Precident states that a child must be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God”. The parents want to raise their child with the belief that God doesn’t exist and when they go to school, that belief is challenged. I wish these parents could just get over it, because it just leads to the inflamation of politicians and religicatos. Ala the ridiculous non-issue of flag burning Congress gets to waste a few days on every couple of years, work that needs to be done to address important matters gets pushed aside, time is wasted and we all suffer. Trying to keep these politicians focused on things that actually matter is hard enough. Give them an actual affront to Christian belief to run with (as opposed to the imaginary ones) and we might get affordable health care around the time hell freezes over.
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO – Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge’s reference to one nation “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
Source
The goal, I think, is to remove any vestige of religion from American life and that is a huge mistake considering the values the our country was founded upon!
That is definitely the goal. A group of us were talking about this the other day. In todays liberal environment, antyhing that attempts to put limitations on people’s behavior, other than government, is the enemy.
Pretty soon your going to be fined for saying “God Bless You” after someone sneezes. That may sound crazy but 40 years ago people would have thought it crazy that an entire industry would be built around jamming a pair of scissors into babies skulls.
This is the slippery slope we need to be very cautious of, where the government becomes the sole authority over people’s lives. Just look at the Hurricane in Louisianna, the local government has completely passed the buck to the Feds and abandoned their responsibility and a large section of America fell for it.
We need to get away form the totalitarian regime style of government and embrace the States rights or we become another France or Germany or Nortt Korea.
Right:
Seems like the conservative movement has one goal and that is to control peoples reproductive organs. The pledge of allegiance is about making people say something and punishing them if they don’t. At least admit that the conservative movement is the one that is about controlling people.
John stewart did have a good point about the whole pledge contraversy, I am paraphrasing here:
the best way to trivialize something is to force 5th graders to say it over and over. I have a feeling he is right I bet most kids would invent whole new versions in no time.
I really don’t think the pledge argument is
I hear this all the time, but don’t really feel that it’s true. The Europe our founders and their families left was an example of religion playing a destructive role in government and the lives of its followers. The Protestant Reformation came about because of the corruption and dishonesty of the priests. They were swindlers…one thing they did was inform people that their dead relatives were in hell, but could be sent to heaven for a fee. There are many many more examples of things like this, but the worst was how intertwined government and religion was – and how complicent religious leaders were in advocating war on a neighbor by dishonestly telling the people that ‘their’ God was urging them to fight.
Millions of lives were lost, and back then a person’s understanding of history was exponentially higher than it is today. The founding fathers had all of this in mind when they constructed our Constitution. These people didn’t defer to God or Christ, but to their own understanding of history and governance. The two main aspects of European nations that they excluded was a monarch and religion given influence in how the government was run. There was going to be no Rasputin in American government.
People settled all over this country and religion came afterwards. Boomtowns had saloons and brothels long before they had churches.
Freedom, justice, infrastructure, diplomacy, history…all of these concepts played a larger role in the construction of America than did the Bible or any other holy scripture.
I really think the fact that the numbers of Evangelicals and Mormons in America have gone up every year pretty much shows that these things do not equal a trip down a slippery slope at all. If things are so harsh and oppressive about American society in regards to religion, then why are our religions thriving along with religions across the globe?
The fundamental requisite throughout history for growing a religion’s numbers has been the idea of oppression. Joseph Smith understood this. You put forth the idea that your way of live is ‘under attack’, and the rest takes care of itself.
America is based on the idea that we are all free to pursue our own destinies. You can’t tell me what I can and cannot do…and that basic premise is naturally an afront to religion. So religion’s inability to impose its will on secular society then is spun by leaders to equal oppression when in fact it’s nothing of the kind.
A woman’s right to chose offends you, but it doesn’t affect you in any other way. So like these parents who sued the school, both of you should get over it.
You’re advocating more control by the states on imposing religion on their people, yet somehow are able to spin that into something opposite of North Korea…and in terms of the comparison with France or Germany…I don’t get how this issue connects with their societies at all. I think you’re shooting from the hip here.
As for Katrina – I think you’re simply choosing to ignore what you don’t want to hear Right. Bush himself admitted to a failure of the federal government in their response. The fact that you’re still clinging on to this Sean Hannity rationale of ‘everything the right alledges is 100% right and everything the left alledges is bull’ tells me that it hasn’t become anything more than politics. You can read and see the accounts of actual people who were down there, read this memo perhaps…here is a timeline:
Sunday, August 28
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD REQUESTS 700 BUSES FROM FEMA FOR EVACUATIONS: FEMA sends only 100 buses. [Boston Globe]
Monday, August 29
8PM CDT – GOV. BLANCO AGAIN REQUESTS ASSISTANCE FROM BUSH: “Mr. President, we need your help. We need everything you’ve got.” [Newsweek]
LATE PM – BUSH GOES TO BED WITHOUT ACTING ON BLANCO’S REQUESTS [Newsweek]
Wednesday, August 31
CHERTOFF “EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH THE RESPONSE” OF THE GOVERNMENT: “We are extremely pleased with the response that every element of the federal government, all of our federal partners, have made to this terrible tragedy.” [Department of Homeland Security]
EARLY AM – BLANCO AGAIN TRIES TO REQUEST HELP FROM BUSH: “She was transferred around the White House for a while until she ended up on the phone with Fran Townsend, the president’s Homeland Security adviser, who tried to reassure her but did not have many specifics. Hours later, Blanco called back and insisted on speaking to the president. When he came on the line, the governor recalled, “I just asked him for help, ‘whatever you have’.” She asked for 40,000 troops.” [Newsweek]
Friday, September 2
EARLY AM — BUSH WATCHES DVD OF THE WEEK’S NEWSCASTS CREATED BY STAFF WHO THOUGHT BUSH “NEEDED TO SEE THE HORRIFIC REPORTS”: “The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.” [Newsweek]
I’m confident that if the pledge said “one nation under Alah”, the talking point wouldn’t be that “they” want to take religion out of this country.
Seems like the conservative movement has one goal and that is to control peoples reproductive organs.
They do say “once you go Republican, you never go back” so maybe there’s some truth to this. My wife sure is happy.
The pledge of allegiance is about making people say something and punishing them if they don’t.
Where did that come from? It’s about teaching children the value of common cause and working together to keep America free. Read it again.
At least admit that the conservative movement is the one that is about controlling people.
I will not and I command you to never say that again!!!!
The Europe our founders and their families left was an example of religion playing a destructive role in government and the lives of its followers.
Actually, I think it was the reverse. England made it’s own religion with the Monarchy at the center and the requirement was to follow the government church. The Founding Fathers wanted to be able to practice true Christianity.
A woman’s right to chose offends you, but it doesn’t affect you in any other way.
I’m forced to pay for it through my taxes. I’m forced to pay for the murder of innocent people which is against my religion and general sense of morality.
read this memo perhaps…here is a timeline:
You’ve started in the middle, where is the days ahead of the storm where FEMA was readying the response and Bush and others were urging the evacuation.
The problem is we don’t know how bad the Fed response was because the local response was a disaster in and of itself. The Feds came in prepared for a situation where the locals followed the plan. The Feds were not and should not have been prepared to handle the entire job.
With how badly the locals fumbled the job it’s amazing FEMA was able to get anything done at all. The Mayor INTENTIONALLY left all those people to the fate of the storm.
I’m confident that if the pledge said “one nation under Alah”,
If this were an islamic dictatorship then anyone who brought up a complaint would be killed. Luckily, we live in a place that doesn’t do that, the minority is allowed to dismantle the system against the majority opinion.
Right:
Regarding once you go conservative you never go back. For the most part the conservative women that I have dated have been more fun, and without a doubt churches are the best place to meet women.
As far as government control I will conced that liberals want more control over money, but conservatives want control over sex, education and apperantely speech. At least that is what the pledge is all about it forcing people to say something whethr they believe it or not. Free speech has gotten us this far maybe we shouldn’t mess with it.
and without a doubt churches are the best place to meet women.
I knew there was something about you I liked :- )
As far as government control I will conced that liberals want more control over money, but conservatives want control over sex, education and apperantely speech.
I think what your talking about is the culture and maybe your right. Children who grow up with values become better citizens than those without. Bill Cosby talked about it with regards to African American and was soundly rejected. But he is right.
At least that is what the pledge is all about it forcing people to say something whethr they believe it or not.
I’d say it fosters commraderie and the feeling of belonging and common purpose. It’s guidance in a confusing world. It bands together groups of different people for a common good and it teaches this cooperation at a very young age.
Free speech has gotten us this far maybe we shouldn’t mess with it.
We have free speech because people took the pledge seriously. What is wrong with teaching children that working together for a common good will produce great benefits?
I just think that it is bad to make people pledge allegience to anything, especially when you are young you have no idea what you are really saying. Let people decide their alegience when they are old enough to decide and not under duress. You know that if a kid refuses to say the pledge his fellow students will make his life difficult.
I work a couple of nights a week at a bar so I have not had to resort to going to church to meet women in a while, but without a doubt I had the best luck with Baptist singles groups.
If that were true, then explain the Hundred Years War to me Right. The Founding Fathers wanted what the Constitution says in writing…what the Declaration of Independance says. Show me the text and I’ll buy that ‘true Christianity’ was high up on their list.
What proof do you have that the Mayor intentionally let those people down? Could it be that he was just incompetent? Or am I crazy and a series of Mayors bent on killing people managed to infiltrate without me knowing?
Right, the list speaks for itself. People were dying and Bush was experiencing a Corona commercial…the beach, serenity, quiet…
If majority opinion is what you’re supporting, then I think you’d be interested to see the numbers on abortion.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
This one is especially interesting:
Notice they stoped running that one!
Chris: The 1973 Supreme Court decision called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade or let it stand?”
This poll is misleading, roe v. wade made abortion leagal until viability…i.e. the point where a fetus can live without the mother. In other words life was determined by an arbitrary term “viability”, and thus subject to the full spectrum of conditions, from conception to in some cases the third trimester. Anyone of you who agree with abortions, or condone it based on the “it isn’t effecting me” argument, should take one look at a child aborted in the third trimester. Then tell me you aren’t disgusted. You are so sure that these polls convey the opinions of the majority of americans, then why are pro-choice people so afraid to allow roe v. wade to be overturned, and have abortion settled in a democratic way? The simple fact is that when faced with the brutality of abortion, given a vivid image of an unborn child who could have been given up for adoption, the average person can’t help but feel ashamed for supporting such an action, or taking such an action. Personal responsibility is how i see it, you make decisions through out life, and deal with the consequences, you don’t erase a pregnancy by aborting the child, you just give birth to a dead baby, who’s life was your’s to give or yours to take…the psychological effects of this, will be the consequence. The aborted child has no chance to laugh or play with you, you will never know what joy or pain might have come with it, you will never know, and that will be the consequence.
Nobody ever wants to talk about that because it’s one of those aspects of the ‘beast’ that Republicans want to starve. They want there to be no abortions, but don’t want to fully fund the amount of government necessary to take care of all the kids once they’re born. From the approval process to the subsequent foster homes (going uninspected, much less than before).
Add in this last factor as well – who will adopt the babies who are born addicted to drugs, autistic, premature, low birth weight? The recepients refuse delivery and that child becomes the liability of every taxpayer, just like the exploding prison population.
It’s all about the future of our society as I see it, and the fact is, there are some women who should not be having children. They can’t handle it, they’re addicted to drugs, under 18. And the government in no way promotes the procedure. It’s up to the taxpaying female themself whether to have one – and they have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Pro-lifers describe it all as if an abortion was like having your tonsils out for these women, but that’s just ignorant.
If you’re a pro-lifer and have a policy idea to account for the shift in Roe v. Wade – ie, how all of those children I mentioned above, less of whom we are failing to manage already today, would be adopted and cared for? Calling something ‘evil’ and getting rid of it with no viable policy to go with it doesn’t cut it with me. Politicians get off with this kind of nonsense way too often!
Truth being – Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to abortion. They want to starve the states without a minimum spending requirement on the state level per child in the system with guaranteed funding AND reject a woman of her right to have an abortion.
I suppose FAITH will be a pre-requisite in more ways than one. And strings of state run orphanage facilities lined up next to the prisons, full of handicaped children nobody wanted. Be sure, the religions of America won’t be footing the bill for all of that! And what then? Our taxes go up and…more of us go to heaven or something?
Am I supposed to feel guilty when someone in Cleveland is robbed? How about when a man in Rhode Island hits his wife? Am I shamed into feeling guilty when someone drives drunk in Florida? Why should I feel guilty about a girl or a woman making a choice to do something that affects me no more than either of the first two?
Chris: Nobody ever wants to talk about that because it’s one of those aspects of the ‘beast’ that Republicans want to starve. They want there to be no abortions, but don’t want to fully fund the amount of government necessary to take care of all the kids once they’re born. From the approval process to the subsequent foster homes (going uninspected, much less than before).
The unfortunate choice you have chosen to take is siding with death, over siding with life, however rought it might be. Government’s and People who condone abortion’s give free ride for those who got themselves into a situation where they feel they must abort, to have a better life for themselves…this selfishness, is carried out into other parts of a person’s life. I don’t feel that people who make the decision to abort, come by that decision easily, and those that have a hard time deciding will be better able to take care of the child if the choice was made for them. Those that have had more than one abortion, obviously lack any self control, and shouldn’t be appeased by everyone else, there is no god given right to abort an unborn child, there isn’t even an explicit right within the constitution…and moreover, if it were proven that life begins at conception, then it would be explicitly illegal to have an abortion, because it would be murder.
Chris: Add in this last factor as well – who will adopt the babies who are born addicted to drugs, autistic, premature, low birth weight? The recepients refuse delivery and that child becomes the liability of every taxpayer, just like the exploding prison population.
A child hood friend of mine was born addicted to cocaine, his mother and father were both drug addicts…needless to say, he was adopted, by his grandparents. There are plenty of good people out there who can adopt, and will adopt, most specifically family members. My cousin is the adopted daughter of my grandparents. A liability? What kind of sick way are you looking at this? This isn’t a cost benefit analysis, where you put your wanted children in the assests column, and the unwanted children in the liabilities column, and add them up, and kill the remainder…this is life and death, and whose to know who will be the next Einstien, or Mozart, or Van Gogh? People get the hand they are dealt, and those who have it harder will be that much stronger when they push through it.
Chris: It’s all about the future of our society as I see it, and the fact is, there are some women who should not be having children. They can’t handle it, they’re addicted to drugs, under 18. And the government in no way promotes the procedure. It’s up to the taxpaying female themself whether to have one – and they have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Pro-lifers describe it all as if an abortion was like having your tonsils out for these women, but that’s just ignorant.
Some women shouldn’t get pregnant, but when they do, they should live with the consequences. You are again drawing a line in the sand, saying that those born of unfortunate parent’s can’t make something better of themselves. This is a transparent view, and reaks of the hopelessness you wish to cast on society. Since you feel its alright for a unborn crack addict to be killed, purely because they will be a liability to society, do you feel that crack addicts in general should be killed because they are a liability?
Chris: If you’re a pro-lifer and have a policy idea to account for the shift in Roe v. Wade – ie, how all of those children I mentioned above, less of whom we are failing to manage already today, would be adopted and cared for? Calling something ‘evil’ and getting rid of it with no viable policy to go with it doesn’t cut it with me. Politicians get off with this kind of nonsense way too often!
Here’s the policy, family. The idea of family wasn’t erroded over a day or two but decades. And bringing this idea back, will take decades…children should have families, and they should have parents. By supporting family oriented goals such as home ownership, community building, and drug-free communities, the idea of hopelessness that comes over so many will be washed away, and the idea of personal responsibility, will again become the norm.
Chris: Truth being – Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to abortion. They want to starve the states without a minimum spending requirement on the state level per child in the system with guaranteed funding AND reject a woman of her right to have an abortion.
Conservatives want people to be able to take care of themselves, and want the government to stop being defeatists, who coddle the downtrodden, and prevent them from ever really rising. You can’t do for someone what they should do for themselves, but you can empower them to do it. I want personal responsibility, and for people to realize that government isn’t the answer to your problems, you are…so fix yourself.
Chris: I suppose FAITH will be a pre-requisite in more ways than one. And strings of state run orphanage facilities lined up next to the prisons, full of handicaped children nobody wanted. Be sure, the religions of America won’t be footing the bill for all of that! And what then? Our taxes go up and…more of us go to heaven or something?
Your lack of faith in those less fortunate than you is disgusting. Your system sets those people up to fail, and sits there confused as to why its happening…you expect them to be degenerates, and you get what you expect. I was watching Coach Carter this past weekend, and even an MTV movie has more faith in less fortunate than you do.
Chris: Am I supposed to feel guilty when someone in Cleveland is robbed? How about when a man in Rhode Island hits his wife? Am I shamed into feeling guilty when someone drives drunk in Florida? Why should I feel guilty about a girl or a woman making a choice to do something that affects me no more than either of the first two?
Are you you saying that it should be legal for someone to be robbed, or hit, or drive drunk? If you think abortions are morally right, and should be condoned, then you should feel, however you want to about it…thats how you are gonna feel anyway…til it does affect you. Thats why we have laws, they never affect anyone, until they do, but should those they don’t effect not live by them? Your logic is muddled.
How many rights do we enjoy everyday that aren’t ‘explicitly stated’ in the Constitution? That’s a commonly used counterargument from the right against abortion, but it completely misunderstands the role the Supreme was designed to play. Of course every right isn’t going to be written into the constitution!
Abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court ruled on this decades ago, and your accertion that it is in fact murder is nothing but opinion. You can chose to believe that it’s murder, and you can claim to understand the reasoning of all these women to be mostly selfish, but it doesn’t make either so. You have a low opinion of the practice and the women who have them, but in America what one person does within the law is their own business.
And so you know this person and it worked out for him, therefore it MUST work out for everyone else. Michael, do you know any social workers? Do you read up on this topic?
And the next Einstein, Mozart or Van Gogh could also be getting killed in Iraq, poorly deciding to try heroin, or getting abused physically or sexually by their parents. You’re arguing that civilization’s survival is in the wings? That 15 year old junky in Baltimore…her kid is going to save the world? Do you understand how stacked the odds are of a child born in poverty making it compared with one born to a middle class family?
Michael – Economics is what I’m talking about here. The poverty rate has risen every year since Bush took office after declining every year under Clinton. The effect a growth of poverty has on our society as a whole is obvious when you look at New Orleans. These children have to be taken care of one way or the other. You simply assume it will all work out, but all of us should know better.
I see a distinct difference between born and unborn. You see them both as one in the same and I do not. I have no right to demand that a woman do anything she doesn’t want to do. It’s called freedom. I may find it extremely sad that people are free to drink themselves to death, but I have no right to stop them from doing what they choose to do.
You ask if we should just kill crack addicts…I think we already do in a way. Check the prison statistics. I’d rather die than live in maximum security.
Family didn’t erode because of abortion. And a family’s ability to one day own a home doesn’t increase after they adopt a crack baby.
Have you ever been to a ghetto in Baltimore, Fort Worth, Gary, Spokanne…the drug infested pits of millions going nowhere? All these idealistic ‘theories’ from conservatives…but if this stuff actually worked, the poverty rate wouldn’t be rising. Obviously the conservatives’ policies are having a negative effect.
How am I setting people up to fail exactally? You’re basing an opinion of my views entirely on the issue of abortion. That’s the virus – – – one position on one issue doesn’t give you a clear picture of who I am. I know you need to believe that it does, but you’re ignorant when it comes to reading my values and sense of charity.
Michael…I don’t give a damn what you or anyone else decides to do on a given day. It’s none of my business. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and it becomes illegal, I’m not going to be parading in Washington in protest. It will be none of my business then just like it is now. If a person decides to act within the law, it’s none of my business…if they break the law, that changes.
My position has more to do with what the law says than anything else. A woman can have an abortion legally…if they do so, it’s none of my business.
My Fellow Americans,
I am deeply troubled from what I am about to say.
There are a few people among us, who would like to rule about what we say and what we think about, and about what we buy. But they forgot the rule on how we should feel.
We are and can be, very feeling Americans. We feel for our army in Iraq and in Afghanistan and other countries who are doing a dirty job over there, to support the ideals of freedom and country. We felt very deeply, into our pockets after September 9/11 and after the devastating Tsunami, and the recent Hurricane Katrina, to help support the families who lost loved one’s in these disasters. And whom did these people turn to in their time of need? They turned to their god for help. Does he exist? Yes for some and no for others, but let us take a look at this simple statement.
For those who believe in Him, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not believe in Him, no explanation is possible. For those people who would turn your backs on your own founding fathers, who came here with their simple ways and beliefs, to remove the Lord from a simple pledge of allegiance from our classrooms, our Post Offices, our homes, you do so with my utter contempt!
Ladies and Gentlemen, stand and recite those words that should be branded in our minds and in our hearts, Please stand, Senators and Democrats and Republicans, Policemen, Firemen, Soldiers, my fellow Americans.
I pledge of allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
In 1954, Congress, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, ‘under God,’ to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer!!. So, to those folks in the Texas Post Offices, your prayers have been answered.
So it is not illegal to say it in public or to show this anywhere, for it was passed by Congress, and only by an act of Congress may it be removed. Ladies and Gentlemen, of Congress and Senators, remember the very oath that you yourself have sworn to and to yourself and your Country to do your duty.
The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words “under God”.
As he authorized this change he said:
“In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”
Pass it on, good night everyone and May God Bless America.
Chris: How many rights do we enjoy everyday that aren’t ‘explicitly stated’ in the Constitution? That’s a commonly used counterargument from the right against abortion, but it completely misunderstands the role the Supreme was designed to play. Of course every right isn’t going to be written into the constitution!
You are completely right, what is the role of the courts…is the courts a policy maker? Thats what roe v. wade is, its a policy, not a right.
Chris: Abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court ruled on this decades ago, and your accertion that it is in fact murder is nothing but opinion. You can chose to believe that it’s murder, and you can claim to understand the reasoning of all these women to be mostly selfish, but it doesn’t make either so. You have a low opinion of the practice and the women who have them, but in America what one person does within the law is their own business.
I never said it was murder, i said if it were proven that life began at conception, then the constitution would explicitly deny abortion. Because, life is guaranteed in this country, along with liberty, and the persuit of happiness. I also said that those who don’t come by the decision easily, and are selfless, would be better able to care for a baby. Meaning, you take the ‘hard’ decision of the plate…and give the only option that should be considered, adoption.
Chris: And so you know this person and it worked out for him, therefore it MUST work out for everyone else. Michael, do you know any social workers? Do you read up on this topic?
It did work out for them, so it could work out for others, if given the chance…again your faith in the less fortunate is dispicable. Elighten me Chris…tell me how horrorable life is…tell me how no one can overcome…hopelessness, is all they deserve, huh?
Chris: I see a distinct difference between born and unborn. You see them both as one in the same and I do not. I have no right to demand that a woman do anything she doesn’t want to do. It’s called freedom. I may find it extremely sad that people are free to drink themselves to death, but I have no right to stop them from doing what they choose to do.
Just like the difference you see in the blind or deaf kid, paralyzed, disabled? Those less fortunate than you…in other words…deserve what they get? You wouldn’t be asking a woman to do something, you would ask her to not do something. Pregnancies have their own path, all that is required for a child to be born is for the mother to not abort it.
Chris: You ask if we should just kill crack addicts…I think we already do in a way. Check the prison statistics. I’d rather die than live in maximum security.
No…I asked that since you think babies addicted to crack should be prevented from being born, should adult crack addicts be prevented from living? I think they should be helped, but not coddled, empowered and yet still punished for their wrongs. Neither instance should be a qualifier for death, unborn or born, being addicted to crack shouldn’t be an excuse.
Chris: Family didn’t erode because of abortion. And a family’s ability to one day own a home doesn’t increase after they adopt a crack baby.
Do you live in a house? How can you underestimate the security and stability a house brings to a family…if tommorrow you were thrown out on the street, would that not cause you to be in dire straits as a family? Your connectiong between adopting and owning a home seems to be pulled out of then air…lets look at it this way, a parent who once was considering abortion, is given the oppurtunity to own a home, with their significant other. This will allow them to better provide for thier child and will lift their spirits, and a family will be born.
Chris: Have you ever been to a ghetto in Baltimore, Fort Worth, Gary, Spokanne…the drug infested pits of millions going nowhere? All these idealistic ‘theories’ from conservatives…but if this stuff actually worked, the poverty rate wouldn’t be rising. Obviously the conservatives’ policies are having a negative effect.
The society we live in today, is predicated on the idea and the ecpectatation of failure…schools are under performing, and parents are underperfoming…the family is where you start to correct these problems. A child whose parents expect good grades from will get good grades. A child who’s expected to do things a certain way will do them that way. The liberal ideas of the past caused the meltdown of personal responsibility and family. TV began raising children, and schools became the secondary parents, that were expected to be primary instructors. Family faded, parents faild their children, and blamed the school. Government do-gooding, is what changed, the gorvernment, shouldn’t do for you what you should do for yourself. YOur snide remark about conservative policies is negligent of the scope of poverty. All nations, all people, have poverty, and poverty goes up and down, based on many factors…government handouts can decrease poverty, but not for long, because the only person that can decide to get out of poverty and actually achieve it, is the person who is there. You can’t arbitrarily point to someone and say, i’m gonna bring this person out of poverty..they will immidiately fall back into it, if they keep up the same habits. Changing the mind set of the impoverished, is what has to be done.
Chris: How am I setting people up to fail exactally? You’re basing an opinion of my views entirely on the issue of abortion. That’s the virus – – – one position on one issue doesn’t give you a clear picture of who I am. I know you need to believe that it does, but you’re ignorant when it comes to reading my values and sense of charity.
You are setting them up to fail, in part, by condoning the idea that they are destined to fail. If you tell your kids they are never going to amount to anything, chances are you will have created a self fulfilling prophecy. Unless, they really hate you and succeed out of spite. Your values ring through in your points about addicts, and impoverished, for that matter anyone less fortunate than yourself…but I imagine when you think about those more fortunate than you, you believe they should think about you with more kind eyes…don’t you?
Chris: My position has more to do with what the law says than anything else. A woman can have an abortion legally…if they do so, it’s none of my business.
Unfortunately their is no law, but only a ruling, that can be overturned. It is fairly obtuse of you to support fully a ruling by one supreme court…while you would condone drug use by NFL players, as long as it isn’t performance enhancing. Their is a law cut and simple, mary jane is illegal, but you seem to chose which laws you want to ‘go on what they say’ as easily as the wind decides its direction.
DISCUSSION w/ MICHAEL
I disagree. Under your rationale, Brown vs. the Board of Education was a policy decision. The idea of ‘policy’ in regards to Roe doesn’t make sence to me, as it didn’t deal with an idea to enact a certain result, but a mater of legality. China’s decision to limit families to one child is a policy decision. Deciding that the government has no right to dictate what a woman does with her body is a matter of legality. Abortion was illegal and women sued on the grounds that it’s none of the government’s business. The opinion of the court wasn’t, ‘we are doing this BECAUSE we want women to have abortions’…that would equal a policy decision. If there’s a policy instilled by Roe, it’s that a woman’s body is her own.
That’s the hangup, it’s not something that can be proven, that ‘life’ begins at conception. There are restrictions on how late in the pregnancy a woman can have an abortion, so I think the court found middle ground. The thing about special interest groups is they never settle for middle ground.
Michael, I’m a realist. I have hope, but I’m not going to look at a rainy day and argue that the sun is shining.
Don’t be naive…I’ve got newborn twins that might not have made it if Heather had drank every night, or even once. Ask a woman whose had a miscaridge if an abortion is the ONLY thing that’s required for a child to be born.
I’m not saying they should all be aborted. I’m in favor of giving the crack addict mother a choice. Have you seen video of addicted children or statistics on their survival rate?
Ridiculous reasoning…there are millions of people who don’t have children and manage to own a home. One has nothing to do with the other. If the 1000 dollar tax break the crack baby nets you makes the difference between owning a home or not, you’re doing something wrong!
Clinton reduced the poverty level, Reagan, Bush Sr and Dubya couldn’t do it. It’s not a fluke. And the expectation of things going wrong is not what you make it out to be.
Let’s get some perspective here Michael. I’m talking about crack babies, not all children.
I don’t think it should be the right of an employer to dictate what someone does when they’re off the clock. I’m a staunch liberitarian when it comes to personal rights. If the truck driver is getting high while driving, that’s wrong – but if a dockworker injures his arm on the job, when his urine comes back hot for canibis, he should not be denied workman’s compensation.