Actually, I've read where if put to a vote polls have shown that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. Whether abortion is right or wrong aside many people, including many liberal lawyers say that RVW is a badly written law in the first place.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Roe vs Wade.
I think it is amazing that more is not said about her decision to renounce Roe vs Wade, since she was the one who defined the legalization of abortion. She says now that she regrets it and thinks abortion is wrong. I wonder often how many women, in later years, have grave misgivings and sadness about having had an abortion. I have found, as a woman in her 7th decade, that there are things from my youth I certainly regret. I am happy to say, abortion is not one of them. I have to share a letter with you from a man I have had an ongoing discussion with regarding Jewish faith and abortion. Please note the ending statements. It is quite telling, don't you think. Here's his response to my letter:
Yes, there are Jews that are against abortion but it is not from true Jewish teachings. You should know that their is clearly no soul till birth or so many days after depending on which Jewish beliefs are followed.
The soul is what makes humans uniquely different from any other animal - so while some Jews like emotional Christians who are ignorant of Christian teachings (same issue and nothing in Christian bible about abortion being wrong), use emotional terms like unborn etc, all there is, is a souless fetus.
I have a very extensive additional research report on Jewish views of abortion that basically supports what I discuss on website. But I just haven't had time to digest in summarize it since its just not a major interest of mine.
Bottom line is it should be up to the women based on HER beliefs, not some old men in Washington restricting a women's right to choose again based on HER beliefs not yours, mine or laws. Clearly in my view there is nothing wrong from a Christian biblical view which I have researched the most over the decades. But Jewish view seems similar and even more clear that their is no soul till birth or various days after.
In my view if a women can not support another child, she has a moral duty NOT to give birth. I don't want to pay via welfare and taxes for someone else who wasn't responsible enough to either give up for adoption (best choice) or abort if isn't emotionally or financially able to provide. But of course she has the right to make her own decision, but don't expect me to pay for it via taxes/welfare.
WASHINGTON — While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.
A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.
The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion.
Feminists for Life has sponsored a national advertising campaign aimed at ending abortion in America. One of its mission statements proclaims: "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."
Jane Roberts was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life's board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the group and been recognized as a contributor who donated from $1,000 to $2,500.
The president of Feminists for Life, Serrin M. Foster, said Roberts maintained her ties by advising the group on how to draw up incorporation and not-for-profit papers.
She also has written for the group's newsletter, Foster said, including an article about adoption. Roberts and her husband have adopted two children.
"She's a brilliant attorney, and we're really proud that she lent her legal services to us to help serve the needs of women," Foster said. "She was a very good board member. She was invaluable as an attorney for us."
Foster said that she had met John Roberts, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but that the judge had not been involved with Feminists for Life.
Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent.
In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.
His brief added: "The [Supreme] Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
But during the 2003 Senate confirmation hearings on his appellate court nomination, Roberts took the position that abortion rights were no longer debatable.
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
But abortion rights groups are convinced that Roberts is opposed to abortion.
"He's absolutely anti-Roe," Gandy said. "He believes it was wrongly decided and should be reversed." Asked then why Roberts two years ago proclaimed Roe vs. Wade a "settled" issue, Gandy responded: "You have to say that. You can't get on the court without saying you will follow legal precedent. All the most extreme nominees say that. You can't even take the oath of office [unless] you say that."
Jane Roberts graduated magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., in 1976. In 1984, she graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.
She practices and is a partner with the Washington firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, mostly concentrating on the firm's communications and global sourcing groups.
A close friend characterized her as an "extremely, extremely devout Catholic" who had enjoyed her antiabortion advocacy.
The Catholic News Service in Washington, which praised Judge Roberts and cited his government brief in 1990 challenging Roe vs. Wade, also spoke kindly of Jane Roberts.
"She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term," the news service said.
It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Before Jane Roberts joined the board of Feminists for Life, the organization filed amicus briefs on abortion with the Supreme Court. Records show that the group filed briefs supporting the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a law aimed at limiting the right to abortions, particularly for minors.
Several antiabortion groups including Feminists for Life also filed a brief in support of the right of abortion protesters to picket a Virginia women's health clinic. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the courts did not have the authority to limit protesters' access to such clinics.
And Feminists for Life filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of laws in Ohio and Missouri that attempted to limit the rights to an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.
*
Times staff writers Walter F. Roche Jr. and Benjamin Weyl in Washington contributed to this report.
Excuse me....before Roe vs Wade we all had...
to hear you out there lobbying for the death of babies. You got your wish. To the tune of 1.2 million a year. It was your right, and boy are you exercising it. So be it. Now the tables have turned, and it is OUR right to lobby once again to stop the slaughter. It is still a free country after all, and as long as it is...there will be a lobby against the wholesale slaughter of innocent children...any child. If it irritates you so much that someone would be concerned about 1.2 million babies being killed every year in this country, over 2000 a day, don't read a post you know is about being pro life. Simple fix really.
Judge Roberts and Roe vs Wade
I, too, am pro choice and I can remember when I was still in high school, there was no right of termination of pregnancy..It was left up to each state to decide and NY state did not allow a woman to choose. I remember Congresswoman, Bella Abzug, was one of the strongest voices for women back then..That, I guess, is what got me into politics to the max, cause none of my sisters are political, nor my mother..They vote democrat and sure agree with me on issues but I am the one who marches and protests, etc, LOL. I think back in about 1973, I was astonished that a woman had no right over her body, no decisions about her body..That seared my brain, I guess. Then, thankfully the Supreme Court understood a woman has a right to decide about her body..I think if Roe vs Wade was ever overturned, we would have women in the streets, and also some men who have a higher consciousness and understand the implications of overturning Roe vs Wade. The majority of Americans want to leave the decision alone, so hopefully the Supreme Court will leave it alone..I do not believe in abortion at late stages, only in case of a woman's health, however, in the first four months, I believe a woman should decide and, if it is wrong, the woman will explain it to her maker..far be it for me to judge, ya know?
Roe v Wade put such decisions where they belonged -
.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?
The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
Roe vs Wade gave us the right to choose years ago. nm
.
versus
The first sura of the Qur'an is an example of this. It is a short prayer that is repeated by devout Muslims each day and ends with these words:
Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (1:6-7)
Muhammad was once asked if these words pertained to Jews and Christians. His response was, "Whom else?" (Bukhari 56:662).
you need versus?
xx
mean versus Obama
Notice how many of the really mean posts, like the one who called Senator Obama, Osambo, are pro-McCain/Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin never focus on the issues. Listen to them closely - what exactly are they going to do about unemployment, foreclosures, poverty, the meth epidemic across the nation, health care, taxes, and the war that has been going on far too long? Can you answer these questions? All John McCain does is talk about Obama. John McCain is losing the election and running scared, so he attacks Obama. Check out the facts. Obama was 8 years old when Bill Ayers was a radical. Ayers is in his 60s and a washed-up radical. Have you even looked at a picture of this man? It will make you laugh when you realize this is the guy McCain is associating Obama with in hopes that McCain can win the election. It is one attack after another. Senator Obama was raised in Kansas by his "white" grandmother. Senator Obama has two young children whom he takes to soccer practice regularly. McCain is making Obama sound like some kind of terrorist. How many terrorists take their kids to soccer practice? Do you think Senator Obama would jeporadize his children's lives by being a terrorist? His kids look pretty well-adjusted to me.
I live in Arizona where McCain is our senator. Arizona also has a huge meth epidemic, high percentage of poverty, horrible health care, and racism to say the least. Even Arizona's State Governor, Janet Napolitano, is endorsing Senator Obama. She has had to work side-by-side with John McCain and she isn't even endorsing him. Do you think the Governor of Arizona would endorse Senator Obama if he was the terrorist that the McCain/Palin ticket is trying to make him out to be. Even a 1st grader could see that McCain is bitter because he is losing.
You have to be really gullible to believe anything the McCain/Palin ticket has to say. Honestly ask yourself what you think John Mcain is going to do for this country in the next four years if he can't even help his own state of Arizona.
I wonder if the POTUS can be held in contempt of court?
wilson versus rove
Ms. Wilson is Valerie Plame, she is married to Joseph Wilson. She worked for the CIA but Rove gave her name to Robert Novak, thus jeopardizing her life.
abortion versus rudolph
Science has not determined when life begins, at conception? After the first trimester? But the argument is moot, actually, as it is legal to get an abortion, it is not legal to take the law into your own hands and kill because you do not agree with the legal medical procedure that is being performed. Enormous difference. Law abiding citizens do not kill because they disagree with the law.
Facts versus opinion.
If you choose to ignore the facts, so be it.
unborn versus born
I do not think they would choose their life over a child that was already born, but I do think many would choose (and do choose) their own life over an unborn child's life. And by life I don't necessarily mean a medical condition. If my daughter were a teenager (she is not quite there yet) and she was pregnant, and she chose abortion, her father and I would certainly support that choice versus her giving up a promising future to raise an unwanted child, especially at such a young age.
I know others would not choose that, but many do everyday. Certainly, I think men and women should choose birth control, abstinence, etc., but birth control fails, mistakes happen, rape happens, incest happens, and I don't feel anyone should have to give birth if they don't want to or aren't prepared for the responsibility of parenting.
Many women chose to give their babies up for adoption, and that is a wonderful choice for them. However, not the best choice for everyone. I want everyone to be able to have that choice.
Attack versus observation
So if someone called me a big, fat, smelly, ugly, loud-mouthed, foul hag that could qualify as an observation (in your words) and would therefore be acceptable? I mean, technically someone could say they OBSERVED these traits in me. When does something cross the line and become a personal attack?
My take on all this is that if it originates from one of the C-posters it's an observation. If it originates from an L-poster it's an attack. Not always, but in general. Could be due to the whole political board system have a very very far right-leaning slant........
to change the downward course of the nation. Haven't you been listening?
Senator versus presidency
Sure, I can see where a lot of this would be overlooked while running for a senate position versus president of our country. The higher the position, the more you look into someone's history and that is what separates the boys from the men....
Income tax versus sales tax......sm
Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........
Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move? Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?
Non-refundable tax rebates means every $1.00 spent creates $1.02 in economic activity. 2 freaking cents (makes sense to the pubs.....I guess)
Infrastructure - every dollar spent equals $1.59 in economic activity (bridges, roads, etc.)
Food stamps (which the pubs want to cut out of the bill) - every dollar spent equals $1.73 in economic activity. This is the single most productive stimulus we have. Food stamps will get SPENT, unlike tax rebates.
If the pubs have their way, the bill will be 42% tax cuts which will not benefit job creation or improve the economy. They want to fail. Why? And you all call your senators to support this? If it gets pushed through like this, you have only yourselves to blame when everything goes to helll. You can't blame Obama for this cluster.
Independent versus Liberal...sm
" In the political realm, an Independent is generally the term used to describe a candidate who is not affiliated with any political party. The word has evolved to some degree and can also be used to describe a candidate who is not a member of a country’s main political parties. In the United States, if one is not a Republican or a Democrat, one might be referred to as an Independent or a third party candidate
Liberalism in the United States is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty, whether they come from established religion, from government regulation or grom the existing class structure.
"First, liberalism holds that there is no way to authenticate and prove as true any one version of the Christian faith...Second, liberalism rejects the Bible as being the actual Word of God to man...Third, liberalism restates the doctrine of Christ to show his utter humanity...Fourth, liberalism denies that the Bible has any inherent moral authority over men...Fifth, liberalism denies that mankind is lost and under the condemnation of sin...Sixth, liberalism has no concern with the New Testament concept of the church."
According to this I qualify as a political Independent and a religious Liberal.
Article from Juan Gonzalez, a NY Daily News columnist, RE: Hugo Chavez and his oil versus American oil companies:
Oil fat cats vs. Hugo Chavez
I pulled into the Mobil gas station on 11th Ave. in Manhattan yesterday for my weekly stickup from the oil companies.
Their take this time was an astonishing $3.05 per gallon for premium unleaded.
"Every three or four days the price goes up," said Patel, the man in charge of the station. "Lots of complaints from my customers."
Complaints from everyone except oil executives.
Last year, Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest corporation, posted the highest profits of any company in history - more than $25 billion. The oil giant, based in Irving, Tex., is on track to shatter that mark this year, with revenues that now approach $1 billion per day.
Which brings me to Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.
Robertson, the right-wing evangelist and friend of the Bush family, publicly called this week for the U.S. government to kill - or at least kidnap - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"This is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly," Robertson said. His less-than-Christian remarks ignited an outcry and forced him to issue an apology of sorts, though he still insisted that he had at least "focused our government's attention on a growing problem."
That "problem," quite simply, is that Chavez, a radical populist who has been voted into office repeatedly by huge majorities in his own country, controls the largest reserve of petroleum outside the Middle East.
Neither Robertson, nor former oil executives George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, nor their buddies at Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, etc., are happy about all this.
Even more scandalous for Big Oil, Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries.
Yesterday, while Robertson was issuing his half-baked Chavez clarification, the Venezuelan president was in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where he announced a new oil agreement with that country's prime minister, P.J. Patterson.
Under the agreement, Venezuela will supply 22,000 barrels of oil a day to Jamaica for a mere $40 a barrel. That's far lower than the current world price of about $65 a barrel. With the price of gasoline in that destitute nation already more than $3.50 a gallon, the Chavez plan means more than half a million dollars a day in savings for Jamaica on oil imports.
Chavez also announced his government will provide $60 million in foreign aid to Jamaica and finance the upgrading of that country's oil refineries.
The agreement is part of a broader Chavez plan called Petrocaribe, which he unveiled at a Caribbean summit in Venezuela last June.
At that conference, Chavez offered the same kind of deal to the leaders of more than a dozen other neighboring nations, including Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Fernandez jumped at the offer because his government is nearly bankrupt from oil prices. Last year, the Dominican Republic spent $1.2 billion on oil imports; this year, it expects to fork out more than $3 billion. The price of gasoline in Santo Domingo has zoomed past $4 a gallon in recent days.
Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different.
But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years.
Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.
from own party who make their living promoting the repub cause. Big difference in motivation.
Semantics versus common sense...
As I mentioned previously, the phrase I mentioned was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," which is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constititution. I never mentioned citizens at all, and neither did that phrase.
What I did say is that the law of this land - and any country I am aware of - protects human life, and I'm pretty sure there is little argument that a pregnant woman is always pregnant with a human life...not a gopher, a lampshade, or a pickle. There has never been a human pregnancy that produced anything other than a human being. We (human beings) have laws to protect other human beings. I just don't understand why some people don't think unborn human beings should be included in that protection. Hiding behind religious differences, constitutional "technicalities," and "live and let live" rhetoric doesn't negate the fact that human beings give birth to human beings, and if you kill that human being - any human being, either in the womb or out, it is wrong, ethically, morally, by all human standards and all human laws in all countries of which I am aware.
Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
PLEASE, everybody, see that Barack Obama is for keeping jobs in America and has shown this by passing this tax credit to encourage jobs in America. This is something he has already done, so we know he will help us fight this in the future. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY, who supports our jobs being outsourced.
I have stood behind Barack Obama and have sent emails questioning what he plans to do to help MTs in America. Just do the research and spread the word, PLEASE, not to vote for Hillary and to maintain support with Barack, who has shown he is BEHIND US!!
I believe that one of the ways we can ALL show support is to refuse to accept a position with a company that outsources offshore. I used to work for Spheris and did so for five years, but the company I work for now does not offshore and I will continue on in this direction. LET'S HELP OUR AMERICAN-BASED MT COMPANIES, AS SMALL AS THEY MAY BE, PROSPER!! Apply for a job with a company that does not offshore! We have to start somewhere!
I promise to never work for a company that offshores...will you? I promise to help keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House...will you?
I think it is interesting that issues are made on Sen. McCain's health, but I have heard nothing about Sen. Biden's past health issues. Approximately 20 years ago, Sen. Biden underwent surgery to repair two brain aneurysms. I would consider that a pretty serious issue for the #2 man in charge of our country.
There have been reports in the news about Sen. Biden getting some history mixed up, and misspeaking at times. Could this not so much be something to joke about as it could be the long-term effect of his prior condition.
If this nation is to survive, it is no longer US VERSUS THEM, we have to find a way to .....sm
stand united, and when our representatives are proposing or propositioning or supporing something that is NOT supported by the PEOPLE, their constituents, then we have to make calls, write letters, fax, vote, ect. I believe this two party system is doomed and that it is antiquated, there is such an ideological wall between the two parties that nothing will get done with all the finger pointing, blaming, etc. The American people are wise enough to know what is good for them, what works for them (and I mean a majority of us, not "chosen few" of Wall Street, lobbyists, oil interests, etc)., the representatives have to come back to the people. So sick of the blame game and insults, if we love this country and "the American way of life" we had all better band together, work together, LISTEN to each other's fears and needs, and concentrate on now and THE FUTURE, the long-haul. Just my humble opinion, this is all getting old and tired, and such a waste of time and energy. Instead of insulting on this board, perhaps we can spend time getting in touch with our representatives' offices, and perhaps getting a broader base of support for the Independent Party (isn't independce what we are all about?) IMHO
Usually, the majority is right!!!!
.
A majority of 2.
Does it get anymore pathetic?
The majority, as you put it, did not even
know who they were voting for. They heard one thing: CHANGE. Yet, change is not what we are getting. It's politics as usual. O does not know how to lead. He only knows how to follow. He is letting people like Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and countless others walk all over him. He has no clout. He is a lamb being led to the slaughter, yet he doesn't realize it yet.
If he wants to be a good president, he would stop the antics going on now, but I really don't think he knows how to do it. It's a shame, too, because although I did not vote for him, I had hope.
Check photos of him lately. He's not looking so confident anymore. He is starting to think he got in over his head and unless he takes control of the dems, he will go down in history as a president worse than Jimmy Carter.
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
I'm simply not in a position to judge all that stuff. There's far more going on behind the scenes than we know. That's not to give Bush (or any politician, for that matter) a free pass.
The big threat approaching is Israel & Iraq. A war there is inevitable (& soon), and they're a huge ally of ours. The not only deserve our help, but will likely need it.
The Majority of Citizens?
Let's see tomorrow morning.
The moral majority is neither
all that moral, or the majority. Don't assume who the majority is until they cast their vote.
What I meant was when the majority
of people want same sex marriage, the measure will pass. Until then, they will just have to keep putting it to a vote. We the people have the right to decide what we want; majority rules and most don't want same sex marriage. Have a civil union, have the same benefits, etc, but don't call it marriage.
And just how do you propose to know what the majority
This is exactly the kind of post that completely undermines any credibility that you might perceive that you have.
Speak for yourself. You know nothing of anyone else's reasons for voting for our NEW PRESIDENT. You're going to have a pretty miserable 8 years ahead of you unless you stop beating this old, dead horse.
you don't even realize who the majority are
You seem to fail to remember that not everyone in America voted this election.
69,456,897 people voted for the O
234,367,743 did not
I would not say the majority of America voted for him. He didn't even get 1/3 of America's votes.
And with the great help of ACORN. In the county that I live in, there was a man who was registered by ACORN, voted 3 times and has been deceased since 1986.
Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
but I'm sure the vast majority believes
that life begins at conception, however, I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.
So did the majority of Congress, Dem and Repub...
or nothing would have passed. Sheesh. You act like McCain passed every bill all by his lonesome. Let's be real here.
marks the location of current message within thread![](http://te.latimes.com/blank.gif"){kind=spacer}
![](http://forum.mtstars.com/smileys/sowhat.gif")
