Posted on 11/28/2001 2:48:37 PM PST by Caleb1411
At 6:15 a.m. in an industrial park in central Los Angeles, a plain-looking warehouse is unlocked. Beyond the iron gates and surveillance camera, another iron gate leads to a truck yard, which leads to the giant doors. Inside, the trucks are warmed up. A few more people show up. Some are staff, some are volunteers and two of them are off-duty police officers who will escort the trucks.
The reason for all the security is apparent when you look at the trucks. Photographs of aborted fetuses, blown up to billboard size, decorate each side of the bed of every truck. The word "Choice" in quotation marks and a web address loom over the photos. Some of the babies are juxtaposed against a dime as big as their entire body. Every working day, five days a week, since June, these trucks have been on the freeways of Los Angeles turning heads for three hours as they drive through morning traffic.
The trucks are the latest weapon of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a non-profit pro-life group dedicated to getting the public to face the issue they love to avoid. Its founder and director, Greg Cunningham, briefs the crew before leaving on today's run. Using a large map, he reveals his plan. Today they will follow a loop that begins on the 605 North to 60 East to 57 North, to 210 West to 134 West, to 405 South to the 10 East to 5 South and back to 605 South. "We will drive this loop ad nauseam -- that is, until every driver that has seen us is nauseated!" Cunningham jokes. The session ends with a brief prayer. At 6:40 a.m., everyone boards the trucks.
Riders wears body armor -- a 50 pound, bullet-proof SWAT vest with steel panels on all four sides of the torso. Each vest has pepper spray in its pocket. Helmets are located under the seats, just in case. "The California Highway Patrol turned down our application to armor-plate the cabs," explained Cunningham. "The windows are not bulletproof, but they are coated with mylar film, which can stop a brick. We don't put our people in harm's way for the purpose of getting beaten up."
A security car, outfitted like a police car, follows the convoy of trucks, keeping lanes clear behind them and making sure no one can stalk the convoy upon return to the warehouse. The security car and the trucks are equipped with video cameras that document all surrounding activity on each trip. Each member of the convoy communicates by radio. "Violence against pro-lifers is under-reported because a lot of pro-life activists just don't think the police will do anything about it," explained Cunningham, "and frequently they won't do anything about it. It's harder to get district attorneys to prosecute it and it's harder to get judges to find people guilty for it or penalize them significantly. [Yet] a bogus allegation of an assault against a pro-abort is likely to land a pro-lifer in jail."
During the early part of the trip, the trucks are going against the commute. Stalled traffic on the other side of Highway 60 cannot miss the message on each truck. The trucks move at 45 mph, the minimum legal speed on California's highways. As he drives, Cunningham explains their mission. "The truck campaign is an outgrowth of the [pro-life] Genocide Awareness Project, which involves the outdoor display of large photo murals on university campuses. We've now been on 33 public campuses all over the country. Probably three quarters of a million students have seen these pictures now.
"The campus project resulted from a fairly sophisticated analysis we had done on the unchanging principles of social reform, going back 150 years or more. We've examined every movement from the abolition of child labor, the abolition of slavery, to the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam war movement. Successful social reformers invariably used horrifying pictures to dramatize injustice and to confront the culture and prick the collective conscience. But since the reformers were social liberals, they found sympathetic allies in the press, who would broadcast these photos. Clearly, the press, if not hostile, is certainly not sympathetic to our [pro-life] point of view. So we had to come up with a new mass medium, a way of putting these pictures into the heads of people who are never going to see them in the media. The freeway system is built for transportation, but it could be appropriated for educational purposes. Commutes are getting longer and freeways are getting more crowded each year and you basically have a captive audience of people who can't change the channel and can't turn the page when they see us."
Cunningham's voice is earnest, steady and gentle. "When I am asked a question on talk-radio, two or three words into my answers, everyone starts shouting me down. When I was on the Leslie Marshall show, she got so angry with me that she hung up on me. I was supposed to come on at six in the evening on the Brian Whittaker show; but he kept me on hold until six-thirty, just beating the heck out of us, criticizing, misstating facts, and taking hostile calls, not letting me off hold into the conversation; so I finally hung up. Without realizing it, these talk show hosts who are so vehemently opposed to the truck project are making our point, which is, you can't hang up on the trucks. You can't put them on hold and you can't shout them down.
"The trucks are in your face," said Cunningham. "That's critical, because another aspect of social reform that we identified was massive societal denial among people complicit in injustice or complacent in response to the injustice. They felt guilty about it, and, as a consequence, didn't want to know more about the injustice than they already knew. So if you want to teach people who don't want to learn, you've got to develop methodologies that don't rely on the consent of the person you are trying to educate. Once you look at the pictures, they are in your head and you're never going to get them out. Every time you hear the word 'abortion' thereafter, instead of an abstraction, you are going to see a dead baby, tortured to death, bloody, sickening. Over time, if you have a functioning conscience, these images will begin to change the way you feel, think and ultimately, behave."
"Those who shout me down are foils for me," mused Cunningham, "because they are demonstrating their fear of my answer. These trucks have created pandemonium on the other side, because there is nothing they can do to stop this. If they respond violently, they draw more attention to us and discredit themselves. If they take us to court, they create a forum for the project. It's like the dilemma of an animal caught in a leg-hold trap; the harder it pulls, the deeper the teeth sink into its leg. The pro-aborts don't know whether to ignore this or resist it, so the only semi-coherent criticism we hear, besides 'You're upsetting children,' is that the pictures aren't real. The liberals know that if the pictures are real, they're dead. There's no moral defense for their position that's in any way convincing, so they resort to the same tactics that neo-Nazi skinheads employ when confronted with evidence of the Holocaust. They just say the pictures are fake and it never happened."
Cunningham recognizes that some people will never be convinced. "This project only works with those who have a functioning conscience. This is an educational, not a spiritual, project. A person who understands the magnitude of the evil that abortion represents and endorses it nonetheless is not ignorant but is morally bankrupt. I'm not aiming this at the 20 percent of the population that is irremediably evil, but at the, maybe, 60 percent that's just confused about all of this or believes abortion is the lesser of two evils because they don't know how evil it actually is. Evil that remains invisible quickly becomes tolerable. It's imperative that you make it real to people."
The unwanted nature of the message is what Cunningham believes gives it power. "That creates a great deal of anger, but Martin Luther King created a great deal of anger, the anti-Vietnam war movement created a great deal of anger. Earth First creates a great deal of anger. Social reformers don't care what people think of them, but what people think of injustice. I'm willing to get people angry at me to get them angry at abortion."
Though a conservative, Cunningham does not spare conservatives in his prescription to end abortion. The principal reason the pro-life movement has made so little progress over the last 30 years is because social reform is new to conservatives," he said. "Conservatives, to their discredit, are frequently defenders of an unjust status quo and it's political liberals who usually try to effect reform. Conservatives mistakenly imagine that in order to be effective, you have to be liked. At some level, they just can't deal with disapproval the way liberals can." Conservatives are "beaten down by liberals who are very clever at identity politics. 'If you're against abortion, you're against women.' That's an intellectually dishonest way of changing the subject; to discredit your opponent because you don't want to deal with his argument. None of those tactics work in the face of a dead baby picture in your windshield on the way to work. Is this a baby or isn't it? Is this an act of violence or isn't it? Should this be lawful or not?
"The pro-life movement doesn't have a clue as to how to change peoples' understandings of the facts of abortion. They just want to shout conclusions and opinions at people. What's really bizarre is that mainstream pro-life organizations and the Church are working harder than Planned Parenthood to suppress the best evidence we have -- photo evidence -- that abortion is an act of violence and it does kill a baby."
Cunningham is very disappointed with the efforts -- or lack thereof -- of Catholic bishops to fight abortion. "The U.S. bishops just bought an ad campaign whose operating principle is subtlety. During the Vietnam War, the working press had historically low approval ratings because people were angry that night after night the television showed the police chief of Saigon blowing out the brains of a Vietcong suspect, or naked children whose clothing was burned off by napalm running toward the camera. Those photos lodged in the public mind and gradually eroded public support for U.S. involvement in the war. The press was willing to take the hit. The protesters were willing to accept persecution. They had their eyes focused on a public policy objective and you can't win that on the cheap.
"But the bishops want to win this on the cheap," continued Cunningham. "They are laboring under the misconception that to be effective you have to be liked. They need to go back and read the prophets of the Old Testament and note the consistency with which they were persecuted and even martyred. Jesus said, 'If they persecute me, they will persecute you.' Well, they're not persecuting the bishops because the bishops have been very careful to avoid any behavior that invites persecution.
"The National Council of Catholic Bishops is releasing these insipid, 'subtle' ad campaigns that are designed to be just pro-life enough to mollify the 20 percent of the Church that is comprised of traditional orthodox Catholics, but not pro-life enough to antagonize the 20 percent of parishioners who are hard-core pro-aborts and are constantly trying to throttle and thwart pro-life activism in the Church. So the 60 percent who are in the middle on all of this are just abandoned to twist in the wind. It's the attempt to create the impression that NCCB is serious about abortion, when they're really only doing half-measured, conscience-salving stuff that is so dishonest.
Cunningham is equally disappointed with Evangelicals in the fight for life. He believes both Catholics and Protestants are losing an opportunity and uses the term "the Church" as a reference to all denominations. "The bishops are wrong about this," he said. "It may be that when you offend people they will close their ears, but I'm not speaking to them. I care what they do with their eyes and they can't close their eyes on the freeway without having a wreck. We are a visual culture. So many people in the pro-life movement learned in an age when people read and listened. That's over. Kids learn today by looking, and people my age, middle-aged people, don't get that. The bishops and Respect Life coordinators don't get that, and that's one of the reasons we're losing this thing. Gut decision makers tend to be voyeuristic; so if that's where the culture is, that's where we've got to engage them. The bishops are just bureaucrats. If the bishops were where the pope is in the fight against abortion, this fight would be over.
"This slaughter is occurring with our permission. The Church is permitting an atrocity to happen that God has given us the resources to stop. That's why the Church has blood on its hands in a very real sense. When Jesus commanded us show our love for God by obeying His commandments, he wasn't just talking about prohibitions against doing evil, He was talking as well about our affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of those who are being victimized by injustice. That's what the parable of the Good Samaritan is about and it's that affirmative duty that the Church is failing to discharge. Even while the Church mumbles platitudes about abortion being law, you show me your checkbook and I'll show you what you're serious about. From that perspective, the Church is hardly serious about abortion. All 'peace and justice' issues are irrelevant to dead babies. Illiteracy, homelessness, poverty, disease, hunger are absolutely irrelevant to a dead baby. Abortion is a threshold sin. It's a foundational evil."
As we turn on the 210 and enter the San Gabriel Valley, traffic gets heavier. As we get closer to Pasadena, the cars start getting more expensive. Although no one is making obscene gestures at us today - otherwise a frequent occurrence -- many people are glaring or staring at the trucks. Passengers in cars point and seem to be having animated discussions. "When we are in Orange County and the Inland Empire, we get looks of stunned disbelief," said Cunningham. "Some people will attempt to cut us off or break into the convoy. They'll do that when they haven't seen the police car behind us. We'll see more aggressive driving the closer we get to West L.A. That's where the cultural elites are.
"Sometimes we'll go into Malibu and Topanga Canyon and that's where the studio bigwigs are. You'll start really seeing the obscene gestures and scowls and frowns. They're scandalized because they regard these areas as their domain and we're violating the sanctity of their liberal environs by bringing the truth of abortion to Malibu."
To prevent legal harassment, the project keeps two public interest law firms on retainer: the Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Thomas More Center. "We involve counsel in the planning of everything we do, from the conceptual level all the way through implementation," said Cunningham. "We structure our activities to give us maximum litigation advantage and our adversaries the minimum of openings to harass us in court. In the eleven years the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform has been doing its work, we have not been sued once. We are easily the most aggressive pro-life organization in the country. We've only sued someone else once; we brought a federal lawsuit against Indiana University last year and forced a settlement on them that allows us to display our Genocide Awareness Project at a very prominent location on their campus."
In spite of the "in your face" approach of this project, Cunningham denounces all pro-life violence. Still, Cunningham thinks the pro-life movement has not been all that violent. "Look at the history of social reform," said Cunningham, "and note the thousands of bombings and riots and injuries and arrests and murders (especially during the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam war movement). Compare that to the pro-life movement, where only seven lives have been lost in 30 years, with only a tiny fraction of bombings and arsons and virtually no riots. To suggest that the pro-life movement has been violent is preposterous. There were more people killed during a few days of rioting in the Rodney King matter in Los Angeles than have been killed in the entire history of the pro-life movement -- not only in this country, but worldwide.
The Genocide Awareness Project is funded by donations. "Ironically, much of our work is being funded by people in the southeastern United States. There are some enlightened donors there who believe the best way to fight abortion in Kentucky is by funding pro-life activism in Southern California because California is such a trend-setting state. If you're able to make a dent in public opinion here, the theory is that the influence that the activism creates will spread to other parts of the country. Almost all of the funding has come from private individuals and almost none of it is institutional money." What is Cunningham's goal should the funding continue to increase? "Expansion to more cities," he said.
A former state legislator, justice department official, and assistant U.S. attorney, Cunningham, 54, says something deeper keeps him doing pro-life work. "I sat in the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles," said Cunningham, "and every week watched 25 or 30 resumés come across my desk from people at very good law firms and from very good law schools; day by day it became clearer to me that any one of these people could do my job at least as well as I, and some of them better. But none of them would be willing to fight the greatest moral evil the world has ever seen. I thought to myself, 'I'm going to have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ and explain what I was doing while the sewers of our cities were running red with the blood of our children.'"
"I don't understand Christians who agonize about being in the will of God and then dedicate their lives to doing the work that the pagans are perfectly willing to do! Christians want to live a 'normal life' and the 'American Dream,' but that notion would have been absolutely anathema to firstcentury Christians. I admit, I'm a materialistic person. I used to have a private plane. I had a Rolex and drove a Porsche, and I miss them. But I can't have those things and sit here on the freeway, scandalizing Southern California with the horror of abortion. We've got to make a choice. If I'm going to be serious about giving more of my time to this work, then I've got to be willing to live more modestly than I was willing to live. I'm not some super-spiritual person; this was not easy. My contemporaries with whom I went to law school are at the apex of their careers, doing things I would rather be doing and living in places where I would rather live.
"A guy named Leith Anderson wrote a book called Dying For Change about the Church," continued Cunningham. "He noticed that the Church and para-church organizations tend to move away from geographical centers of cultural influence while liberal organizations tend to move into centers of cultural influence. We see this again and again, that conservatives would rather live where they want to live and be left alone, where liberals want to change the world. So liberals go where they can have the greatest possible impact -- the news centers, media, entertainment and education - to the points of influence that have the greatest impact on the culture. Conservatives, again, are dumb as a post about all this. The irony of it is most traditional Christians, Catholic, Evangelical, what have you, are conservatives, and they're under a biblical mandate from our Lord to change the world. It is we who are supposed to be changing that world and we have abdicated that responsibility to pagan liberals -- some of them masquerading as Catholic clerics."
As we enter a bumper-to-bumper 405 South at the Sepulveda Pass, we are in what Cunningham describes as one of the areas where the offense taken at the photos is greatest. He is able to generalize reactions according to car models. "Porsches aren't that bad and Mercedeses aren't that bad, but there's something about a BMW that attracts serious pro-aborts. I saw a lady who almost had a wreck on the 405 North; she got off at one of the Hollywood exits and she was leaning out of her window, wobbling and swerving, trying to shout backward at us, while she tried to exit. I was afraid she would get cut in half. If abortion is O.K., then why do these pictures upset them so?"
As we move south of Westwood, we turn east on 10 and traffic thins out. Gawkers continue to slow down and stare as they pass us, but the ride back to the warehouse is uneventful. As we pull into the lot, a pickup following us takes down the building's address, then flees before the police stop him. They don't bother chasing him. Another successful mission is accomplished. An estimated 400 thousand drivers have seen the message.
Cunningham's strategy is best summarized by analogy to a chess game. "This is like a chess game where we don't even let our opponent sit down at the table until we've pre-positioned the pieces to place him at checkmate," said Cunningham. "Then we invite him to sit down and tell him, 'It's your move.' Although we're not going to do anything unlawful or immoral, we're not going to play this game pursuant to rules written by pro-aborts and weak bishops."
The people you'd expect to be most coldly clinical about the beginnings of human life are actually the most sanguine:
In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the question "When does human life begin?" Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony. Although the pro-choice community was invited to send any expert it wished to testify before the committee, none showed up. Of the 57 people who testified, one expressed an ambivalence about conception's being the beginning of human life . . . and he did so from a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one.
*Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks, that human life began at conception.
* "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."
* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
* Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being." * Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."
Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the [Supreme Court] justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."
Liberals such as yourself believe this too...otherwise, they wouldn't attempt to socially coerce PC speech.
Since this is basically, and in the majority, a Judeo-Christian society, then the normal Judeo-Christian taboos would exist--this is bad because...?
If someone thinks stealing is a BAD thing, then my property is that much safer. If someone thinks adultery is a bad thing, then everyone's marriage is that much safer. If someone thinks murder is a BAD thing, then the lives of all around that person are much safer...you get my drift.
If sexuality is surrounded by ritual (meeting, dating, committing, and marrying) and taboo (no sex without the rituals observed), it is not necessarily a BAD thing--but I don't think you will agree, due to your judgemental remarks about the structure of Judeo-Christian society.
You certainly have the right to disagree with the Bible, which you manifestly do on this issue: "Just as you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything." (Ecclesiastes 11:5)
What you've made here is a religious declaration of faith. I'm curious: Is there any major world religion whose teachings concur with your assertion, or are you a religion unto yourself?
Agreed. Guilt is good thing in a general sense. When it comes to gult produced by artifical taboos, guilt is a foolish thing. For example inducing guilt over eating meat on Friday is foolish. Inducing guilt when teenagers do what their bodies tell them to do is foolish.
Since this is basically, and in the majority, a Judeo-Christian society, then the normal Judeo-Christian taboos would exist-
Since the taboos of which we speack are no longer taboos for the majority, there is something illogical about your statement.
If someone thinks adultery is a bad thing, then everyone's marriage is that much safer.
How about you worry about YOUR own marriage and leave other people's marriages to their own choices?
If sexuality is surrounded by ritual
Sexuality is always surrounded by ritual. Ritual exists for the devout Christians and for the pick up in the bar.
That doesn't take away from long labors of other women (such as my daughter), I'm just saying it's not always that hard.
And, you're welcome!!!!!!!!!! :-)
Thank you.
Is there any major world religion whose teachings concur with your assertion, or are you a religion unto yourself?
Not that I know of. I do not need the verification or approval of others to maintain my beliefs.
"leave other people's marriages to their own choices?" Like homosexual marriage? That's a matter of civil and church law....not a matter of "leaving [it]to their own choices."
"Since the taboos of which we speack are no longer taboos for the majority, there is something illogical about your statement" Well, I'm not sure what "majority" you're speaking about...but the majority is not, contrary to what YOU may have experienced, running around having sexual activity outside the cultural boundaries. Those who are, are experiencing guilt, which is appropriate, imho. And in some cases, experiencing deadly disease, as with HIV infection.
Of course, you may not be living in a "normal" area, one of the vast majority of areas in this country that voted for a more conservative government than under Clinton. You may not even have a conscience...In that case, we have no argument, because none is possible with the amoral.
I am surprised that you choose to argue with a cretan like me. Does this not drag you down to my inferior intellectual level?
§2501. The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol may issue licenses for the operation of privately owned or operated ambulances used to respond to emergency calls, armored cars, fleet owner inspection and maintenance stations, and for the transportation of hazardous material, including the transportation of explosives. Such licenses shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and regulations adopted by the commissioner pursuant thereto.
§2510(b) No person shall operate a privately owned emergency ambulance or armored car until the California Highway Patrol has determined that the vehicle is in compliance with this code and regulations adopted by the commissioner.
§2510. (a) A person applying for a license to operate ambulances or armored cars shall provide separate identification data and reports of inspection for each vehicle as prescribed by the commissioner.
(b) No person shall operate a privately owned emergency ambulance or armored car until the California Highway Patrol has determined that the vehicle is in compliance with this code and regulations adopted by the commissioner. Ambulances licensed by the department shall be inspected by the department not less often than once annually.
Section 2540 says "The commissioner may refuse to issue a license to any applicant for the reasons set forth in Section 2531 or 2541." You'd like to think that this means that they can't refuse to issue it for any other reason, and that's true, but their loophole lies in the regulations. Secton 2531 deals with transportation of hazardous materials, and the other reasons that they may use for denial are:
2541. (a) The commissioner may deny a license if the applicant or any partner, officer, or director thereof:
(1) Fails to meet the qualifications established by the department pursuant to this chapter for the issuance of the license applied for.
(2) Was previously the holder of a license issued under this chapter which license has been revoked and never reissued or which license was suspended and the terms of the suspension have not been fulfilled.
(3) Has committed any act which, if committed by any licensee, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of a license issued pursuant to this chapter.
(4) Has committed any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit whereby another is injured or whereby the applicant has benefited.
(5) Has acted in the capacity of a licensed person or firm under this chapter without having a license therefor.
(6) Has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, or been found guilty of, or been convicted of, a felony, or a crime involving moral turpitude, and the time for appeal has elapsed or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, irrespective of an order granting probation following such conviction, suspending the imposition of sentence, or of a subsequent order under the provisions of Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code allowing such person to withdraw his plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty, or setting aside the plea or verdict of guilty, or dismissing the accusation or information.
(b) The commissioner may also deny a license if a corporation is the applicant and the policy or activities of the corporation are or will be directed, controlled, or managed by individuals or shareholders who are ineligible for a license, and the licensing of that corporation would likely defeat the purpose of this section.
Now, I would assume that the only one that would concievably apply to these folks would be (1), "fails to meet the qualifications." These qualifications for armored cars are detailed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 2.
Section 1111 covers the general requirements for armored cars, to wit:
General requirements for issuance or renewal of an armored car license are as follows:
(a) Eligibility for License. A license to operate privately owned armored cars may be issued only to:
(1) Persons or firms regularly hired to transport money or other valuables that require special security
(2) Financial institutions
(3) Armored car dealers or manufacturers
(4) Collectors of vehicles of historic value or special interest and originally designed, manufactured, or equipped as armored cars
(5) Other persons or entities that can show legitimate need.
Obviously, they'd be applying under (5). So given the wording of the law, the issuer gets to determine what a "legitimate need" is. The people in charge of issuing the armored car licenses decided that driving an anti-abortion billboard around on LA freeways didn't constitute a "legitimate need" for armor on the vehicle.
You could take this to court and argue that you DO have a legitimate need, and present evidence to that end, and maybe the judge would agree and maybe not. It'd be a crapshoot, depending on the judge you drew. But the first time someone takes a pot shot at one of these vehicles, their rationale that there's no "legitimate need" for armor goes right out the window and a subsequent denial of an application for a license could undoubtedly be immediately and swiftly overturned in any court.
Thanks for being such a warrior!
You must live a good life for God to have rewarded you with fast and pleasent childbirths.
I have NO CLUE as to why God would allow that, but He did. And for that I'm most greatful. It can't be (???) genetic...my mom's were really easy too, we told my sister when it was her time: "Don't worry, nothin' to it".....and then afterwards she said she'd never speak to us again. She has. We're good buddies.
There's LOTS of stuff in my life where God has blessed me and I have no idea why....
Coming out of retirement for this one, pcl.
Sounds like you're one of the *just do it* crowd...or *if it feels good do it*. There's no personal responsibility in that type of practice...much less respect for the other person.
You speak adversely about guilt...How about self control?!
Yeah well...I can one up you there, Gramma. I never experienced labor but I gave birth...and I have Miss Hormone to prove it! lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAA
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.