posted on January 11, 2001 08:46:58 PM
It's been 27 years since the Roe vs. Wade decision. More than 38 million babies have died, 8 million more people than Hitler planned to exterminate. But, then again, I guess that is ok,I mean, it isn't like they are really important, like chads, or hanging chads, or romper room sex in the oval office. Just masses of cells, uncerimoniously removed from the female human body, or dissolved with acid, or ripped limb from limb from the womb, or skullk punctured as the almost entire body hangs from the womb, only the head inside, no one to hear the silent scream as the brain matter is removed with a vaccume hose. They don't even count, don't even vote, cannot voice thier own opinions, they are just there, an inconvienece to the preg...no, the woman cannot be pregnant, for that would mean that she was fertile, and carring a life. Lets us say that she is with ch....,no, can't be that, that is life too. Ah yes, I know: she is having cellectomy, that's what it is. Nothing to get upset over, like saving a patch of land for a mole, or a tree for an owl, or even a woman who took in another to help her....oops, she was unpopular, had to silence her voice. Not that she mattered anyhow, and maybe we can go back in time and abort the mass of cells that could've been her. But we must save all those monkey's, and dolphins and trees. After all, they have no voice of their own.
Thats right, I should not post like this, it is not the P.C. thing to do. We must stick up for the people who are truely wronged. like the fools in Florida that could not vote correctly, or the illeagle aliens that need our tax dollars, or the looking for that one fossel that could just prove Darwin right. But not the unborn, er, I mean the cells that inconvienence us so badly.. They do not count, for they have NO VOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:08:51 PM
Or mayhap they do.....naw, a man like Ashcroft must be silenced at all costs, huh ladies and gentlemen? He, a man of honor (unlike a certin pair that will occupy the White House until 19Jan01). But mayhap you are right, and it will be 2 steps back, at least for the people who would prefer to remove those useless, inconvienent cells. After all, we can just abort the results, right?
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
How do you feel about Head and Shoulders shampoo? Do you think that in helping to prevent dandruff that that product is preserving human cells?
You just never know about cells, do you? One cell could evolve through billions of years, regenerating endlessly from a single mutation, and become a creation of the Lord.
Maybe a frog. A frog is included in "all God's creatures, great and small", right?
Now if you kiss that frog, as lore has it, (what a Grimm prospect this is, are you ready?) it might become a Prince!
But if you do more than kiss, you may be impregnated by the prince, eh?
Now wouldn't you really rather have a choice of whether or not to abort your frog?
edited for: ddicffe, it occurs that you may be male, and would not (or WOULD you ) kiss a frog, so let's just pose it in that case that your wife were to be impregnated by the risen Prince, assuming that you are married, oh and that you do not use birth control (what AM I forgetting?); would you then initiate an abortion of your new, umm, frogchild?
posted on January 11, 2001 09:13:15 PM
Mayhap the Attourney General of the United States should not be a person who has spent his entire professional life opposing various laws he will have to uphold.
Mayhap the Attourney General of the United States should not be such an extremist that he was booted out his Senate incumbancy by his Republican state, who incidentally voted for Bush, in favor of a dead Democrat.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:17:39 PM
Why don't you PROVE evolution, krs? You seem so adept at proving everything else. If you would read what you posted, God doesn't "evolve", He creates. Sadly, what you are trying to prepose has little merit, except to condone the end of innocent life.
And james: I suppose that Ashcroft does oppose abortion, and has fought it all of his life. What about those of us who have his point of view? Do we not deserve to be heard in our government? Or do you wish to have our views aborted along with the unborn?
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:19:45 PM
krs:
Your frog answer:
According to the National Council for Adoption, babies, regardless of medical problems, who are "free for adoption," generally don't wait long for families. There are waiting lists of couples who would like to adopt infants with Down's syndrome or Spina Bifida. More than 100 approved families are waiting to adopt children with Down's syndrome. A large number of couples want to adopt terminally ill babies too, including infants with AIDS.
National Council for Adoption, 1930 17th St., NW Washington, DC 20009-6207 Phone: (202) 328-1200
My guess is that they would adopt the frog as well.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:21:55 PM
Ddicffe, your views should be heard. But your views are not the law of the land, and as such those with your views, who will not uphold the law of the land, should not be the chief law enforcement officer in this country.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:26:29 PM
james: Why shouldn't they? Oh, I know why: because these views would mean that mankind is inherently sinful, and in need of a savior. Laws can be changed, james, but sometimes you need the right person for the job.
snowy: Disprove God. Show me He does not exist. Show me that the Bible is wrong, miscopied. Prove Darwinism, alien seeding, or any of the other causes you may be for. The shoe is on the other foot, now. As you so aptly said, "Prove it".
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:27:40 PM
krs: They would even adopt you, so my guess is a chicken isn't out of the question, in the "worldly" view you prepose.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:28:02 PM
Let me qualify that. I don't believe that one has to be pro-choice to serve as Attourney General. But even a pro-lifer can still be of the type that they are prepared to enforce laws, such as the federal law that prohibits people from blocking abortion clinics. Ashcroft is such an extremist that he sponsored a bill that would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. It's hard to imagine such a man calling in the guns to disperse abortion protestors who are violating the law. Of course, he will be asked that very question. We'll see what he says, and how convincingly.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:30:57 PM
james: Qualify this:
Why is it pro-abortion gets special protection, even being allowed to be in crises pregnancy centers to promote thier actions, while pro-life not only aren't allowed to protest, but cannot even set up a counciling center in a "planned parenthood" center?
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:32:19 PM
james:
Ah, yes, words: while saying one thing, they can mean another, can they not? I mean, what is the definition of the word "is"?
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:32:48 PM
That's a very good question and I don't know the answer. But that doesn't change the laws and the fact that the Attourney General can't be ideologically opposed to them if he is to effectively enforce them.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:34:03 PM
I believe I promoted the viewpoint that all points of views should be heard. I'm not sure what the problem is. By the way, you have no idea where I stand on the abortion issue, and don't think you do.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:35:58 PM
james:
So true, but these "laws" were put in during the reign of Clinton the great, were they not? Yes, they were, to answer my own question. So the laws do have to be enforced, until they are changed. Then the new laws have to be enforced, right? Unless, of coarse, they do not jive with the liberal agenda.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:37:36 PM
A law is a law. The laws on the books need to be enforced, not hypothetical overturned laws which a paralyzed Congress won't be legislating.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:38:18 PM
james:
BTW, by your reasoning, Clinton had an affaire, ergo he is ideaologically opposed to marrage. Yet, he still enforces the law of marrage, right?
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:39:33 PM
Clinton is not the chief law enforcement officer in the country, so I'm not sure what the analogy is. And yes, I think he is a poor excuse for a married man.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:42:36 PM
james:
Since when is he not the chief L.E.O.? He's the C&C of the armed forces, and holds the highest office in the land. Yet, appearantly, since he is the head of the exectutive branch of govt'( they enforce the laws), he also must be the chief L.E.O..
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on January 11, 2001 09:43:44 PM
It's a matter of worth. There are too many babies, plain and simple, and their continued production will if unchecked overwhelm the ability of this planet to provide for them. An unborn child is of little intrinsic worth, it is the grown adult mind which gives value to the result of birth and before grown, a fetus is of little more value than is a single cell. The valuation of human life is as a clipped curve, small at the beginning and small again at the end. Human remains are disposed of as waste, though with perhaps a little more ceremony. (I only say a little more because of my previous heavy involvement with the processes of disposal of hazardous waste which requires something quite a bit more ceremonial by law).
Realizing that the Head and Shoulders tease would be beyond you, I now have to explain myself. So, back to it; how can you deny abortion when you yourself kill live human cells each and every day?
posted on January 11, 2001 09:45:26 PM
It is my understanding that the president is the "CEO" of the United States, and the Commander-In-Chief, but not the "chief law enforcement official". I could be inccorect, but again, his marital infidelity doesn't mean that Ashcroft is fit to be Attourney General.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jan 11, 2001 09:45 PM ]
) kiss a frog, so let's just pose it in that case that your wife were to be impregnated by the risen Prince, assuming that you are married, oh and that you do not use birth control (what AM I forgetting?); would you then initiate an abortion of your new, umm, frogchild?