Is Pro-Slice&Dice; too descriptive?

..And those contributions will be coming from...whom?

Oh, I'm sure Hollywood will have loads of money to give to them now. Then again, a procedure that makes up less than one percent never seemed to me like it should be quite this important anyway ...

Oh, I'm sure Hollywood will have loads of money to give to them now. Then again, a procedure that makes up less than one percent never seemed to me like it should be quite this important anyway ...

It was a pretty barbaric way to dispatch the unborn of a woman too stupid, lazy or drugged to get around to killing them for months and months.

It also wouldn't matter less if it only happened once to one child.

yeah.. I've noticed that all these people who think abortion is a good idea... have already been born... isn't that just more of this Left Wing hypocrisy though?

There should be some legal publicly funded way to do this "partial birth" knife to the brain thing to the Democrat mind set... it's such a tragedy to see any of it actually go "full term"... i mean they grow up to be Martin Sheens and Tom Daschle's...etc what a grim injustice to the world.

N-O-T F-U-N-N-Y.

Unless you think abortion and the termination of a child has something laughable in it. That probably qualifies as a certifiable mental illness most places.

This being such a tremendous hot-button issue, I'm not even going to express how I feel about it. I'm just going to say that the folks on either side of the issue aren't going to change anyone's mind to the other side.
Sanctioned or not, the procedures will continue. Marching, pickets, protests, etc. will not make one iota of difference.
The only thing they do is whip up a frenzy get people hurt.
'Nuff said.

Dream clean, Ashcroft is watching. ;-)

Granted that no amount of proselytizing will change the mind of a committed abortionista, does this necessarily mean that we should stop trying to put an end to it? There are committed terrorists out there whose minds will never change, and society still needs protection from them. After all aren't lost causes the only ones worth fighting for?

Bush is using the wrong approch. We're not going to war, just preforming a retro-abortion on Saddamite Hussein.

Blueninja - 2,200 D&X; procedures (deliver the baby feet first up to the head then stab the baby in the skull and suck his/her brain out) are performed each year. And to think that's less than 1%....

Actually, it was funny, it's just your low sense of humor doesn't understadn such high levels of humor. Get a job, friend. Besides as a picketeer.

Sorry, that was really inappropriate.

Actually, I would like to say that if something like "high levels of humor" existed in America, people would know about it.

Frenchman

One must not be prideful with any excellence that is not one's own. (Epictetus)

Actually, Joseph, I was referring to the violent, oft times fatal tactics used by the extreme (very extreme disavowed by any legitimate organization) pro-life crowd.
Not too many pro-choice riflemen or bombers.

They don't have to be Gorn! They get their appetite for killing evveryday. Can you please show me where in the Constitution the right to choice is located? As an attorney I've never figured oit out, so maybe your enlightened self or even Frenchman can help me out here. I know when the Supremes ruled on Roe vs Wade they actually ruled on the right to privacy, not choice. Of course, I can't finds ones right to privacy in the Constitution either.

And wouldn't you agree that a woman has the right to choose much earlier in the pregnancy, which would allow her to get an abortion much before the fetus even resembles a human being? Even in the event of rape or incest, can't she "choose" abortion in the first trimester, ehich is actually what Roe called for. Isn't there a problem whith the reasoning that it takes 6 - 8 months to choose? The prochoice movement argues that there should be the exception for rape and incest, but this choice should be made much earlier, thereby not requiring late term abortion anyway. As for the health of the mother, there is a provision, but the prochoice lobby wants it to include "mental" health, like is she has to raise this kid it will cause her stress. No kidding, I raised three.

The problem with late term abortion is that often the mother wants the baby until her boyfriend dumps her, then she wants a way out. How many choices does she get to make?? I am all for a mother not being allowed to raise a child she doesn't want, but shoulnd't we draw the line somewhere? What about the fathers choice, doesn't the Constitution say "equal rights under the law"?

Just my unenlightened, uneducated ranting cause I am an American!

Personally, I've always felt our current abortion laws are too restrictive. Since the "health" of the mother has been redefined to mean"convenience", why should the right to kill a dependant child stop a birth?

Thats why I am starting "Americans for Post-Natal Abortion"

Do you want a Ferrarri, but instead feel forced to pay for a Harvard education for your off-spring?

Has the cute toddler become a surly teenager, causing you great stress and grief?

Does an irritating 8-year old keep urging you to quit smoking, can the SUV and start recycling?

Post-Natal abortion is the answer! Call your congressman today!

Our Motto? "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"

**
Hopefully yesterday's decision will be a step back from that slippery slope........

how about choosing not to have unprotected sex??

and why is it the man can't stop a woman from aborting his child, but if the woman chooses to have the baby against his will, he still has to pay child support?? Equal justice my butt.

I am against any form of abortion, but considering the long wait to adopt a child, I can't see how a mother could deliver her baby part of the way, only to let someone kill it. Why not wait a month or 2, deliver the baby and give him or her a chance to be raised in a good home?

I have a question. If the doctor accidentally delivered the baby out to the knees before they killed it, would it then be the cold-blooded murder of an innocent baby for profit, or is that still O.K.?

I WOULD say that people in the future are going to look back on this and gasp in horror the way we do at Hitler's murders. But considering the recent pro-Saddam demonstrations, maybe they will just forget.

Darth:

My understanding is that most of these procedures occur not because 'wanton' choice of a spurned mother to be, but rather because of medical necessity. Of course, just like you, I don't have any statistics to back that claim with. Nonetheless... Looking at your argument logically (I know, I tend to do that sometimes)..

If a the father-to-be makes his choice to abandon the mother-to-be and the baby, his rights as a father would terminate at that point in time, wouldn't they? After all, it's his choice to leave or stay.

EVEN IF there are questions about who's rights are being violated, which in the case you provide is tenuous at best, it is STILL the woman's body we're talking about. However you might feel about what she's doing to her own genetic material, it is HER genetic material. I've been close to some women who actually had to make the choice, and I can say that in the few cases (certainly less than 30 required for normalization :) that I've seen, it's anything but a wanton decision.

That, however, is not something that the protesters that I see every morning on my way to work are willing to accept as objective reality, just like the anti-war flukies aren't willing to accept reality of their world.

Perhaps the intriguing aspect of this entire port is how hypocritical some folks are: arguing for the rights of Iraqi's and other oppressed peoples, and denying the very same rights to the women of this country. If individual rights are good enough for Iraqi's (Men or Women), they should be good enough for American Women, shouldn't they?

Now for the actual bombshell in this post... The anti-choice (because pro-life they are not) folks usually use religious dogma as their moral underpinning. However, there is NOTHING in the Old or New Testament that speaks against abortion. This issue has been debated for thousands of years (several pages in the Talmud are devoted to it, and no, I'm not going to index it for you, since it's so damn big), and with few dissents, those sages agreed that an unborn's life is not as important as an actual life. The actual religious condemnation of abortion really didn't hit until 1000-1100 AD or so, and as much of Papal edicts, it was not based on faith as much as Rome's self-interest (see fish on Fridays, priests can't marry, etc.).

Hence the faith underpinning of anti-abortion folks is just about as shaky as, say, the faith that was the underpinning of the Taliban.

Once the 2 halves of DNA form into 1, that is no longer the woman's body, but someone elses. The woman's body must change to accomodate the baby, but the baby itself is a completely new set of genes at the time of conception.

I just have such a hard time understanding how a country can have so many people against a war because "children could die", yet have no problem with abortion. It's death to another life form.

And I always thought it was funny that a man cannot tell a woman what to do about pregnancy because the man cannot be pregnant himself, yet none of us are abortion victims and we have all the say in the world.

But someone already said it, no one can change other people's minds.

{email withheld because stupid spammers have been crawling scrappleface)

Logic

Dont confuse abortion and late term abortion as the same issue. I am not arguing the issue of abortion rights, just the issue of late-term abortion. If not late term-then logic (play on words) wopuld indicate they are making the choice in the first trimester, and that is what my argument was pointing out. As to late-term abortion, where the baby is partially delivered and its head punctured, all testimony provided, including even the opinion of the American Medical Association, is that it is NEVER medically necessary, and in fact may be more harmful to the mother than a delivery would be.

so the only one of your points left to argue is in the event the father abandons the mother. If this occurs than he does lose the right to make decisions, but in losing that right, he also is not requireed to pay support, just as if the child was actually a child versus a preborn infant/fetus. But why should late term abortion be aloowed for that? Because the father is o longer around? than why not carry that logic (again playing on your name) further and say is a father abandons a mother and her 2 year old child she is free to have it disposed of?

The argument bing made by pro-abortion groups is that abortion must be legal for the "health" of the mother. I have never heard them argue for the finacial status of the mother-although they are defintely thinking it.

Father abandonment has nothing to do with the heatlh of the mother.

regards.

wow... logic ?

Where in the Bible, or the Constitution does it say that two plus two equals four ?

Oh i c, When a baby is born the GNP goes down. When a pig is born the GNP goes up. So a pigs life is worth more than human life? uh huh.

The people who think they can justify killing babies by some convoluted logic process... and some book, or some law, will somehow make it moral (or not) are spiritually brain dead. As a nation we WILL answer to God for it. Count on it! Soon I think, so get ready.

I'm all for pro choice ! Men should keep it zipped unless they are sure the women WANT the consequences. Period. NO exceptions. This gratification without consequence is the "liberal" problem (no matter which party you went to or voted for)

But let's not talk about this... it might make someone who disagrees "uncomfortable" or angry.

Logic,

TRUE ñ about the father, but thatís about it.

ONE of the bodies is the womanís. The other belongs to her baby (a.k.a. genetic material). You donít like the phrase ìPro-Lifeî. Well, I donít like the phrase ìPro-choiceî, because that bouncing bundle of genetic material doesnít have a choice on whether to be killed or not. That genetic material likes to change position once in a while, might occasionally suck his or her thumb and will push back if you crowd him or her.

The "wanton decision" was made months earlier. What weíre talking about is not choice; itís the ìfreedomî to avoid the responsibility of previous choices. What about the babyís rights?

Exodus 20:13 ìYou shall not murderî. I donít see a lot of wiggle room in that one. You pro-abortion people use words like genetic material to de-humanize these babies. Terminology doesnít change what it isómurder. This is not a right.

Darth:

Point by point...

1. Here's the link to the AMA policy on the subject:

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Temrination Techniques

Here's the quote:

"(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X; is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X.; The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient. "

It's nicely (read: legally) worded, but there is nothing in here about this procedure being "NEVER medically necessary". Yes, it could be more harmful to the mother than a regular delivery, but regular delivery is not without risks either. It's in the discretion of the doctor and in the best interest of the patient, as they are the only people who could and should make that choice.

2. I don't think I argued the support issue anywhere in my post (yes I'm spelling it correctly this time :). My point was that in the free society, people make choices about their (not anybody else's) life, and they are responsible for dealing with the consequences of their own choices.

2.1 As far as carrying the logic further (past birth), I'll use your argument about support as support :) The law distinguishes between "potential" and "actual" whether it's about support payments or about abortion. Terminating an "actual" person means making a choice about another "actual" person's life, and carries "actual" consequences, for which we have laws around to deal with. In the words of Dr. Phil, get real. There are plenty of actual people more deserving our attention than "potential" people (how Macchiavellian of me - Frenchy will love that :)

Furthermore... When we start legistlating "potential" vs. "actual", that's when we'll be in trouble. To borrow a plot from a fairly recent movie, why shouldn't/couldn't you eliminate someone who will "potentially" commit a crime in the future? Deal with actual, and logic should theoretically never abandon you. Deal with potential, and it's all about faith - and by definition illogical.

LPB

GMB and Phrog:

Read my previous post to Darth. The line in Exodus, then, applies to "ACTUAL" people, not "POTENTIALLY VIABLE" people. This is what the sages were debating in Talmud. I'll ignore your attempt to lump all 'pro-abortion' folks together, since I was not aware that they are a unique segment of the population. Please understand, I'm not making these posts to convert you folks, I know better than that. Also, please try to understand that what you feel is "right" may not be how other people see it, and is generally NOT the "one true way in a dark and misguided world."

LPB

Logic

I now understand that you are a woman, Bravo.

Do you mean that that little being inside a mother is not actual, just my imagination?? The Supreme Court held in Roe about the viability of life, they didn't say life only began after birth? In fact there has never been a ruling on when life begins scientifically. So how can pro-abortion advocates say life doesn't begin until after birth. And if thats so, why has the Supreme struck down any of the many state laws that criminalize bahvior that brings harm to a fetus??

Just wondering.

Darth:

Your powers of intuition are not quite as honed as you think they are. Also, the laws that you're referring to are in place to prevent another person doing harm to the mother's fetus. They do not abridge the freedom of personal choice when it comes to the mother herself.

And your argument as to when life actually begins, is right on. We DON'T know, so there is no use arguing about that. My perspective in this case is just as valid as yours.

Which harm to fetus laws are you referring to? If they are the ones just recently passed, they're not going to be on the Supremes agenda for another couple of years.

Logic - Actually, the early Christian apostles condemned the practice of abortion (which was fairly well-practiced among pagan peoples) in the first century AD. Its mentioned as being forbidden in the Didache. (Unfortunately, I don't have my copy hear at work, so I can't cite the passage for you. IF you're actually interested, drop me a line and I'll e-mail you the citation tonight after I get home!

The pro-abortionists will always have access to money. One of the first Senators I heard decrying this decision, (to stop murdering babies, minutes before birth), was Sen. Maria Cantwell! You may or may not know, she got elected by 'buying' the office, with millions she made through an internet company, that went belly-up after she was elected. Needing money, to pay off her campaign debt, her new best buddy, Hillary (Rot-Ham-Smell) Clinton, threw a big fund raiser for her, which raised millions!

Logic,

As I sat and felt the movements of my children in their mother's womb, I never considered them "'POTENTIALLY VIABLE' people". They were my children then as much as they are now.

As I stated, "Don't murder" does not specify a situation. It is an absolute. You brought up the Bible. It was also a quote from the Almighty Creator of the universe. What the created think "should be" right is not applicable. That's why they are called absolutes.

P.S. He was not consulted for the Talmud.

Deirdre:

Try "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll. It's about as good historical treatment of the first 3 centuries CE (and beyond) and rise of Christianity as I've seen, if you can get past the 1st 200 pages of Freudian B.S. (the author definitely has some "mother" issues)

LPB

Well you sound like a woman.

Anyway, there have been harm to fetus laws on the books for many years that have never been overturned, even when that harm is caused by the mother-ie crackhead mom causes damage to fetus.

And your position that the laws only apply to someone other than the mother causing harm, yes there are those laws, but how do you get from it ain't life to it ain't life only if the mother decides to end it. If robber decides to end it then it is life and is murder?

And as a member of the Supreme Court Bar, I will tell you that the pro-abortion lobby may not want these newer cases to end up there, because they will force the Supreme Court to rule difnitively when life begins.

pro-abortionist keep arguing the choice point, but can you tell me whre in Roe v. Wade or its progeny the court found a right to choice in the test of the Constitution> roe was about privacy rights. which also don't exist, and they had to stretch to get there. Regardless of how I feel about abortion, which no one here but me knows, although you may try to summise based on my comments, my arguments here have nothing to do with the moral issues at all. They are legal arguments only. Thats why I call each side pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Both sides get the same title. the terms choice and life emotionalize the issues.

Which is why I say, mine is a legal and logical argument, not an emotional or moral one.

Where did you go to law school?

GMB:

Don't even get me started about the Bible... You're going to lose that argument :) Seriously, which version of the Bible are you referring to, since there is established scholarship out there debunking exactly who's word it is that written in every one of them.

The "Don't Kill" maxim is not absolute, as illustrated by the fact that most of you on this site have been arguing very ardently for killing a certain middle eastern despot, give or take a few collateral casualties. Again, the stench of hypocrasy. If you're going to assume a certain position, try to think it through all the way before arguing it with me :)

Now then... 10 Minutes to GMB, 20 to Darth, 5 to Phrog... And oh yes, the Post was actually quite ironic, so kudos to Scott :)

Have a nice weekend, y'all

LPB

I find the definition of "individual" might come to play. Otherwise, we could convict mothers that miscarry for whatever reason of murdering a fetus in the womb.

Dusty.

"Don't Kill" in the Ten Commandments should be interpreted as "Don't Murder", clarified by Jesus himself in Matt 19:18.

"Don't Kill" as an absolute translation, wouldn't make much sense followed later by the detailed instructions given on animal sacrifices, slaughtering livestock, etc., etc. and I assure you that yes, they ate meat and yes, using the aforementioned translation, it all makes sense.

A wise man once wrote "It is so simply written, that to misunderstand the Bible, you'll need the aid of a theologian." i.e. scholar. :)

(helpful hint) Start by throwing out ALL punctuation. The ancient writers either didn't have it or use it. At least as we know and use it.

Question: If someone made a thousand different bad translations of Cervantes' "Don Quixote de la Mancha", would that make the original and accurate translations void and invalid?

(blink, blink)

Just wondering...

The "right to choose" argument is blatant hypocrisy, and here's why: If an unmarried woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she can choose an abortion. Or she can choose to have the baby and stick the father with 18 years of child support payments. Where's the choice for the father?

Frenchman: Who needs rifles and bombs to kill defenseless infants. What is more vulnerable than a newborn human (or a nearly newborn human)? No ammunition nor any ballistic weapon is necessary. All one has to do is quickly insert a pointed probe into the medulla, stir, and, what is it you French say? Voila!! Done and done. You know, it reminds me of the old Three Stooges gag. Curly, you have to be executed. How do you want to die? You can be burned at the stake or you can be beheaded. Curly's response: I'll take burning at the stake because a hot stake is better than a cold chop. A death is a death is a death mon ami. If I believe that all life is precious, what matters the age of the victim?

Thanks for the five LPD

This is how i see it. If you are right and I am wrong.. woops.. I missed a few orgies, passed up some chances to kill babies that i could have gotten away with "legally"...I could have gotten off a few more times in a few more places... how sad, what a tragic waste to miss out on all this "pleasure".

But.. If I'm right and you are wrong... Damn.. you're gonna be be in deep doo doo with God. So Fine.. go ahead and take that risk if you are comfortable with it. Not worth the risk for me!

"wickedness never was happiness"

Losing an arguement with someone about the "Bible" is the least of my worries.

"I'm just going to say that the folks on either side of the issue aren't going to change anyone's mind to the other side." -Gorn

Obviously Mr. Gorn some are changing their minds. Public opinion polls conducted show a distinct shift in the USA from very pro abortion in the 70's to moderately pro-life in the late 90's. Glacial progress to be sure, but progress nonetheless.

so far down the list. is there anybody out there?

The largest problem I have with the pro-abortion arguement is this: Both sides come to the table with assumptions. Pro-life assumes life begins at conception or at the very least when the fetus resembles a human. Pro-abortion assumes, however, that life begins when the umbilical coord drops off. With that in mind, if the Life camp is wrong, it has inconvenienced millions of woman and possibly killed some if an abortion would have saved the mother. If the Abortion camp is wrong, then they have allowed the needless killing of millions of innocents. I do not like the idea of a philosophical debate crushing an an innocent third paty.

TO:FRENCHMAN
One must not be prideful with any excellence that is not one's own. (Epictetus)
Posted by: Frenchman on March 14, 2003 10:37 AM
******************
And one shall not be to prideful against the ones who have given freedom back to him over and over
and over again,
( JP )

TO:Okie Dokie
Just wondering...
Posted by: Okie Dokie on March 14, 2003 04:19 PM
*******************
Christ's teaching told those who were preparing to go on dangerous missionary journeys,

"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

now I am confussed??????

Everybody sing!

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great!
If one sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!

When does a fetus become a human being!
Good question....Next queation please!

If a blastocyst fails to implant in the uterine wall, is it a miscarriage? Is it human?

When it is at the stage of developement when it takes am embryologist to determine if it is a human or a pig, is it human?

Personally, I look at higher brain functions. When the cerbral cortex starts producing brain waves. Not the medulla, not the limbic system, but the types of waves that only come out of a human brain. That's when I think I would call it a human.

No mind, no person. Until then it's just the meat that a person might walk around in.

I amy be misremembering from my physiology classes, but I think that is around 5 months into gestation. Please feel free to heap scorn on me if I am incorrect.

Time to let my cold-blooded sociopath personality talk for a bit and REALLY piss people off.

What is all the fuss about a few thousand people or proto-people? There are over 6 billion of the grunting primates on this planet already.
Who needs more?
Most of them are a waste of oxygen to begin with, and the best purpose they could serve is as fertilizer. And yet they want to breed even more?
Enough already!
We need a few globe spanning wars and maybe a good pandemic or two reduce the surplus we have. Ebola has really let me down so far, maybe somebody has a good engineered super-bug that will do the trick.

"Or is that too over the top? I can never tell."
BWAAAAAA-HA-HA-ha-haaaaaaa!!!!

"Our Motto? "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!" God, I hear that way to much from my parents...

JP

Sorry, but exactly what are you confused about?

JP
Sorry, but exactly what are you confused about?
Posted by: Okie Dokie on March 15, 2003 03:51 PM

was kidding :-D

Most of you Scrapplers (Scrapple Faces?) will probably enjoy the best weekly news magazine in the world.
http://www.worldmag.com/world/home.asp

Dear JP

1) If you are a soldier or a war veteran, find here my Respect and Admiration.

2) If you are not a soldier or a war veteran, my respect does not extend to you.

3) If you are not a soldier or a war veteran, you are ILLEGITIMATELY taking pride for the actions of others than yourself.

4) How can you take personal pride for victories that happened before you were born ?

So many men with opinions on how women should treat parasitic infections....

Your momma call you that, Bill? Actually, as representing half the human race, maybe men could have a voice, hmmm? Don't be a man-hater Bill!

Frenchman: It seems that you take an inordinate amount of pride in being French. This, of course, is an achievement in which you had no part. You are opposed to taking pride in "... any excellence that is not your own". This is a bit puzzling. By your (and Epictetus') dictum, this would seem to be anathema, yet you glibly thrust forth your French superiority. How does this sleight of mouth work?

At what point to these mental deficients abort themselves out of existence? I'd say not a minute too soon, but then..... What did the child do to deserve death?

Why doesn't anyone present an intelligent argument why Roe v. Wade should not be overturned? Didnt McCorvey recant her own testimony? If the basis for the legal decision has been made moot, then does not justice demand a reversal?

TO:FRENCHMAN

Posted by: Frenchman on March 17, 2003 10:35 AM
1) If you are a soldier or a war veteran, find here my Respect and Admiration.

*********************
In Claris non est locus conjecturis
*********************

Posted by: Frenchman on March 17, 2003 10:35 AM
Please believe I am Your (never) obedient (never) humble (never) Servant,

***********************
Maledicta est expositio quae corrumpit textum
***********************
PLEASE BELIEVE it was ( NEVER ) implied.

In The Ardennes region eastern Belgium and northern Luxembourg 12-16-44,

And one shall not be to prideful against the ones who have given freedom back to him over and over
and over again,
( JP )

FUNNY THING ABOUT FREEDOM,
IT HAS A PRICE
AND AMERICAN BLOOD HAS PAID EUROPES BILLS OVER AND OVER AGAIN,

AND ASKED NOTHING IN RETURN ( THEN OR NOW )

YOU OUT IN EUROPE'S CYBER SPACE
YOU SHOULD BE ASKING YOUR LEADERS...
WHAT THEY WOULD DO IF AMERICA DECIDED ..
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY YOUR BILL'S ANYMORE.....

dont assume your talking to a child,

To Joseph

I am proud to be an educated person (an achievement in which I had a part)

I am happy to be French (a great luck and not an achievement).

I am happy to be able to say that my President is behaving in a honorable way (an achievement in which I have no part but that I support completely).

Please believe I am Your ...

To JP,

As I already said to WW2 vet,

God bless you and all the soldiers who came to fight in Europe.

There is no word to say what we owe you.

As you ARE a war veteran, you are LEGITIMATELY taking pride for YOUR victories.

Please receive again here the real respect that you and all veterans deserve.

BUT It does not make me and my fellow citizens Bush's obedient humble servants in an ILLEGITIMATE war.

Again and again, Sir, receive as a war veteran, my Respect and admiration

BUT not my submission.

Re: My sociopathic side's "super-bug" comment

How 'bout this new flu/pnuemonia that's going around?

Looks like I might get my wish. The world will be an interesting place when I'm in charge.

"It's good to be the king."
--Mel Brooks

M'seur le Frenchman: Your sense of honor is as flawed as your logic. If you honestly believe that M'seur Chiraq is acting honorably, your education is not as fine as you would have us believe. Duplicity, deceit, dishonesty, and chicanery in pursuit of self interest may be the French version of honor, but it is not the American one. Whether he panders to the French-Muslim population, or jockeys for world influence through his nation's membership in the UN Security Council, his behavior, his government's behavior, and your behavior are disgraceful. Your very nationhood is owed to American blood. There was a time, during the DeGaulle period, that your government wanted US presence out of France. We offerred to leave, but only with our sixty thousand plus dead from WWII. The great freedom fighter recanted. Most Americans don't want French military assistance for obvious reasons. They didn't, however, expect a shiv in the back either. If your government is so principled, why did it sign UN Resolution 1441? Why didn't it have the courage of its convictions and reject by veto that resolution? I think we both know why that didn't happen. My friend, be honest with yourself. America erred grievously in Viet Nam. We admit it. Why is it so hard for the French to admit error?

To Joseph,

Duplicity, deceit, dishonesty, and chicanery in pursuit of self interest IS the French version of REALPOLITIK.

It is ALSO the American one.

How did this conversation disintegrate into a rehash of WWII? Frenchman, vous devez Ítre la personne la du monde la plus solitaire. Do you have no other life than Scrappleface? In regard to abortion, I don't think it's right at any time, but people make dumb or panicked decisions. So what's the answer? I have never met a sister who was PROUD of or untouched by making that particular choice (to end the baby's life). With the Pill and hormonal arm implants and much more open education and discussion of sexuality, you'd think there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies. Still, the practice of abortion and infanticide, or exposure of unwanted babies, is ancient (think Romulus and Remus). It's probably better to have medical assistance instead of swallowing lead, if you're determined to get rid of your unborn child. I wish my arms were long enough to hold all the billions of little babies who were dispatched before they knew which side was up. These little pro-choice mothers marching along pushing children in strollers just seem such a contradiction to me. Parents seem all-powerful, but they shouldn't have the option of wiping you out.
In the argument over an "actual" vs. "potential" human being, who knows what potential GOOD has been lost?

..too bad that none of you idiots were aborted - your parents would have done the world a big favour.

Another good reason in favor of Roe vs. Wade ... hmm, whatever has become of Henry Wade anyways, shouldn't he be in the current US administration as a fellow Texan.