Posted on 11/28/2001 2:48:37 PM PST by Caleb1411
Probably the Crips and the Bloods. God bless them, because they need it more than I do. Why shouldn't they be able to have it? Especially if they think someone may try to kill them. You've put me in a most absurd position of defending the Crips and Bloods (lol), but I have to do it. Are you saying that they don't have a right to make themselves safe because they are gang members? Even an animal has the right to make itself safe and defend it's own life and the lives of it's offspring.
Let's try another argument. Ex-girlfriend knows ex-boyfriend is a sicko and may try to kill her. Because there is an outside chance that a criminal may use vehicle armor and a cop may be killed, none of us are entitled to protect ourselves? So potentially many of us should be killed so that potentially few cops should be saved.
This is kind of a silly debate to spend so much time on, as things would have to be really bad for me to even consider "armoring" my Tacoma. But it's quite parallel to the gun control argument. The vehicle armor is not really the issue, elitism is. If I want to run 3/4 inch steal around my Tacoma, it's nobodies business but mine.
We've got to stop the ingrained thought process that tells us that certain government sanctioned people get to choose which government unsanctioned people get to have what privilages. It's not only unconstitutional, it's elitist and potentially dangerous.
The poll is posted on the internet. I know of a half dozen sites that provided links to it. People from all over the world were voting.
It is curious that the 17% who thought the images were a good thing matches perfectly with the Gallop Nation Wide Abortion Poll that showed 17% of the population is in the no-abotion-ever camp. I wonder why the two polls match so well.
Typical pro-abort non-response. Why don't you answer the question? Because the house of cards you and other pro-aborts have carefully constructed will fall in a thousand pieces.
What is more likely is that when the abivalent person is standing in the ballot booth deciding on a Pro-life question they might think "I am not going to vote for those SOBs that slapped those pictures in my face."
Where does it show that?
And I still say, if it were run in a conservative newspaper's web site, that the majority of the answers would've been different. Had it not been for YOUR posting it last night, that would have been one of the last places in the world I would've checked out.
Of course that is the only necessary comeback (and my exact position).
But then again, Californians (as in jurors for the OJ trial) don't believe in DNA.
Pollster: "In the case of rape or incest, do you support a woman's right to choose?"
Joe Schmoe: "Well, I don't support abortion. That's the killing of a baby."
Pollster: "What if it means the mother woman would DIE? Do you really want the mother woman to DIE???!!? What if the baby will die anyway, and only an abortion will save the mother's woman's life??!! Do you really want to her to not have a right to choose, even thought the baby would die anyway??!!"
Joe Schmoe: "Well, in that case, I suppose an abortion would save her life, if the baby would die anyway."
Pollster: "Thank you." *click*
Pollster marks an "X" next to the "Pro-Choice" box, and makes another call.
What was the thing in the womb at 18 weeks, that was alive with beating heart and under stress from the artificial or accidental events? What if the brilliant doctor were able to extend this life support function for fetuses back to 16th week or to the 12th week? Would the 12 week fetus then be considered a toss-up, to be disposed of if the life supporting woman wanted, or should this most blessed nationgive life support if it was the option via technology when she rejects the job?
As a person reads the above scenarios, many questions and 'oh no you don'ts' arise, depending on preconceived notions regarding the preborn. Under current law, if a woman decides to stop life support of her womb (all the way to the 38th week and sometime beyond!), she is free to order the killing of the preborn, in many states (and with the legal clout of NOW and NARAL and the ACLU, she could probably press her case in all fifty states). Should it be so if science can save the tiny lives if removed from her body because she decides to stop life support? Should there be law requiring a pregnancy to go to the 26th week if a woman decides she wants to stop life support?
I'll let this offering float for discussion and try to come back later to enter into the debates. Here's a hint though: in this nation, our founding documents assert that life is an endowment from the Creator, not a permission of someone else, so the status of one about to be removed from life support is very protected everywhere except if the life support is a woman's womb. Should we the people tolerate such gross wrong?
Apparently, it is not a question of WHETHER OR NOT we murder people. It is a question of whether or not we OK it first!
How many people died in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon attacks? Why were we so mad ?
We didn't OK IT ?@?!?!?!?!?!?!
How many pre-borns are aborted EVERY MONTH ?????
But that is OK, because we have been OK'ing it ?!?!?!?!!#?$$$%*&#*&@(!*&(&(*%&(#*$&#($&(@*#&@(*#& Where oh where did some human beings get this wall in the brain that can seperate MURDER into an OK and NOT OK category? I mean the word MURDER, not the word KILL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.