kwall

i didn't post it. i just responded to it. just as you did.

it's fricking hilarious, but not because it was a good joke. i'm laughing because i love to see the libs continuing this notion that god is a democrat and that he has blessed us with obama. awesome. no, that doesn't make sense. you libs are always falling for the promises of butterflies and daffodil fields.

i love this argument. if someone is trying to convince you to take responsibility for your actions, then they have to be willing to do it FOR you in order to be considered valid.

i'm as big a fan of potentially baby-making activities as anyone, but you have to accept the fact that it is indeed potentially baby-making. this is where your choice is made. you may not want it, but you got it - as a result of your choice. now, you want to be absolved of the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your choice. that's not a persuasive argument for me. yes, i know, there are millions of irresponsible, selfish guys out there. before roe v. wade, the government didn't tell you you had to have a baby. it told you that once you had it, you weren't allow

i'm not familiar with his position on immigration. can you educate me?

legislated doesn't necessarily mean outlawed. it may mean legalized. it's the legislature's job to decide what is legal and what isn't. currently, it has been "legislated" by the judicial branch of government. so i guess we agree there. it shouldn't be.

hating wilco is unconstitutional.

oh, i see. i'm sorry i misread you. you're right. i'll hold out hope that someday you'll agree with me. i was being facetious about the father's "right". the pro-lifers don't want to control anyone's body. they want to save babies' lives. they believe there are two bodies in a pregnant woman. i could just as easily make the argument that the pro-choicers want to control the child's body, by doing away with it.

i do leave them alone. i'm just talking here. some people are wrong. i don't have any predictions about "success". all i have to say about roe v. wade is that, in it, the court saw something in the constitution that isn't there and thereby, overnight, fabricated this "right". the legislature (ideally, the state legislatures) should address it. desperate very young people will always exist and will be contemplating/doing dangerous, immoral things.

most cases of sexual intercourse are rape? i'm going to need to see some support for this claim. he is part of the consequences, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not. i agree with you there. if he disappears, that's a serious imbalance, yes. i'm all for righting it. oh, by "righting" it, you meant killing the baby. sorry. does that mean the father should also have this "right"?

we're in agreement there. it's beyond the u.s. constitution. agreed. coerced pregnancy is wrong. agreed. it's not fair. agreed. here's where we differ. killing the baby is not an option in my opinion. but, in any case, we've agreed that this is not in the constitution, so i think that means that roe v. wade is not valid. you'll need to get an amendment for this.

well, yeah, there's a whole spectrum of beliefs out there. some people believe the earth is flat and point to bible verses that describe the "four corners of the earth". my point was that you shouldn't dismiss someone's willingness to acknowledge the existence of science just because you heard they believe in a creator.

a women has control over her uterus (excepting the case of rape or incest for the moment) by allowing or disallowing herself to be inseminated. what you are really talking about is her "right" to escape the natural consequences of her actions. the constitution describes no such right, regardless of what the supreme court "found" in it.

A belief in evolution and the science behind it and a belief in a creator are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not explain how life began.

a uterus can punish you with a baby.