Mr Farrius

So, one and half million families are willing to pop up and take a child home? Interesting. If so, then you are correct, the adoption process has nothing to do with abortion, but is merely conducive to the kids who have no family, source of living, or home. Where did you find out that one and half million families are looking for adoption?

Of course, it is easy to find one and half a million homes in an instant. However, where does the funding come from?

Oh, okay. This issue has been a puzzle to me for many years and now that I'm convinced, I'm eternally grateful as well. FastNed, what's wrong with the present world? The present world is one in which the U.S. tries to promote democracy and human rights. That's why nations like France can oppose the U.S., and rightfully so! Would it not be hypocrisy to adopt a fascist mindset and go on a killing spree? Does the U.S. have the right to be inhumane (though it preaches humanity) merely because it is the biggest, strongest, and wealthiest? If so, then that is obviously an abuse of power and such a thought is sickening. And I find no difference between the U.S., Nazi Germany, or Russia if such power is egregiously misused. Don't argue with me about national security and protecting citizens. There are numerous ways to deal with issues rather than adhering to the ways of cowards, through destruction. Mark my words: The U.S. has the power, but not the right, just like people have the power to kill, though most certainly not the right.

It just goes to show that some rightwingers who claim that the left is a bunch of fools who accuse and don't prove, are really the fools themselves. The left is continuously accused of making sweeping generalizations and absurd propositions. Statements like those undermine the rightwing. I think that Greg should monitor more carefully what kind of absurd plans are being said on this forum. For all we know, people like Nuclear might start proposing that the U.S. should take over the world.

Enlighten me. Give a couple of examples that to your definition is "hard news information". Furthermore, provide me with some links that prove that Bush would be a good candidate for the 2004 presidential election. Make sure they're not biased.

I must protest! Prevention isn't murder. I hope to never compared to Stalin, who abused women, calling his own mother a whore. You have kids growing up who end up committing suicide anyway. I just find it more humane to help those kids not experience all of that.

You want to start another argument about the validity of evidence. Show me any "reliable" source that isn't biased in someway and then come to me. Crap huh? Next time, provide some right winged sources and I'll make sure to shove it in your face and call it "crap". That's why you are ignorant. You seem to have a mindset in which liberals can never be right. HAH! Left wing sources are crap and right winged sources are all "based on real evidence"? Give me a break. Btw, not all of them were from left winged websites. One look and BOOM, it's faulty evidence huh? Did you even take time to read all of them? Evidently you didn't. If you read all the articles in the websites, actually took time to peruse them carefully, unpartially, without having a mindset unable to take in information that seems liberal, and chew on the information, you might find that you learn something new my friend. You can't do this for me?

Really. Abortion causes child abuse and neglect when, excuse my bluntness, it gets rid of the child? I realize what you are saying, but abortion in no way, shape, or form, has a direct impact on child abuse and neglect. Rather, in a more obvious sense, it prevents more children from having to deal with it. To bring up another point: anti-abortionists make the assumption that every woman has the same personality. Well let me ask you this. Just because one woman is able to handle her mistakes and take responsibility for them, doesn't mean others can all do the same. Some women might be in shock or even traumatized with the idea of having to raise a kid they don't want. Whatever happens, they can't deal with it. Some might be angry at the fact that they have to raise a kid but accept reality, having the kid anyway, but not really loving or caring that child. Others however, might be able to accept responsibility for their child. I find it cruel to presume that all woman can deal with a sensitive situation like this in the same way. Of course, there will be the argument that women shouldn't be punished or killed if they commit murder because they're "sensitive", or something to that extent. But I hope we're all intelligent humans here. Men are just physically and mentally different from women. Men deal with things better, no offense to women. I respect women, and hope for a society in women aren't considered inferior or incapable, I advocate their rights strongly, especially in an issue like this.

My proposal for rape is that aborting the child does not undo the rape and is likely to traumatise the rape victim even more. Let the woman bear the child and be compensated for the pregnancy and if, after her birth, she does not want her baby, let the baby be adopted. Where does the man come into play??

Why are you skipping around what he really has to say? Anyways, here is an article that I think proficiently explains the situation in Israel and Palestine: ON ISRAEL: I like to equate it with two kids fighting over the remote and then the mother lets the one kid play Sony Station while the other cries incessantly waiting for his turn, but it's much worse. The tantrum has escalated to a point that I can only categorize in one word, nastiest divorce in history. Puts "War of the Roses" to shame. Talkin' Israel vs. Palestine obviously and quite frankly at this point, I don't even know who's right. Thinkin' they don't know either, which is why we need to step in and put our foot down, like the attorneys if you will. Seems like they just want to destroy each other no matter what the consequences. There's such a deep seeded bitterness and hatred that's been festering for years (dare I say thousands) there's no amicable solution to the crisis at hand. Yet, not unlike divorce, somehow when you least expect it, treaties/papers are drawn up in the midst of the massive irreconciliable differences. That, even though you hate your spouse with all your heart and soul and can't understand why you ever married them in the first place and wish them a horrible demise on an hourly basis, agreements can be hammered out in the 25th hour. Very painful at first, but eventually Bogart breath, you see the light at the end of the infamous tunnel. Both factions have to compromise and make life altering sacrifices in order to co-exist in peace. Israel has to give back some, if not all of the land gained in the '67/'73 Yom Kippur War (really wasn't a good idea to attack on their holiest day of the year) and Palestine has to stop the lunacy of killing innocent people with their insane suicide bombers. What does Bush call that, yeah terrorism that's right. Don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that both sides have to come to the table in earnest, swallow their pride, forget about past grudges and move on together in harmony. Easier said then done sports fans. Definitely need new blood leading the negotiations, little tired of Jesse Jackson, Clinton, Jimmy Carter. Like to see Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jerry Garcia, maybe the ganja king Bob Marley or George Harrison in command, but they're all dead. And I'm thinking at this point it's way over the head of Colin Powell, just too big in scope, beyond confrontational, no win situation. Course there's always that stellar group the United Nations, but what do they do at crunch time? And when ya get right down to it, who really listens to their enactments? Let's ask Iraq, they've been shakin' in their boots for years. Initially my picks were going to be Mario Cuomo and none other then the Tea for the Tillerman, Cat Stevens. Everyone Islamic loves the Catman. And Cuomo's been a hit since the convention yadda years ago. What politician do you trust more then Mario? But then, it finally dawned on me. And I nominate this savior in all candor, truly from the bottom of my heart. None other then (don't laugh) the head guru himself, the Dalai Lama. Thank you. If ya can name me a better candidate, just do it Nike heads. Imagine being alone in a room with the Dalai Lama, pin drop silence, talking about whatever's on your mind from the serious to the sublime. Who's cooler, hipper, wiser, more tranquil, spiritual, enlightening, compassionate, impartial, patient, the list is endless. Not sure he's available, may be booked already, but he'd be my selection to turn the dream into reality. Fly them all to Geneva, always a good vibe summit. Can't see Sharon and Arafat arm in arm traipsing through the mountains of Tibet, although the exercise would do Ariel good. One too many corned beef specials smothered in schmaltz. And if his friend Yasser could go on a Beatle free diet and look a little less like Ringo, might all just come together. Right now. -Barry Mitch http://www.hackwriters.com/BarryMitch.htm

"sigh"... Fine fine, I have taken some time out of my busy schedule to provide evidence for my assertions. Here are just a couple of sites to prove why Bush is a bad leader and why he needs to be replaced by someone else. http://www.hermes-press.com/Voting/vote_rig.htm http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/cat...p_outrages.html http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/cat...ocrisylies.html http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/cat...ation_lies.html http://www.mikehersh.com/Poll_full_of_bad_..._for_Bush.shtml http://www.gristforthemill.org/083103_Bush...h_approval.html

oh really? Why should a woman have to deal with a child that she never intended to have? You always talk about the woman taking responsibility for her actions. Rape isn't her action. Therefore, the responsibility does not lie on her.

Well, what if a woman was raped?

Well, society and reality are cold Moderate Centrist. And of course, there are going to be a "few" exceptions. But I merely state reality.

The issue between Palestine and Israel can not be debated without bias. One side cannot argue that Israel is right, and Palestine wrong, and vice-versa. Nobody here on this forum is Palestinian, and probably very few or none at all, Israeli, so this issue cannot be discussed without ignorance or bias. How can you argue in favor of one side or the other when you do not fully understand the rationale and feelings of the other side? What one side might view as terrorism, the other might view as patriotism.

I understand. In a right winger's view, a right winger can do no wrong, no matter how stupid, how corrupt, or how ineffective they are at what they do. I totally understand and admire the way you stick up for your party.

What's the point of raising a child that'll grow up with a miserable life? A life without decent familial care, without love, without attention? Parents of such a child having sex at an age where they can't take responsibility for their actions is already a sign that something is bound to be wrong in the future. As a result, kids of such parents can only grow up and make more trouble for society. Ruining a potentially successful child's life is worse than not letting them go through the harsh realities of life at all, with the way they're bound to grow up.

What I'm merely saying is that the government is making too many laws that it cannot enforce. What's to stop a woman from aborting her baby if she really wants to do so?

No. What I'm saying is, let the government show that they can adequately prevent loss of life in other areas and then concentrate on abortion rights. It's a credibility issue. Otherwise, the legislation to restrict abortion is pointless. It would just lead to women aborting their children illegally in other ways. The government probably won't do much about that.

So, your argument is that France lost more, and the U.S. isn't losing enough...??

Is that so? Does the U.S. really want less responsibility? Is that why it charged into Iraq, regardless of the UN, and now that it's in a sticky situation, wants help? Give me a break. The U.S. only helps other nations when it benefits in doing so. That's why it didn't help Liberia as quickly as it should've, but rushed quickly into Iraq (for oil).

Of course it can keep the U.S. out of trouble! I'm tellin' ya, the U.S. is sticking its nose in too many places putting itself deeper and deeper in hot water. Just what right does the U.S. think it has the right to police the world?? It should mind its own damn business.

You forget that the United States government cares for the United States and not Bob, Fred, or Mary. According to your last assertion, society has an obligation to protect children from even their parents. Well I say this. First society should start "protecting" people from other issues such as murder, rape, and kidnapping and then focus on abortion. In other words, restricting abortion is really pointless because society hasn't done even a decent job in protecting people in every other aspect.

Yea no kidding. When you look at the pitiful strategy the American government has made in occupying Iraq (avg of one soldier dying a day), you know that it has its main interest in something else. Either send more troops to complete the job adequately, or pull them out after establishing a strong Iraqi government ASAP. It is so obvious that the U.S. is trying to spend as much time as possible in Iraq for the sake of oil. P.S. This should be in the conspiracy thread.

Wow. The U.S. and the French should be best friends then!