped several other groups push for similar laws in many States but unfortunetely there are still States who do not think this kind of law is good for them. The way to fight child abuse is not to kill the children who some may believe are at risk to be abused but instead to provide a strict method for dealing with the rare cases of real abuse such as the situation you describe.
I believe a severe child abuse case like what your talking about should have both parents facing the death penalty and everyone else who knew directly, saw the child and never called police should face a minimum 10 year sentence for their enabling and helping in the death of a child.
Anna, please take a second and read what I have to say, more often than not you seem to assume things and beliefs for me that I do not have and I would like a chance to really get along better with you.
Yes, I support laws and laws are supposed to represent the morals and beliefs of society. I also believe killing just to escape taking responsibility for a choice already made is wrong. But after those two main reasons I am also very concerned with the long term damage done to all women who get abortions. It is proven that most women still suffer over their choice to kill their children even 20 years later so when we see how much harm is caused by what appears to be a short term solution, why can't you agree that maybe "some" tiny steps to reconnect humanity to the process is needed?
Abortions are a symptom of a larger problem of irresponsibility. We cannot improve things unless we can deal with the reason why women turn to abortions. Most abortions are to women who already have children and either did not use any protections, or used protections irregulary during the month they conceived. Not consistently using protections is why almost all unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion happen, so how do we get women and men to use protections? This is the real issue, not abortions, we have to stop making irresponsibility so easy for people to get away with in society.
Abortions will not see any real decline until we can get people to start taking responsibility for their reproductive activities.
I refuse to just give up on humanity and believe that we must kill babies because people will never take responsibility for themselves. I believe people will take responsibility for their actions but only to the point you make people take responsibility. How many people would pay their electric bill if they would never turn it off for non-payment? The less you require out of people the less they do.
I have no doubt in my mind that if we take steps to hold parents more responsible for their reproduction, that they will learn and be more careful, sure there will be a short term learning curve but never forget that Americans have been working around problems for a long time based on taking responsibility for their own lives, most of the problems we have today are caused by Government telling people and companies that they are not responsible for their actions. In the early days of America most people struck out on their own, took up a piece of land and provided for their own existence without asking for handouts.
I don't think asking people to take responsibility for their own reproductive systems is too much to ask.
I also understand your passion (and compassion) surrounding this issue, TJ. It's a tough subject all the way around and there are no easy cut and dry answers at either end of the spectrum. (i.e. preventing unwanted/unplanned pregnancy vs what to do when it does occur.)
While I am opposed to abortion on a personal level, I refuse to place judgment on someone who I have no idea of the facts surrounding their situation or deny them the ability to govern how their body is used. I'm not perfect... but I'm working on it
and when I get there, maybe I'll be that all knowing person who comes up with the solution to everyone's problems. (LOL)
While I am opposed to abortion on a personal level, I refuse to place judgment on someone who I have no idea of the facts surrounding their situation or deny them the ability to govern how their body is used. I'm not perfect... but I'm working on it
and when I get there, maybe I'll be that all knowing person who comes up with the solution to everyone's problems. (LOL)
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
Wow, that almost sounded like a little slam there Merc.
So only perfect people can make a moral judgement about how they want their society to be formed?
Why is it you still refuse to admit that the women did have 100% control over their bodies when they made the "choice" to have unprotected sex? An abortion is not about having control over their body, it is about escaping taking responsibility for the results of the control they already conducted with their body.
I used the example of murder on purpose, it shows both the most extreme example of bad behavior by a person as well as the most intrusive action by Government to try and deal with that immoral action that society as a whole has said is wrong.
I am not placing any judgements against any one person, I am saying killing children in the womb for irresponsibility reasons is wrong, and most Americans agree on this one topic. Many different reactions of what to do about it exist but the one thing almost everyone agrees on is abortions of this kind should have some restrictions placed on them. At the same time we also tend to agree that abortions for reasons that are not about irresponsibility should be seen as completely different.
In all reality there are not as many 'gray' areas as some people try to insert into the issue. Everythiing starts with one simple truth, in almost all of the abortion examples two people had unprotected sex and created a baby. It really is that simple. Everything else, all the complications that some try to pull into the discussion are irrelivent to the fact that the first thing that had to happen is for two adults to behave in completely irresponsible ways. We need to address this irresponsible behavior somehow. I am very open to any advise or ideas to improve this very serious problem but I sticking our heads in the sand and pretending there is not a problem is not an option for me.
I am not perfect, I am very messed up, but I will not stand around watching bad things happen with my hands in my pockets waiting for a perfection that is impossible to find. My children deserve more than my indifference to current wrongs in society.
Consider this one point, if your exceeding the posted speed limit by at least 15 MPH in almost all States in America the police have the right to take you to jail and charge you with wreckless driving that can put you in jail for awile. The reason for this severe intrusion into our lives is not the speed, but the "potential" for harm to other lives. There is no sliding scale for people trained in handling vehicles at higher speeds, there is no understanding that maybe you just had a bad day and needed to blow off some steam, sure a cop might let you off the hook but the law is the law.
So just the potential for harm is enough to place you in jail, but if you do actual harm, your a mother and you kill your own child, that is considered reasonable? Speeding is immoral enough to put you in jail but killing your own child is not?
When our children are not even safe in the womb of their mother, when even their own mother wants them dead, I say we have declined as a Nation and even more, we have declined as human beings.
So only perfect people can make a moral judgement about how they want their society to be formed?
Why is it you still refuse to admit that the women did have 100% control over their bodies when they made the "choice" to have unprotected sex? An abortion is not about having control over their body, it is about escaping taking responsibility for the results of the control they already conducted with their body.
I used the example of murder on purpose, it shows both the most extreme example of bad behavior by a person as well as the most intrusive action by Government to try and deal with that immoral action that society as a whole has said is wrong.
I am not placing any judgements against any one person, I am saying killing children in the womb for irresponsibility reasons is wrong, and most Americans agree on this one topic. Many different reactions of what to do about it exist but the one thing almost everyone agrees on is abortions of this kind should have some restrictions placed on them. At the same time we also tend to agree that abortions for reasons that are not about irresponsibility should be seen as completely different.
In all reality there are not as many 'gray' areas as some people try to insert into the issue. Everythiing starts with one simple truth, in almost all of the abortion examples two people had unprotected sex and created a baby. It really is that simple. Everything else, all the complications that some try to pull into the discussion are irrelivent to the fact that the first thing that had to happen is for two adults to behave in completely irresponsible ways. We need to address this irresponsible behavior somehow. I am very open to any advise or ideas to improve this very serious problem but I sticking our heads in the sand and pretending there is not a problem is not an option for me.
I am not perfect, I am very messed up, but I will not stand around watching bad things happen with my hands in my pockets waiting for a perfection that is impossible to find. My children deserve more than my indifference to current wrongs in society.
Consider this one point, if your exceeding the posted speed limit by at least 15 MPH in almost all States in America the police have the right to take you to jail and charge you with wreckless driving that can put you in jail for awile. The reason for this severe intrusion into our lives is not the speed, but the "potential" for harm to other lives. There is no sliding scale for people trained in handling vehicles at higher speeds, there is no understanding that maybe you just had a bad day and needed to blow off some steam, sure a cop might let you off the hook but the law is the law.
So just the potential for harm is enough to place you in jail, but if you do actual harm, your a mother and you kill your own child, that is considered reasonable? Speeding is immoral enough to put you in jail but killing your own child is not?
When our children are not even safe in the womb of their mother, when even their own mother wants them dead, I say we have declined as a Nation and even more, we have declined as human beings.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
I can tell you for sure that nobody has all the answers Merc.
I guess the point I am at is "something" has to be attempted, everyone putting their heads in the sand has us still killing 1.4 million babies every year. No, this is not a perfect step, but it is a step in the direction of including the emotional side of the decision into the mix where up to this point, the abortion clinic workers have been controlling the discussion and keeping women away from the emotional component. Then "after" the deed is done, these same workers who talked the woman into killing her child are nowhere to be found while the woman suffers a lifetime from her choice.
There has to be a better way, we are the most powerful Nation in the world, the richest Nation in the world where even the poorest people in America still usually have cellphones and cable television, this cannot be the best we can come up with. It is a disgrace that we turn our backs on the lives that need our protection the most.
I guess the point I am at is "something" has to be attempted, everyone putting their heads in the sand has us still killing 1.4 million babies every year. No, this is not a perfect step, but it is a step in the direction of including the emotional side of the decision into the mix where up to this point, the abortion clinic workers have been controlling the discussion and keeping women away from the emotional component. Then "after" the deed is done, these same workers who talked the woman into killing her child are nowhere to be found while the woman suffers a lifetime from her choice.
There has to be a better way, we are the most powerful Nation in the world, the richest Nation in the world where even the poorest people in America still usually have cellphones and cable television, this cannot be the best we can come up with. It is a disgrace that we turn our backs on the lives that need our protection the most.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
The system of law in the United States isn't based on "human rights". It's based on civil and individual rights.
There is a difference.
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
It was considered a fact when I was taught biology. I am pretty old but I don't think human biology has changed since then.
The fact is the Constitution protects the individual and if there is such a universally accepted moral belief on the need to change a law in order to deprive individuals of liberty we have an amendment process to do so.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
hugo, your not paying attention, we deprive even a speeder of their liberty, place them in handcuffs and put them in jail for exceeding the posted speed limits, there is no amendment to the Constitution for this power, it is considered immoral and wrong to put other lives in danger by speeding and local communities have said they want this immoral act punnished. So everything from speeding to murder includes the Government stepping in and depriving people of their freedoms "for cause". How many of these crimes that have the police and the courts imposing punnishments also come with a constitutional amendment for each of them individually?
Not one.
I asked you both before why the law making process that was created by our forefathers is now not supposed to be part of the system? If every law we were supposed to have had already been created, why did they create such a complex system to define the proper ways of making new laws?
The problem with things like abortion is nobody in those far gone times could even conceive of the idea that 1.4 million babies would be killed every year in America, I have no doubt in my mind at all that if they had known of this furture issue they would have included protection against such things way back then.
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
Actually, tens of million of babies may well be being aborted. Just most of them are being aborted just shortly after conception by birth control methods. You are not opposed to abortion..just abortion after a specific period.. You do not even believe the life of the fetus is sacred at any point since you favor the killing of the children of rapists and grandfathers. I suspect the pro-life movement is financed by manufacturers of birth control methods. I suspect opposing abortion allows those who succuth on the false tittith of sex outside of marriage to still feel moral.
A point conservatives might understand. You go to buy a gun, The gun shop owner says "There is a new law. You must go to the morgue and look at suicide by gunshot victims and pay $100 for the privelege". Ya don't think that would infringe on the Constitution? The law will be ruled unconstitutional it is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. Government cannot force a search of an innocent individuals body which is exactly what this law does.
Many states never gave up Jim Crow until judicial decisions forced them to. The Constitution limits tyranny, by government, of the individual. It was the love of limited government that made us a great nation It is the love of government control that is bankrupting us both financially and morally.
The complexity in the Constitution consists of attempts to limit the tyranny of the majority. The powers granted to government are pretty straight forward. They are in Article I Section 8 of our great constitution and the amendments.
A point conservatives might understand. You go to buy a gun, The gun shop owner says "There is a new law. You must go to the morgue and look at suicide by gunshot victims and pay $100 for the privelege". Ya don't think that would infringe on the Constitution? The law will be ruled unconstitutional it is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment. Government cannot force a search of an innocent individuals body which is exactly what this law does.
Many states never gave up Jim Crow until judicial decisions forced them to. The Constitution limits tyranny, by government, of the individual. It was the love of limited government that made us a great nation It is the love of government control that is bankrupting us both financially and morally.
The complexity in the Constitution consists of attempts to limit the tyranny of the majority. The powers granted to government are pretty straight forward. They are in Article I Section 8 of our great constitution and the amendments.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
The best part of all that rant you try to pin on me is that you obviously know you are wrong, otherwise that attack would not have been needed by you, lol.
I have said over and over again I do not mix my own personal faith driven beliefs with what I want for society, you must know this as many times as I have said this so your reason to misrepresent my possition is clear, you are just pissed off.
For everyone else who may have believed that set of intentional untrue words let me say again, my possition for society is not based in religion, almost every possition I take on a society level is based on responsibility. I personally find any killing of any child at any point to be horrible, but I do not mix my personal views with my wider public opinions. This is why I allow for abortions under cases of incest and rape, the woman/girl had no choice, no option to say no to the creation of a baby inside her and that means she has no responsibility to carry the baby to term.....I would love to see her give life a chance, the life was not evil but in many cases the baby inside them is like being raped again, over and over without stop.
Now, back to the question hugo dodged twice now.
Hugo, why is it you refuse to answer a direct question about how laws are created? Why do you refuse to admit that we are supposed to have new laws based on the morals of communities? As I said before, if we had every law we could ever need on the books, why would our founding fathers create a system for creating new laws? You seem to only want to see a very narrow segment of American history and you completely ignore the rest. Our founding fathers knew that times would change, they knew that their view on the world would not fit an eternity, that was why they set forth ways to adjust things as we go, to allow for new possibilities and needs they could not plan for.
They knew time would bring change.
Now, I offered you some great examples showing how everything from speeding to murder can put you in handcuffs and even have the Government take your life. None of these specific punnishments are included in the Constitution, in reality the Federal Government was never supposed to make laws that directly control citizens, that was supposed to be the job of each State and even Row v Wade said that this was a States issue. If you don't like the laws of that State, don't live there.
All laws are based in morals, this law is the same. If we can kill a person for moral reasons, I don't believe an ultrasound performed by people who think killing babies is a good thing is something to be even considered an intrusion. If the hoover shoved up there is not an intrusion on the person, then the ultrasound is nothing in comparison.
Remember, the woman made a "choice" to have unprotected sex and create an unwanted child. The same woman has a "choice" to kill her child, all that is being asked is that part of the "RESPONSIBILITY" of killing your child is to see it first.
I have no problem with that.
I have said over and over again I do not mix my own personal faith driven beliefs with what I want for society, you must know this as many times as I have said this so your reason to misrepresent my possition is clear, you are just pissed off.
For everyone else who may have believed that set of intentional untrue words let me say again, my possition for society is not based in religion, almost every possition I take on a society level is based on responsibility. I personally find any killing of any child at any point to be horrible, but I do not mix my personal views with my wider public opinions. This is why I allow for abortions under cases of incest and rape, the woman/girl had no choice, no option to say no to the creation of a baby inside her and that means she has no responsibility to carry the baby to term.....I would love to see her give life a chance, the life was not evil but in many cases the baby inside them is like being raped again, over and over without stop.
Now, back to the question hugo dodged twice now.
Hugo, why is it you refuse to answer a direct question about how laws are created? Why do you refuse to admit that we are supposed to have new laws based on the morals of communities? As I said before, if we had every law we could ever need on the books, why would our founding fathers create a system for creating new laws? You seem to only want to see a very narrow segment of American history and you completely ignore the rest. Our founding fathers knew that times would change, they knew that their view on the world would not fit an eternity, that was why they set forth ways to adjust things as we go, to allow for new possibilities and needs they could not plan for.
They knew time would bring change.
Now, I offered you some great examples showing how everything from speeding to murder can put you in handcuffs and even have the Government take your life. None of these specific punnishments are included in the Constitution, in reality the Federal Government was never supposed to make laws that directly control citizens, that was supposed to be the job of each State and even Row v Wade said that this was a States issue. If you don't like the laws of that State, don't live there.
All laws are based in morals, this law is the same. If we can kill a person for moral reasons, I don't believe an ultrasound performed by people who think killing babies is a good thing is something to be even considered an intrusion. If the hoover shoved up there is not an intrusion on the person, then the ultrasound is nothing in comparison.
Remember, the woman made a "choice" to have unprotected sex and create an unwanted child. The same woman has a "choice" to kill her child, all that is being asked is that part of the "RESPONSIBILITY" of killing your child is to see it first.
I have no problem with that.
RegisteredAndEducated
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
That's not a good analogy... You are forced when you buy a gun to pay for a background check. The only way to get around that is to have a carry permit, which you also have to pay for... Both prerequisite to purchasing/carrying a gun, even though it's a constitutional right.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
SLAM!!!
Another point where his anology is way, way off base is guns are not "exclusively" for committing suicide, in fact most legal guns never get used against a human target. An abortion on the other hand is "ALWAYS" killing a human target, there is no other use or reason and the purpose of the ultrasound is to let the mother see the child their killing. A person who uses a gun on another person "WILL" see the person in their sights just before pulling the trigger, lol. All gun use has us with the ability to see our target, all this ultrasound will do is give mother's the same ability, in fact, being as these ultrasounds will be performed by abortion clinics, I bet they can even place a set of cross hairs on the screen..............
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
But a liberal state might think it a good idea to insure the gun buyer is fully informed. Don't f with the Constitution.
There is only one way to form a law when your agenda is unconstitutional and that is to amend the Constitution which was wisely made quite difficult to prevent tyrannical majorities depriving individuals of individual liberty.
There is a Roman Catholic couple I know who I respect their moral stance which is actually based on scripture. Their only birth control method was the rhythm method. Y'all simply wish to enforce every woman to use the pill. That ain't worth violating the Constitution for.I can understand why single males who wish to spread their penis around would find forced birth control a good idea. Depriving women of rights so ya can freely fornicate ain't constitutional though
In a democracy laws are formed when 50+% of the populace decide to deprive the rest of the populace of their liberty on one or more issues. The Constitution guarantees individuals liberty from the wouldbe tyrannical majority.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
I've never before seen so many faux conservatives, try to justify their hypocritical support for government tyranny in my entire life.
Anna Perenna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2005
I would like to not get angry every time I read your posts, but as it stands, this post is the only post of yours that hasn't angered me.
Me: completely independent, free-thinking, modern Australian woman. (I am not a 'radical liberal' as you would like to label me. I am simply a normal human being, living in the present)
You: parochial, conservative, religious American man who makes biased assumptions and is highly emotional.
I find your beliefs archaic, offensive, and often baseless. It's going to be very difficult for us to ever get along.
The only reason I get along with Hugo, despite his (irrational, IMHO) affection for the Constitution and ye olden days, is because he doesn't make assumptions or attack me, his opinions aren't based on hatred or emotion, and when I ask him a question, he tries his best to answer it.
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
Thanks...I think. The Constitution defends my classical liberal principles. I guess if I was a modern liberal or archaic conservative I would not be quite as enamored with it. I just don't trust majority rule and see a constitutional republic as the best method to defend the individual against excesses from the left and right.
If we could bring back the olden days, minus the racism and sexism, I would be a happy man.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
ToriAllen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
No, the 'fully informed' analogy there would be more like someone saying, "I'm buying this gun to hunt deer", so they showed them a few minute of video of a deer running through a field. You guys are coming up with analogies that are further and further off base. This is as bad as the chicken analogy, which should have been: If you want to eat chicken they will show you the live chicken on a TV screen. You don't have to see it being killed. Don't they do something like that with lobster anyway? They are all alive in a big tank and you get to pick out the one you want...
Similar threads
GODPOD AUDIO: An American Soldier Wars for God and Country - Look,torture is criminal in Christ's Am
- my_brothers_brother@hotmail.com
- Off Topic
- reefer mon
- Off Topic