they have no real checks on their power which is why ther left needs liberal judges to help make laws that the left cannot push through!@ I think that argument could be used for both sides of the aisle.
shadesofgrey: but if this is, as you admit, a morally subjective question, why do 9 'elite' members of our society, with lifetime appointments and very little checks to their power, get to impose their will on us? Shouldn't such sweeping judgements be left to circumstances where there IS objective "truth" to the judgement? <BR
When does it get it! I know you have to run, so I will ask the question again. Dunno. St. Augustine says after a bit (see reply #60). Now the church says at conception. I suppose only God truly knows the answer.
Okay shades, I'll give you this one. But in turn answer a question for me. How many insurance companies cover the cost of rubbers? That falls under my argument--birth control (of a variety of types) is not covered (for the most part), but viagra is. Seems like we've got some priorities messed up.</font
Ok, I met my deadline... Are you asking for a public policy stance, or my personal belief--because I believe the two have been conflated. I do not know of any scientific procedure that will prove the existence of a soul--but my point is, that I have not been convinced that it is a human life. I was asking InfoGeek
Just for the record, shades, I'm female and I'm pro life. lots of women are--I assume that you were talking about my first comment. I was just making an observation. great response shades, but I guess you did not
Hate to bow out of this conversation, all, but I have to meet a deadline...sorry!
A fetus has both DNA and a metabolism so, according to science, it is alive. This is why I used the word "soul" because just because something is alive does not make it human. Are viruses and flu-bugs not "alive"? Aren't parasitical infections "alive"? But we do not think twice about "killing" them.</f
shades? question, if somehow the feds took the right of abortion away how would that change how you think and vote? Since the majority of the candidates that I support are already pro-choice, it wouldn't change how I vote. I would continue to support pro-choice candidates--but I would step up my donati
In terms of a true definition of life, I think it is silly to even debate. Of course a fetus is alive. Did you not just chide me for "pretending we all agree" and then proceed to do the very same thing? You believe that a fetus is alive--but there is no "of course" about it. For as elementary as it seems to you that it is a living being, it is
umm, I'm not in charge of Military Spending, sorry! that was precisely my point--I'm not in charge of Health and Human Services spending, either, now am I? But the way you wrote your post implied that I was, and that I support the use of government funds for abortions. Hmm...quite the assumption, donc
I'll be thinking of you on Thursday.
You're missing something here shades....While Bush may appoint, for Brown's post senate confirmation is a MUST! Brown could not have started work without it. He couldn't "slide" through this if he wanted to! He was confirmed without one dissenting vote! So where were the libs and dems on this? Sitting around with their thumbs up
You're a man????? Ha ha ha--until me--and then HC chimed in (I believe I didn't do one of those gender mistakes there, did I , HC?. Do people have souls? The Living ones. If so, when does the poof happen? </T
I'm not stupid, you know. I'm very well aware what 'dumping ground' means and what the qualities of a good leader are. I simply don't understand why you insist on blaming bush for everything. he's not the only one who has a hand in appointing people to positions in FEMA y'know. On a technicality--yes, B
ok shades, I appreciate the pointing out then. But I never expect the other side to comment. they are afraid of the truth and cannot stand it in the light of day {most not all} If they cannot figure out a way to blame bush they have no comment. MM--I'm the other side--did you see me blame
I think it is hypocritical that some think "a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body" is the same as "a woman's right to choose what to do with an unborn child." As if the child is universally accepted as being some vestigial organ until it pops out. If you could convince me a fetus is no more than an unnecessary part of a woman's body, I might agre
It's interesting to me that only men responded to this article. Personally, the right to choose what I do with my own body is central to my political affliations. It's not a method for grand-standing the political area, or throwing a wrench in an otherwise effective political structure--it is something that honestly effects me and my rights. So while it may not be that important to you--it is very important to some of us. <BR
it ain't my circus, and it never has been. Excellent line. Agreed. Nicky--it must have been very difficult to write this--but also immensely theraputic. I had to take a break from my blog because I was having a hard time working through all the stuff that was coming up in my writin
shades, Yeah, Tex told me about that site. But if it's run through the Red Cross, I'm not sure if I want much to do with it. Just more bureaucracy, and more money going to the wrong people (I will defintely check it out, though, thanks). Check out Craigslist then--I think that is simply families
Gid: Check out this link http://www.openyourhome.com/ I heard about it on the news last night. Apparently Curt Schilling (Red Sox pitcher) and his wife now have a family of 9 living with them that they were connected with through this website. Hope this works out for you.
While the word "refugee" may not be accurate in it's definition, when applied to the victims of Katrina, the images it brings up in people's minds is. When we hear the word, we know exactly what these people are facing and what has happened to them. We may not have a complete understanding, but just an idea. The word may n
so how does that make it a racist statement? who are you asking? No one here is saying that it is racist--only Jesse Jackson said that and I would venture a guess that Jackson doesn't read Dharma's blog (he should, though <img src="http://images.stardock.com/JU/smiles/Smile.gif" border=0 ALIGN="absmidd
But they are still seeking refuge from the storm, and hence are refugees. And laast I checked, they are red, black, white, brown and yellow refugees. So is it racist because there are no purple blue and green ones? I DID NOT say that it was racist--that was Jesse Jackson.
Why is he concerning himself with it now? Why create drama over a word when there's so much more going on that's more important? Why isn't he getting his hands dirty helping these people out? Where was he last week when his 'people' needed him? I didn't see him on the streets of NO or at the convention center. <B
JoeUser Forums