(Reworded) See what I mean. You remember the raping and torturing at the jails. We're killing. We're oppressing. So why you support this war is beyond me. I think you think too much. If in the long run the world would be better off because of it, wouldn't you think the world would be supporting Bush in this effort? Just cause you asked, personally, I'm an Independent, not a liberal or Republican.
Wow. Are you high? I meant "personal" in how my decisions would pertain to MY BODY. So, yes, my "point of view" and personal decisions about my body are my mine and mine only. Just because I post on a public board doesn't make decisions about my body yours. Again, if you actually READ my previous posts, I said that everyone has a right to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES ABOUT THEIR OWN BODY. READ! READ! READ! per·son·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrs-nl) adj. Of or relating to a particular person; private: “Like their personal lives, women's history is fragmented, interrupted” (Elizabeth Janeway). From websters.com
IT'S SELFISH AND ARROGANT TO CARE ABOUT "YOUR BODY" WHEN 100,000 PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED AND COUNTLESS ARE GETTING WOUNDED. GET IT??? EVERYONE HERE COULD ABSOLUTELY CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR BODY This is what I mean by NARROW-MINDED
I don't support the raping and torturing at the jails. That was deplorable, although it pales in comparison to the raping and torturing that took place under Saddam Hussein. I do support freedom. I do support the removal of thugs like Saddam Hussein and I do support the objective of giving the people of Iraq the freedom to choose their own government. I do not believe that American troops are in Iraq with the purpose of conquering, torturing and oppressing. Certainly mistakes were made, and those responsible should be dealt with. But I do believe that the intention of America is to return a free Iraq to the Iraqis, and that the Iraqis will be the ones who will be voting to decide the future of their nation. That is as it should be. I do not think that they will choose to give their country back to Saddam Hussein, do you? I think that if we look back in a few years most of the world will agree that things will be better off in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, because of this effort. But we shall see. History will judge.
Absolutely. Maybe in a few years there will be freedom in Iraq and it will spread. I guess at this point we really don't know for sure the final outcome yet. Thanks for the conversation it was fun.
I have a great deal of respect for this post. and equality is obviously what we all want. However, we have to realize that we have laws, and that laws, even the most basic, infringe on equality, in the context in which it is presented in this post. I know this has been brought up before, but do we have the right to tell people who want to marry more than one person that they can't do it? I think we'd all agree that the government has that right. (the following doesn't have anything to do with your post.) People who are against polygamy aren't regarded as haters or bigots. Why, because that is generally more unacceptable to 99% of people. So in regards to the gay marriage issue, it comes down to what is socially acceptable. Why are people who find it unacceptable regarded as haters and bigots when people all the time are against things that people do and they are not called that? In regards to the abortion issue, it comes down to whether or not the fetus is a person, then. And I know that everyone on this forum is for protecting the innocent. I just would rather protect the totally helpless than the woman who does have other options to turn to. Again, I know exactly what your saying. But it depends on what you define as equality. Does equality depend on the intrinsic value of each and every person or only on what conduct the state recognizes as acceptable?
I wasn't making an argument for or against the war. I was following thru on an abortion portion of the thread. i say again. READ. For the record, i'm against the war. i say again. DON'T ATTACK PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOU! you already know you're a dumb@$$, so i won't reiterate that point.
Thanks for pointing this out. It's not the babies' fault they were a biproduct of a horrendous act. They should be given the same respect. I know how hard it is on moms who have to go through that (before you ask, my sister conceived as a result of a rape, carried it to term, and gave her to a couple who couldn't have kids because the mom had had chemo). However, as dave points out, a life must be a life no matter how it was conceived, if you believe that life begins at conception. The mother's life being in danger is another story. Fortunately, that very rarely happens now where that choice has to be made.
Absolutely. There are 2 kinds of people in this world. The people that agree w/you, and the people that don't agree w/you. Attack the people that don't agree with you. Signed, flowergirl
Nah, I'm just picking on the relative newbie. Welcome to the politics forum. Learn to relax a little. It will help your enjoyment of the forum immensely.
gee thanks. I do enjoy it, with the exception of some asinine posters. but i guess that's true of most people.
People adopt babies when those babies are available. Period. If you only knew how many pro-lifers are paying five figures (frequently as much as $20,000) to adopt babies from China, Romania, Georgia, Guatamala, Ethiopia, etc (I personally know individuals who have adopted babies from each of those nations). In fact there have been so many babies adopted in places like Russia and Romania that those nations have cut down on the numbers of orphans available for adoption out of fear that it will harm their nation's growth rate. If there were more babies available domestically, by all means they would be adopted. It is just pretty tough to do domestic adoptions due to red tape and stuff. Granted it is slightly easier to adopt minority babies (there are many complex reasons for this) - but that is not because prospective adopting parents are racists. Otherwise they wouldn't be adopting foreign babies so much (not to mention many of the adopted kids have special needs). It is ludicrous to suggest that pro-lifers don't do anything for women with crisis pregnancies or their babies. There are literally thousands of organizations whose sole purpose is to assist women in crisis pregnancies.
MORE on Adoption Adoption is only going to become more important in the future as many of the swinging singles who have fallen victim (that is the right word) to the Safe Sex myth discover that they are infertile. Infertility rates currently run as high as 10%. But with the huge increase in rates of chlymedia, herpes, HPV and other STDs that affect fertility - not to mention the number of women who become infertile through abortions - the infertility rates are likely to increase drastically as well. Hopefully couples who struggle with infertility will be able to adopt children at that point. I am very appreciative of girls who have the courage to bring an "unwanted' baby to full-term so that infertile couples are able to adopt a child.
Re: MORE on Adoption You have a link for any of this? And "swinging singles?" Uh, you do know that "That '70s Show" is not a reality show, don't you?
Re: MORE on Adoption Appreciative = jail time for girls who don't bring a child to term? Appreciative = jail time for girls whose lives or health are at risk if they bring the child to term? Yeah, yeah, adoption's wonderful. Hasn't got very much to do with the discussion, though.