Third Party & Independents Archives

What Culture of Life?

My sister-in-law was who lives in Toledo Ohio, spotted an abortion opponent the other day and decided to stop and ask him a simple question: “How many little Black babies have you adopted lately?” Fair enough question; if those who oppose abortion are so keen on stopping the practice, is it about time they step up and demonstrate their commitment to the “culture of life” and ensure that little American babies no matter their color are cared for?

And the question is even more valid given America’s sustained march back into religiously inspired cultural dark ages especially when the subject is abortion. The no-holds-barred South Dakota ban on all abortions signed into law earlier this month no doubt had the religious right dancing in the pews, but those of us who cling to the principle of liberty and equality for all, were wall flowers at the party thrown to burn the Constitution. What does the word freedom mean to the average religious fundamentalist or Republican for surely they are becoming indistinguishable? Nothing apparently unless of course the freedom you are trying to exercise conforms to their version of morality. Or of course you are denying others their Constitutional rights.

And morality or lack thereof, brings me back to my sister-in-laws question and I’ll throw it out there to all of you who oppose abortion: when was the last time you adopted a little American baby, black or white? Foreign babies, which seem to be in-Vogue with the well-to-do set at the moment, do not count. Does your support for the culture of life end when the newly born human being slips out of the birth canal? Surely Christian morality would compel even the casual Christian to take care of the baby after it is born!

Isn't about time all of religious zealots stepped up and at least tried to act Christian? What would Jesus do, or doesn’t he count any more in the world of the Super Church? If every man and woman who opposed abortion just adopted one baby that would probably come close to clearing out the adoption agencies.

If you do oppose abortion and have stepped up and adopted an American baby, or two, two thumbs up, but if you haven't, what are you waiting for? What are the Bush’s waiting for, and the Cheney's, they oppose abortion and yet neither couple has adopted a baby…

Posted by V. Edward Martin at March 9, 2006 7:00 AM
Comments
Comment #132386

Mr. Martin
““How many little Black babies have you adopted lately?” Fair enough question”

That question is no different than asking someone against the death penalty “how many black men on death row have they adopted and pay to sustain their life.”

“If every man and woman who opposed abortion just adopted one baby that would probably come close to clearing out the adoption agencies”

IF every man and woman who say they care about helping the poor would just adopt a poor family, that would also probably come close to clearing out welfare lines and people wouldn’t be forced to financially support causes they believe do more harm than good.

The hypocrisy game is fun, but too easy.

BTW, I am sure that we are in agreement concerning abortion, but bringing race into this issue is unwarranted and very sad.
Some could read your sisters question as being demeaning and racist towards black Americans.
Rather than trying to hide behind race or just bashing religion, what Constitutional rights do you believe South Dakotas new law violates?

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #132391

Well V. Edward, speaking as someone who has adopted an american baby, it’s incredibly difficult. The adoption agency that I used (LDS family services, I’m a Mormon) currently has a wait list of 800 people. It’s not even one of the biggest services. I know a lot of people who wait years to be chosen by birth mothers (we had to wait for a year). In addition, health insurance won’t cover expenses for a birth mother in most cases. How many young couples could afford to have kids today if they had to pay all the medical expenses in cash up front? Plus agency fees, plus birth father notifications (newspapers really exploit you on these), plus legal fees? It gets expensive really fast. Then, there are the horror stories about babies taken back, and birth mothers changing their minds (in which cases you’re still on the hook for the expenses). Foreign babies are much more of a sure thing, and that’s why they are so “in vogue.”
Adoption is a necessary part of any plan to reduce abortion. However, it needs to be easier and less expensive. If the republicans are serious about caring for fetuses and children, and not just using abortion as a voting wedge, they need to focus on adoption and make it practical.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 9, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #132392

When Gov. Michael Rounds signed the bill banning abortion in South Dakota, he said “In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society.”

I agree with him 100%. But the debate on abortion is that reasonable people disagree on the definition of when life begins.

If Republicans would put as much energy into the vulnerable and helpless who are already born, I’d change sides on the abortion issue, because I knew they’d actually do something about infant mortality, or health care, or hunger, or poverty. But they don’t.

Posted by: Steve K at March 9, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #132393

Tim,
I know it’s not really PC to bring race into it (kind of funny to accuse you of being PC, huh?), but the reality is that there are a lot more black children waiting to be adopted than white. I’ve had lots of extended family issues with my daughter (who is hispanic). It’s a nice fantasy to think that racism is dead, but when it comes to adoption, I think we’ve got a long way to go.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 9, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #132400
The adoption agency that I used (LDS family services, I’m a Mormon) currently has a wait list of 800 people.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 9, 2006 10:16 AM

There are thousands of other children waiting for adoption. Why wait just for this agency?


reasonable people disagree on the definition of when life begins.
Posted by Steve K at March 9, 2006 10:17 AM
Yes, there are reasonable who disagree. The problem is the faith based “conception” contingent are not reasonable. Faith based is, by definition, the opposite of reason.

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #132401

Brian
Yeah, it is funny. I’m hardly the PC guy.
Adoption is also a matter of choice though. There is nothing wrong with a white couple wanting a white baby and they should not be made to feel guilty for that want.
Its not that I think racism is dead. I just believe it is a more rounded problem today.
You have your typical racists that dislike color and you have the racists who overly promote racism for financial gain and power.

Again, if abortion is a personal choice that is nobody elses business, so is adoption. And condemning somebody for their choice in either situation is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #132403

Dave,
I waited for that agency because the church puts its money where its mouth is and subsidizes adoption significantly, so I could actually afford to do it. Many people are in the same situation.
There are currently 3.3 women waiting to adopt for every child available. In addition, only 1 in 5 women who consider themselves to be pursuing adoption actually apply. I would speculate that this is because of cost or difficulty in the process. source

On the “thousands of children waiting to be adopted” issue—
I’m looking for the source, but most of those children are not long-term waiting (i.e, those numbers are a snapshot of children who are in limbo between having adoption be a goal of their foster care placement and actually finalizing the adoption. The next year, it would be thousands of other children, the previous ones having mostly moved on, or having their goal changed to reunification.

Additionally, many if not most of those who are not adopted are older children, sometimes with significant behavioral problems as a result of abuse or the foster care system. Although I admire people who adopt these children,and may be one of them when my family grows up a little, older children are not directly relevant to the abortion debate.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 9, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #132405

Tim,
I agree completely. That was very well said.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 9, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #132406

KcTim,

I didn’t bring race into the issue, the man holding the sign was in a Black neighborhood, so naturally the question was ask the way it was. I am well aware of the hypocrisy at all level of human society, but once, just once, I would like to see a group of people rise about it all and try to live the principles they try and foist on the rest of us.

—Privacy!

When abortion becomes an entirely personal choice, so will adoption!

Brian

I agree the adoption process needs to be easier and less expensive. Perhaps those who oppose abortion could refocus their energy and time into making the process more timely and less expensive. But just because its hard doesn’t mean it should not be tried.

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 9, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #132411

“the man holding the sign was in a Black neighborhood, so naturally the question was ask the way it was”

Naturally and wrongfully.
Sure would be nice if those on the inside and outside of these neighborhoods, would quit looking at them as ____ neighborhoods though. Maybe more people would work together and get things done then.

“I would like to see a group of people rise about it all and try to live the principles they try and foist on the rest of us”

No arguing with that VEM.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #132434

I would prefer to see a man carry a baby to term and give birth…then I would say he has a right to a decision on abortion. But if they can’t even put up and adopt some of the undesired babies and children, then they SHOULD shut the fvck up!
Until then….don’t tell MY kids that they HAVE to carry a fetus to term………!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t even allow myself an opinion on that….IT is between my girls and their significant others. I did my part and gave them the “sex” talk and told them what is out there as far as BC is concerned……so far only ONE has procreated and that was by HER choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: missqittie at March 9, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #132441

missqittie,

Do only people who have served in war have the right to contribute to foreign/defense policy? Only those who make enough money to pay taxes be involved on the conversation for spending priorities?

I would hope that reasonable, and honest contributions towards the debate would be welcome from anyone regardless of the source, and judged on the merit of their value, not the sex of the speaker.

As far as adoption — it is extremely difficult (my parents are exploring it now) and should be made easier. I don’t think abortion/adoption is a zero sum game though. Arguing that anti-abortion activists should surrender their beliefs and do something else assumes that you can’t pursue both topics.

Posted by: Jason at March 9, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #132444

MissQ
I’m sure most would shut the f up if people like you would quit demanding they pay for something they have no “choice” in.
Dont tell YOUR kid she has to carry to term? Then dont tell ME that I have to pay for her to terminate the kid.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #132448

I know a lot of pro-life people who have adopted black or latino babies. In fact, of the pro-life families I know, at least 1 in 20 has adopted children - usually of a different race. There are a couple just in my church of 100.

Posted by: Gandhi at March 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #132449

The abortion debate is bizzare.

First, it’s the law of nature that for a fertalized egg to become a born being, it needs the cooperation of it’s mother. In nature, animals do have elective abortions - animals destroy their nests if they are not ready to raise the babies or if infidelity is discovered by the mate.

The US Constitution through the 9th ammendment specifies that the document is a limit on the power of the government, not an enumeration of the rights of the people. There doesn’t have to be any specific thing written down about abortion to have it be a protected right that the government can’t interfere with - this is a point that so called “conservatives” seem to miss - the document is a liberal document that favors individuals rights to make choices over their own lives without government interference.

Now lets focus on the issue at hand, who gets abortions and would forcing women to have these babies really be a good thing? First, real parents with planned pregnancies keep their bodies in excellent condition for the baby - no smoking, no drinking, modify their nutrition, etc. The irresponsible person that is having unprotected sex and winds up with an unwated pregnancy doesn’t do the above, and likely won’t change their behaviour. So if people made choices because their was a rule about it (like don’t have unprotected sex if you dont want a baby) what would we wind up with by outlawing abortion? a new crop of crack baies, deformed babies, welfare babies, babies with parents that arent mature enough yet to have formed their own values let alone teach them? That’s the idealist view - that people who want to try to solve this issue with laws concentrate on.

If people who have unwatnted pregnancies were good at obeying rules - most of them would not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place! The realist view is that these people aren’t going to change their behavious because of a law forbiding it - they will continue to get abortions through underground RU486 and other means.

The real solution not a legislative one, but to respect the fact that women are going to make their own choices and to try to help them make better choices. Preventing pregnancy is the best way to prevent abortion = if you want to spend government money on that, offer norplant to girls when they come of age, spend money on sex education, offer free condoms, etc… Another way to help address the issue is for pregnant women - give them more options if they don’t want their baby. More laws like the safe harbor law for dropping off a baby anonymously at a hospital or fire station. Offer assistance to mothers to clean up their lives and to carry their baby to term, etc.

If you want to solve the abortion issue concentrate on reducing the numbers - not on what laws say. The laws say its illegal to speed, steal cars, do drugs (smoke pot), hire a prostitute, etc - those laws seems have little effect on reducing occurance.

Posted by: JT at March 9, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #132451

I do find it ironic that the people who are most vocal against abortion are also proponents for capital punishment. Many also seem to oppose social welfare programs designed to help young low income mothers who decided to keep their children. So my question is, do they really value the life and well being of others, or are they more concerned with controlling others?

Posted by: Michael at March 9, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #132452

As a social worker in WV, I have not heard anyone even mention some of the uglier realities of a full blown ban on Abortion…The babies born addicted to crack, are HIV positive, alcoholic babies or those born with many, many different disabilities or defects that require a lifetime of very, very, expensive medical treatment, surgery, rehabilitation and physical therapy. There are no lines waiting to adopt these babies.

I am not suggesting that NO ONE will adopt them, but on the large scale they are the forgotten children.

No one has mentioned that when a woman carries and delivers a child, changes both physiologically and psychologically occur that bond the baby to the mother and the mother to the baby. In many cases, even when the pregnancy is UNWANTED (which is a totally different thing than unplanned) the mother decides to keep the child. She either has no means to care for the child or the issues causing the child to be unwanted in the first place pop right back up and as a result the child gets neglected before being passed on to grandparents which leaves an emotional scar that time does nothing to eradicate. Not to mention the mothers who are addicts themselves. Eventually the children get taken from the only parent or parents they know.

Don’t abortion opponants realize these mothers go right back to the behaviors that got them in this position anyway?

By the time these children do get removed they are 1. no longer babies anymore (not a long line waiting to adopt them) or 2. had so many problems or a long history of trouble with learning, behavior, socialization, violent outbursts, and psychological and emotional issues that not many folks want the risk that comes along with adopting them, like a child born with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Even when the children are removed, placed in states custody. Often the foster homes are just as bad or worse…children are physically and sexually abused, they turn to drugs and alcohol and the cycle goes on and on…Something has to be done to stop the cycle.

kctim wrote:

IF every man and woman who say they care about helping the poor would just adopt a poor family, that would also probably come close to clearing out welfare lines and people wouldn’t be forced to financially support causes they believe do more harm than good.

That statement pretty much sums up where many many of the women seeking abortions can be found. The way they are represented to the American Public by legislaters seeking to make significant cuts in the very programs that help these families struggling to get out of poverty and stay out.

I hear over and over, “I don’t want my tax dollars supporting these lazy people who just want to sit around and collect a check.” Well guess what…if you think you and I won’t be supporting these children…Think again. Something has to be done to stop the cycle.

Then there is the issue of Who is able to adopt. It is not your average middle class family. Oh, some manage, like Brian Poole who had resources (his church) or those financially able to seek a private adoption. The scrutiny potentially adoptive parents are put through makes it impossible for many who could make wonderful parents to be deemed worthy. Not to mention that I have read entire threads on this site alone where writers feel strongly AGAINST Gay or lesbian couples having the right to adopt. I have seen a thread on this site about whether black babies should be placed in home with white parents.

Believing adoption is the answer to the abortion issue is simply ABSURD.

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at March 9, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #132454

Sass
That was a comparison showing how hypocritical I think it is. People don’t want to be told they can’t get an abortion, but they sure as hell have no problem with telling others what to do.

In todays US, I know that I am in the minority for believing in personal responsibility, but THAT is the only thing that is fair for all.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #132474

Kctim,

I hear ya there girl!!! I do understand your position too. When I wrote about stopping the cycle I think it is imperitive that we at least try to teach folks HOW to take personal responsibility, and that requires resources. If we have a strong program to support those living in poverty by education and job training we can empower these families to BELIEVE they can do it themselves. It may be too late to change the parents because they become “enculturated” into the poverty lifestyle, so we MUST start with the children. I strongly believe everyone has strengths and all possess the ability to change, but we MUST make it possible to change. Parents must be able to support their families when they work full time or why should they work at all?

Thanks, Kim.

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at March 9, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #132475

kctim sez:

IF every man and woman who say they care about helping the poor would just adopt a poor family, that would also probably come close to clearing out welfare lines and people wouldn’t be forced to financially support causes they believe do more harm than good.

Tempting as it is to toss off a facile line like this, if you have any spark of intelligence you’d realize that for the vast majority of folks supporting another family would be devastating. We need the wealthy to put up a proportionate share of their income to even come close to “clearing out welfare lines.” It’s so convenient to your pecuniary attitude to say you don’t suppport government programs because they “do more harm than good” but then fail to give any realistic alternative proposal to address the problems they attempt to solve.

It’s good to remember that the gravest harm done by welfare was to force the breakup of families to satisfy the sanctimonious fear that the money might support some guy who wasn’t working. Once the family is broken up, you establish a culture of single-parent homes, and we’ve seen the consequences of that. It ain’t fair to criticize a govenment program that your kind has doomed to failure with unworkable requirements.

Those of you who pretend that poverty is just some lazy people trying to get by on your dime, and that your bucks should not go to helping solve the problems of poverty ought to get the hell out of society, go find an unowned mountain island, and support yourself there without benefit of the jobs and infrastructure provided to you by society. Go for it, mountain man, I dare you.

Posted by: mental wimp at March 9, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #132488

KcTim,

The kids/poor I don’t think are the issue here. The leaders we have set above us are. Why is it that, when we watch the news the issues being discussed are what some rich assholes are doing in a white building or, a crazy/desperate person doing something crazy. Everyday! Treaty here, bomb here, death here, nothing about the homeless that got jobs today and kids who were adopted. Why? Because people don’t want to see that and if it were on who would watch? I think we as a people are to blame for continuing to elect these off topic pricks in power. How does the nuclear treaty help out a bum or orphan. It doesn’t. As long as the rich are in positions of power the poor will stay poor and the rich, rich. Look at the tax situation now. The rich get more and the poor get less. Why do the rich get any? They make more and have more so why do they get more back. We talk about values in this country like everyone is on the same page. We are not. “Good christians” can be some of the biggest value offenders because, they are used to feeling right all the time. If you look at our leader I think it is blatantly obvious. Religion plays a role in this country but only when it is convenient for the politician. Blame the ones in charge they are in the driver’s seat.

Posted by: chad at March 9, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #132509

Abortion is a horrible thought, everyone is conceived for a reason and a purpose. We do not know how to make the world in 7 days so we don’t have the right to take lives. I mean its easier to say things like this when your not in the situation of getting pregnant by accident yourself but wouldnt it be easier if we all abstained from sexual relations before marriage like God intended for us to do, and took the whole concept of marriage seriously. The 10 Commandments are there to guide us and protect us from all the dramas that could arise as a result of not obeying, they were not written because God doesnt want us to have fun. That way there would be no need to abort and no need to adopt, simple :o)

Posted by: Louise at March 9, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #132519

Louise,

I’m happy for you that you have it all figured out for yourself and everyone else. Fortunately for all of us, your beliefs, as neat a package as they are for you, are not the basis for a democratic government, but they make a great theocracy.

I think everything that happens to us can be a learning experience if we make it so, but not every conception results in life. That’s a fact, with or without abortion.

Posted by: Loren at March 9, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #132559

The FDA was going to approve a birth control morning-after pill called “Plan B” for over the counter use. It was determined to be safe for this, however the Bush administration blocked this FDA move because they thought it would lead to pre-marital sex. I find this stupid. If they want to ban abortion they should at least allow women (including those who were raped) this option so they wouldn’t need one. I realize you can get it for a prescription but this takes time, a doctor’s visit, and isn’t always feasible especially when many pharmacists now refuse to give contraceptives for religious reasons.

Michael,

I recently found a web site defining neocons’ views from a liberal perspective. For neocons:

Pro-life = protecting life up until birth.

Altough it’s supposed to be humorous, it really sums it up perfectly. The same people who want a so-called “culture of life” are the ones who oppose efforts to help the poor, are in favor of the death penalty, and have little or no guilt from sending thousands of people to die for a mistaken war. They also don’t care about cruelty to animals or causing widespread destruction of the environment, although that might be a different matter.

Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #132591

How many Black babies has your sister in law adopted lately? Or you? Yaall want to tell everyone else to. Set the example.
It’s fact that most couples don’t want Black babies. Most want a child of their own race. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But the fact also is if a White couple does want a Black child, the Black community itself will protest the adoption. But they are unwilling to adopt the poor kids themselves.
The adoption agencies, Govt or private, discourage White couples from adopting Black children. You can get Asian children almost faster then one of your own race. But tell them you will take a Black child and see their reaction.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #132609

Sassyliberal

I understand your point vis-à-vis adoption; there are so many layers to peel when it comes to this subject. But the point of the question asked by my sister-in-law was what beyond pointless protest was the man doing to support his stated morals? As it turns out nothing…Yes adoption is hard, but most things in life worth pursuing are. Just because the process is hard does not mean that we as a society shouldn’t finally get serious about it and our unwanted children and do something tangible about it, like allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to adopt, if they are qualified.

Louise,

Hiding behind the shirt of God on this or any other issue is intellectual and social laziness. God doesn’t work for everyone, as a matter of fact I will go out on a limb and say God doesn’t work for the vast majority of humans; they may say that they believe in God and his laws, but they don’t live the lives as through they do. So let’s leave God out of this debate, and coach it in purely human terms shall we.

Ron Brown

My sister-in-law is quite busy raising her (4) grandchildren thank you very much. You are missing the larger point sir, and that is abortion foes’ concern for unwanted babies seems to end when the baby leaves the womb. The color of the babies is inconsequential, the man protesting abortion happen to be in my sister-in-laws (Black) neighborhood, hence her question. Get it?


V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #132616

Sassy
I hear ya there girl? Kim?
Anyways, I happen to have no problem with educating people more on these matters.

Mental
“Go for it, mountain man, I dare you”

Actually, my wife won’t allow that. I may be independent, but I’m also PW’d to the max.
But, if the need ever arises, I happen to know that I will make it just fine. Thank you and everybody else for their financial support in my training.
Now, on topic. Why do you think it is right to deny a person their right of free choice ONLY when it is an issue that you support?
YOU don’t want others forcing their beliefs onto you, so why do you think it is right for you to force your beliefs onto THEM?

Chad
I do not envy the rich and I don’t think they should be punished for their success.
I do not fear religion either. Blaming Christians for political gain is pointless also. Religion goes beyond party.
I do agree however, that is our fault because we are the ones who have elected these people who have abused us.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #132640

This is part of the bigger issue I think people need to be addressing when they talk about abortion. Making abortion illegal now, as things stand, would create major problems accross the board, and I don’t think any such ban would last long. If there is going to be a culture of life, you have to start by making it possible to raise an unexpected child, otherwise what is the point of brining it to term if the child will be unwanted and poorly treated. I would certainly rather see its life end in the womb and it go back to wherever life comes from than to see the child raised carelessly. If we don’t build the infrastructure to make sure those kids can be raised instead of neglected, why are we keeping them alive?

Louise,

“wouldnt it be easier if we all abstained from sexual relations before marriage like God intended for us to do, and took the whole concept of marriage seriously. The 10 Commandments are there to guide us and protect us from all the dramas that could arise as a result of not obeying, they were not written because God doesnt want us to have fun.”

The mere fact that you believe moses went up to a mountain and was handed tablets containing the WORD OF G*D (youre not supposed to write it you know, just an fyi), means that your opinions don’t really apply to anyone of a different religion. Hell, there is disagreement among Jews about abortion, and it’s their law you are quoting. I don’t believe in marriage, so is what you are saying that I should never to be allowed to have sex? Religion has nothing to do with this issue, because you can’t prove to me your religion is right. I have faith in my religion, because it has done amazing things for me, and I dont begrudge you yours, but as soon as you start telling the rest of us to follow your laws, I don’t want to hear another word.

Posted by: iandanger at March 10, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #132645

Ian
Do laws not get created from individual beliefs? Why does it matter where an individual belief comes from?

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #132646

V Edward,

Maybe my diatribe didn’t fully state my position as I was trying to address some of the sentiments I felt were being expressed here.

But the point of the question asked by my sister-in-law was what beyond pointless protest was the man doing to support his stated morals? As it turns out nothings easy. adoption is hard, but most things in life worth pursuing are. Just because the process is hard does not mean that we as a society shouldnt finally get serious about it and our unwanted children and do something tangible about it, like allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to adopt, if they are qualified.

I agree with this statement 100%. I understood the reasoning behind your sis in laws question. She is right, and you are right with this statement too. My point about adoption was not that it is hard and families should not try,but that the vast majority of families wishing to adopt are DENIED. This is why using a surrogate or adopting from china or other country has become so popular. I think the adoption process needs to be tweeked so that more families will be able to adopt.


kctim,

So sorry! Believe me…I meant no disrespect at all. Don’t ask me why but for some reason I mistook you for someone else (yes, female). You are OBVIOUSLY NOT FEMALE! My sincerest apologies.

anyway kcTIM, it seems we actually agree on this point.

thanks,
sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at March 10, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #132649

Sassy
Thanks. I figured it was a mistake or that somehow you knew what I was wearing today, lol. Just kidding.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #132663

V. Edward
If you’d mentioned that the protester was in a Black neighborhood I most likely wouldn’t have responded the way I did. My apologies.
Your sister in law is to be commended, raising children is a full time job. And it doesn’t get any easier with grandchildren. In fact it can get harder. Depending on age, health, etc. I have a lot of respect for grandparents that take their grandchildren in to raise.
Adoption isn’t for everyone. While I’d like to see more folks adopting unwanted kids or orphans, not everyone is the kind of person that can do that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #132695

Good post, V. Edward.

Of course, adoption does nothing about the problem of women and girls who have been raped (including incestuously), and would now be forced to carry the hate-child to term and deliver it, even it it would harm them and scar them both physically and emotionally.

Any person who would support this legislation, which contains within it the probability of so much harm and evil, is no Genuine Christian. They are merely hypocrites, the so-called “Pro-Life,” Pro-Gun, Pro-War, Pro-Death-Penalty “Christians” who stand for everything Jesus was against. Most of them, being Conservatives as they are, serve two masters: they mouth the name of Christ to uplift themselves, even as they bow to Mammon in their daily lives.

Perhaps “the rapture” will come and sweep them all off to Hades where they belong. We can only pray…

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 10, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #132702

“Any person who would support this legislation, which contains within it the probability of so much harm and evil, is no Genuine Christian”

So what.
What business is it of yours if they are genuine or not?
Your hatred for other people, based solely on where they stand on an issue, shows where the true hypocrisy is.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #132704
What business is it of yours if they are genuine or not? Your hatred for other people, based solely on where they stand on an issue, shows where the true hypocrisy is.

“Touch not the Facts, that ye be not Burnt,” eh?

LOL :op

What business is it of mine? Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

Well, let’s see:

1.) I’m an American Citizen, so I have just as much Right to an opinion on American Society as you, or anyone else, has.

2.) When crypto-fascists wear their Religion on their sleeves, and use it to sway the National Debate and publicly bludgeon others into submission, it becomes the Business of EVERY AMERICAN.

3.) Wassamatta, Tim? `Touched a nerve with my big, scary Truth Stick, did I?

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

Gratified By Your Response,

Betty

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 10, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #132711

“Wassamatta, Tim? `Touched a nerve with my big, scary Truth Stick, did I?”

No nerve to touch here. I’m not a religious person at all. I just find it sad how people like to bash them for their beliefs.
And truth stick? Puleeze!
You chastize them because YOU THINK they are trying to force their beliefs onto you. But then you turn around and berate them for not accepting your beliefs.
As I said, the real hypocrisy is easy to see.

“crypto-fascists wear their Religion on their sleeves, and use it to sway the National Debate and publicly bludgeon others into submission”

Now thats funny.
I’ve also read how you socialist-liberals “wear your beliefs on your sleeves and use it to sway the national debate and publicly bludgeon others into submission,” despite what the constitution says or does not say.
You see, that game is TOO easy to play.

“I’m an American Citizen, so I have just as much Right to an opinion on American Society as you, or anyone else, has”

Your opinion? Come on, you can do better than that.
How is the way another person lives their own life, any business of yours?

““Touch not the Facts, that ye be not Burnt,” eh?”

Give some facts or ask a question and I would be more than happy to answer it.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #132730

“Do laws not get created from individual beliefs? Why does it matter where an individual belief comes from?”

because i dont think we should burn witches either. I agree that there are rational arguments for and against abortion.

When someone tells me what i can and cant do in my own bedroom because of what some book says, i get pretty pissed off. especially when 90% of them have only read an english translation of a latin translation of a greek document accounting, subjectively, the life of a man, all of which is somewhat contradictory, and ties in to an ancient hebrew text that posits some EXTREMELY archaic laws.

So yeah, theres a difference.

Posted by: iandanger at March 10, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #132736

KcTim,

Religion does go beyond party. Thats why those who don’t have a party and are religious go to services to be told what and who to vote for. It happens. We can’t stop it but, should we? Whether or not this is a religious issue, is up to the individual. But, for a whole lot of people it is religious based. You and I may be exceptions but, the driving force behind the restrictions is faith based. Ok, now that I’ve said that I’ll ask this, is that right? Or, am I wrong that bible toters have the loudest voice in America when, it comes down to morals and ethics. Of course there will be exceptions but, we are a country where majority rules. We all know that the I.Q. of a person goes down when in a large group yet this is what we base a lot of our opinions on; what we’ve seen and heard either live or in the comfort of our lay-z-boy. You have a personal expirience opinion of how you wish to see life. Great, I wish more people did. If things go correctly for people as I assume they did for you, people will not make mistakes like, accidental pregnancy. Thats the issue. Push parental responsablity pre-conception. Inform the uninformed to save the lives of those who will perish if, their parents don’t act responsibly. You can’t stop people from aborting babies legally or illegally. But, you can tell the ignorant or their future mistakes and reprecussions of those mistakes. The people on this post aren’t as wishy washy as kids with no preception of what reality and responsability are. Save your breath for the ones who deserve it.

Posted by: chad at March 10, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #132738

correcton
“But, you can tell the ignorant or their”
how about “of their” instead of “or their”

Posted by: chad at March 10, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #132778

Betty Burke

Of course, adoption does nothing about the problem of women and girls who have been raped (including incestuously), and would now be forced to carry the hate-child to term and deliver it, even it it would harm them and scar them both physically and emotionally.

I’ll venture to say that they are more scared by the rape than have a child from it.

Any person who would support this legislation, which contains within it the probability of so much harm and evil, is no Genuine Christian. They are merely hypocrites, the so-called “Pro-Life,” Pro-Gun, Pro-War, Pro-Death-Penalty “Christians” who stand for everything Jesus was against. Most of them, being Conservatives as they are, serve two masters: they mouth the name of Christ to uplift themselves, even as they bow to Mammon in their daily lives.

Do you have any idea of what true Christianity is all about?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 11, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #132856
I’ll venture to say that they are more scared [sic] by the rape than have a child from it.

I’ll venture to say that you have never carried a pregnancy to term for nine months, and then delivered a baby, *Ron*.

And whether they were “scared” or scarred by the Rape, to force a *child* to carry the reminder of it, the progeny of her rapist, within her for nine months is nothing less than the most twisted form of sick cruelty to her.

`Tell you what, Ron, let’s force you to take the Honesty Test:

First, find someone whom you really despise - a Feminist, say - and have them kick you repeatedly in the groin and stomach for about 10 minutes…

Second, for the next nine months, be sure to have them come over to your Home several times a day - including at night, when you are sleeping - and do the following:

They must poke you and lightly smack you about and ridicule you, making you feel both physically and emotionally unwell, at all hours of the night and day. Additionally, they are allowed to paste Signs to your clothing with derogatory statements about you writ large upon them in bright colours.

Third, after nine months of this, your tormentor joins with four of your strongest male friends to hold you down, naked and spread-eagled, and force a smallish (six-pound, say) Bowling Ball into your colon through your anus.

Now you tell me, you smug man: would you be okay with that treatment? Because that is exactly equivalent to what you are advocating for women and pregnant children.

Unless you are prepared to Walk The Walk, mister, you had better keep your beer-hole from so blithely Talking the Talk.

Do you have any idea of what true Christianity is all about?

I posted a bunch of it in another thread (Fascist Section) of WatchBlog. The subject was the Death “Penalty.” Here’s a re-post for your edification:

Here are a few things Jesus said, appropriate to the Subject:

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ - but I say unto you, that ye resist not Evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy’ - but I say unto you: Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.”

“Judge not, that ye be not Judged. For with what judgment ye Judge, ye shall be Judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the Mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the Beam that is in thine own eye? How wilt thou say to thy brother, ‘Let me pull out the Mote out of thine eye’ when, behold, a Beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite! First cast out the Beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy brother’s eye…”

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you - but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

“Ye cannot serve God and Mammon - thefore,I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”

“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

And here’s something his Dad had to say on the matter:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto Wrath: for it is written, ‘Vengeance is MINE; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Now, what part of that Actual Christian Doctrine - from the words of God and Jesus themselves - would you like to continue to Ignore?

Of course, I suppose you advocate the shooting of Family Planning physicians and the bombing of Abortion Clinics, don’t you? So much for your “Christianity.”


Mad As Hell, And Not Taking It Anymore

- Betty

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 11, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #132912

Betty
Of course, I suppose you advocate the shooting of Family Planning physicians and the bombing of Abortion Clinics, don’t you? So much for your “Christianity.”

Anyone that’s bothered to read any of my post without all the bias and anger you seem to have against religion and men would know that I have NEVER advocated such carrying on. That kind of crap is just as wrong as murdering babies in the womb. Anyone that would do that is NOT a true Christian.
Just as I thought, you don’t know anything about Christianity. Only what you want to perceive it to be.
While Christ did teach that, he never said that murderers could escape the death penalty. He also never said that a women could kill her baby for ANY reason.
As for your ‘honesty test’. You know That I wouldn’t like that one bit. And a horrible as rape is, and as much as I feel for the victims of it, it’s still wrong to murder the baby.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 12, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #132953

Ian
If the individual believes it is for the betterment of society, why does it matter where their beliefs come from?
Blaming religion is easy. Understanding a persons beliefs, no matter how they are attained, is hard.

Posted by: kctim at March 12, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #132955

Chad
Interesting reply.

“The people on this post aren’t as wishy washy as kids with no preception of what reality and responsability are”

Why must others take responsibilty for their reality then?
Wishy washy? Believing it is ok to force others to support what they believe in but crying foul when others do the same to them, is, wishy washy.

“Save your breath for the ones who deserve it”

Isn’t that the problem with this issue? Who deserves it?
One side believes its the woman who deserves a choice, the other side believes its the child who deserves a chance.

Posted by: kctim at March 12, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #133053
Just as I thought, you don’t know anything about Christianity.

Hysterical. And, just as *I* thought…

I post the words of God and Christ, as they appear in the bible, and yet you deny their very meaning.

Remember that one I posted (above) regarding the Mote (sawdust particle - Ieshua of Nazareth was a carpenter) and the Beam (shaped timber)? There are none so Blind as they who will not see…

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 13, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #133081

At least you can now understand how people feel when they are discussing the Constitution with liberals, Betty.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #133084

When did I deny the meaning of the names God and Christ? I’ve reread ALL my post and can’t find anyplace where I’ve done that. Your real good at reading in things that ain’t there. I’ll give you that.
To deny the meaning of these names would mean that I would have to deny my Christian faith. And I ain’t about to do that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #133086

kctim,
Idon’t think you understood completely what I was trying to put across. I see your side and there is a part of me that agrees. But, that doesn’t mean I don’t hear and understand the other side. If it were put to a vote I don’t know if I would vote on this issue. Because I don’t have kids or have irresponsible sex. I see the side that would say accidents happen. But, right now I lack reason to really care one way or another. Not because I have no soul but, I have no attachment. Thats the problem right there. A lot of people are just like me until they have an accident and then, have to make crack decisions on the fly. It’s not selfishness. It’s granting privacy to those who wish to be private about their affairs. I won’t use an example way off topic to give you insight as to where I’m coming from, I think you can figure one out on your own. Wishy washy kids are what some Americans are and they are the one’s voting on these topics. Because both sides make great arguments all it takes is to tell someone your side first. Then, bam you have a pro-(insert a side) until expirience allows them to make a personal decision. So, if you want to shift the polls in your direction. Do what all greats do, get them when their young before they can establish an opinion of their own.

Posted by: chad at March 13, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #133091

kctim,

I really think these blogs should allow us to open our own eyes so, we can see ourselves in others. Bitching about stuff all day long to opposing views just infuriates me further. But, hearing and discussing allows me to see how wrong I am in trying to share my views based on expirience. Then, trying to get others to learn from my mistakes or lack of. Difference in opinion is what this blog shows me and this one is a melting pot. Because, all the dominant views in America are represented. Then, they are broken down into different facets of life. Differing only on the expirience that birthed each individual’s opinion. Whether or not these opinions will stay strong throughout one’s life is the question because, we never know when an accident may change it all. Better or good is up to the individual.

Posted by: chad at March 13, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #133092

correction
how about “better or worse” instead of “better or good” eh.

Posted by: chad at March 13, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #133095

Chad
My side? I don’t have a side on this issue. I’m so confused about it.
I hate abortion and believe it too be wrong, but I don’t think it is my place to tell others what they can and can’t do.
So far, I have not voted against giving the woman the choice.

“get them when their young before they can establish an opinion of their own”

Thats the same logic our public schools use. Are you a teacher? lol

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #133097

No, I am not just a product that was paying attention to the brain washing not the subject. Good point. Sorry if I lumped you into a catagory that ws not my intension. I merely wanted to express that, many people talk about issues of great personal connection and don’t act on their instincts in a growing positive way. Now, whether thats to you or another, I don’t know. But, I only voiced it. It seems to me though that this issue is a very personal one to eveyone which, causes a lot of friction around here. Lots of toes being stepped on.

Posted by: chad at March 13, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #133098

kctim,
my bad that one up there is 2 u

Posted by: chad at March 13, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #133193

Ron wrote:

When did I deny the meaning of the names God and Christ?
To deny the meaning of these names would mean that I would have to deny my Christian faith.

I had written, in part:

I post the words of God and Christ, as they appear in the bible, and yet you deny their very meaning.

and you reply:

Your [sic] real good at reading in things that ain’t there. I’ll give you that.

Well, it seems that you can give it right back to yourself, Ron. Pot-kettle-black. You’re real good at that - like most Conservatives are.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 13, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #133280

Here is the problem with this entire argument- you are not attempting to engage the other side, because you do not even care to understand their point of view. I am a non-religious person who is pro-life. To me, there is abolutely no difference between killing a newborn right after she comes out of the womb, or a couple of months when she is in the womb. So with that in mind, I will now make the following statement from the point of view of a hypothetical person who supports post-birth “abortions” (for example, Peter Singer, pro-choice professor at Princeton):

all you people who want to stop the killing of newborns, you are all hypocrits. how many black babies have you adopted? Until you are willing to adopt a black baby, you are not allowed to support laws that outlaw the killing of newborn children. After all, its a mother’s choice whether to kill her newborn child.

I hope you all see how ridiculous that argument sounds to you (I assume everyone on this board both opposes the legalized killing of newborns and has no adopted a black child).

As long as you make these arguments, there will never be any progress in this debate. Of course, I doubt you actually want any progress, because those of us who disagree with you on abortion are unacceptably evil and hypocritical.

Now if I am wrong, I challenge any of the pro-choice posters on this board to refute the point I just made, assuming for teh purpose of argument that unborn children are as worthy of legal protection as newborns. If you cannot make that argument, which I believe you cannot, we are down to the one and only issue in dispute here- whether killing an unborn child is wrong, like killing an infant is wrong. Everything else here is a silly red hearing argument made by people who have no respect for the other side of the issue and are just looking to score some fun rhetorical points.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 14, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #133329

Betty Burke
Right anyone can messup. And I did just that. I misread what you said and responeded wrong.
I dont’ deny the Word of God either. To deny that is to deny God. That would be dening my faith in him. And that I refuse to do.
Where in my repsonse to you did I deny the meaning of the verses you used?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 14, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #133663
Just as I thought, you don’t know anything about Christianity. Only what you want to perceive it to be. While Christ did teach that, he never said that murderers could escape the death penalty.

I bolded those lines above because of the particular emphasis they carry to my argument. Pot-Kettle-Black. I posted direct quotes from the bible: the words of both God and Christ. Their meaning couldn’t possibly be more plain. Oh, and, they’re not the only ones! I could fill a page with other direct quotes from scripture proving that:

- God has ordered Humanity to refrain from Killing Other Humans - *EVER*. Because:

- A.) It is Wrong in His sight. And,
- B.) It usurps His authority, as the only One qualified to do the Judging. And,

- Jesus has taught that *ANY* Wrong done to a person or persons MUST be met with Toleration and Forgiveness, because:

- A.) It is Wrong in his sight to do anything else, and,
- B.) It is Hypocritical to judge others, when you are yourself not blameless (in, say, supporting War, the Death “Penalty,” etc.), and,
- C.) It usurps the power of his Father as the only one qualified to meet out Vengeance, and,
- D.) It promulgates yet more Evil, rather than Good.

Now, if the words of God and Christ do not sway you to realise that the ONLY people who even get close to following them are the Amish and certain sects of Buddhism, then you are a Lost Cause: you have chosen to put a higher priority on your Personal Political Beliefs than you do in the Words Of God. You deny and abandon those Words just like Peter denying knowledge of Jesus in the palace of Caiaphas.

The only True Christians are those who Walk The Walk, as well as Talking The Talk. Jesus said:

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him.”

That is something you will never hear the likes of Oral Roberts or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson say, for it undermines their self-appointed position as intermediaries. They (and their followers) do not Walk The Walk.

Now, what part of the following do you find to be confusing or ambiguous:

- Thou shalt not kill.

- “Vengeance is mine,” saith the Lord, “I will repay.”

- “Ye have heard that it was said of them of Old Time, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the Judgment.”

- “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say unto you, that ye resist not Evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

- “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy,’ but I say unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you - that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the Evil and on the Good, and sendeth rain on both the Just and on the Unjust.”

- “Judge not, that ye be not Judged - for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

- “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

- “Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”

Now, again, Ron: just what part of that do you not understand, as it applies to your beloved Death “Penalty”???

Which, by the way, was how the Saviour was done in by Men.

It will be interesting to me to see whether you can Walk The Walk as well as Talk The Talk. I predict that you will either ignore this entirely or actually repudiate the True Tenets of your faith in order to support your Personal Politics. In which case, Jesus’ word of “Hypocrite” will be perfectly suited, just as he taught…

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #133789

Betty
Ask any rabbi you want and he’ll tell you that the word translated kill in the 10 commandments is the Hebrew word for murder.
In other words, Thou shalt not murder.
Also if God commanded men not to kill each other why would the turnaround and tell the Israelites to kill everyone in Jericho? And why would he command the death of those that broke His Law?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #133920

Misha
I would agree with all that you wrote except for one thing. The arguements made to support abortion are valid Issues in their own right, but they do not support abortion. Like you said (and others)the true question is (first and formost)Is is good (moraly or socialy)to murder the inocent?

Quartus

Posted by: Quartus at March 16, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #133992

The answer to your question, Ron, is threefold:

1.) The intentional misuse and abuse by Organised Religion (men) to make men do things against their fellowman, regardless of the intent of God or any prophet(s).

2.) The difference between the (pre-warped) God of the Old Testament and the (post-warped) God of the New Testament.

3.) You’re attempting to chang the subject, by not answering any of the Quotes by Jesus I posted Above, and it’s not working…

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 16, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #134003

P.S.:


1.) Here’s your ‘e’ (for the word “chang[e],” above.

2.) If you ask any Rabbi, he will tell you that Jesus was not either the son of God or the Messiah - thus denying the basic tenets of your very religion. Thus, to use them as a means of diverting attention away from a discussion of the tenets of Christianity is quite disingenuous.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 16, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #134039

I could answer every question you ask and you still wouldn’t get it.
Weather a Rabbi denys that Jesus is Gods son or not doesn’t disqualify him from knowing the Hebrew. Using one to find out information that they’d know more about than someone else isn’t disingenuos. Using their beliefs that I disagree with to prove a point would be. And I’m not using their beliefs. Just informatin about a language that I’m sure you know as little about as I do. But then I reckon you’ve never got information from someone you disagree with.
Jesus did teach that we need to love each other.
He also taught not to murder.
He taught a lot of good things that we should follow. And if everyone did, we’d have no need for the police, courts, prisons, or the death penalty.
But nowhere did he ever teach that murderers shouldn’t be executed for their crimes.
While I believe in the death penalty, I would love for it to have to never be given or executed. I’d also love it no one ever had to be sent to prison.
But until human nature changes, there will be a need for both.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 17, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #134431

Having this conversation with neocons who believe more strongly in their Political Dogma than they do in their (supposed) Spiritual Beliefs reminds me of an old Celtic adage: “Never seek to teach a pig how to sing; it’s a waste of your time, and it only serves to confuse the pig.”

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 18, 2006 9:05 PM
Post a comment