65 Girls At Ohio High School Pregnant

I don't see smoking ruins. Haven't you noticed that some excesses from the 60's and 70's, such as high divorce rates, have settled back a bit as people have taken stock of the downside? Aren't you happy that back-alley abortions that left the pregnant woman injured--or dead--are a thing of the past? I am. I'm happy to see segregation removed, along with Jim Crow laws. Crime's down (possibly as a result of sex education, contraception, and abortion). I do see smoking ruins of a Christian society, but I think that's good. If America tossed out its non-Christians today, it would be the end of our global scientific dominance, much of which has been due to its ability to attract foreign scientific talent. Long live multiculturalism and secular humanism, which make modern America possible!

And where are the lowest divorce rates and some of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S.? Not in the Bible Belt. The lowest divorce rate in the U.S is in secular, blue-state, Massachusetts, my home, and home of good sex ed programs and gay marriage.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
I don't see smoking ruins. Haven't you noticed that some excesses from the 60's and 70's, such as high divorce rates, have settled back a bit as people have taken stock of the downside? Aren't you happy that back-alley abortions that left the pregnant woman injured--or dead--are a thing of the past? I am. I'm happy to see segregation removed, along with Jim Crow laws. Crime's down (possibly as a result of sex education, contraception, and abortion). I do see smoking ruins of a Christian society, but I think that's good. If America tossed out its non-Christians today, it would be the end of our global scientific dominance, much of which has been due to its ability to attract foreign scientific talent. Long live multiculturalism and secular humanism, which make modern America possible!

And where are the lowest divorce rates and some of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S.? Not in the Bible Belt. The lowest divorce rate in the U.S is in secular, blue-state, Massachusetts, my home, and home of good sex ed programs and gay marriage.

Mariner.

America is great due to freedom, not secularism. Why is it that all you smart injuns can't make shit of your own country?
 
Mariner said:
I don't see smoking ruins.

I know you don't. More's the pity.

Mariner said:
Haven't you noticed that some excesses from the 60's and 70's, such as high divorce rates, have settled back a bit as people have taken stock of the downside?

That they have managed to do so over the steady drumbeat of the destuctive, hedonistic liberal culture is nearly miraculous.

Mariner said:
Aren't you happy that back-alley abortions that left the pregnant woman injured--or dead--are a thing of the past? I am.

The conservative movement is not about outlawing abortion outright. It is concerned with restoring to the people their rightful power to determine the conduct their everyday lives. This is done at the state, community, and - ultimately, then - INDIVIDUAL levels. It is the devolution of power away from large, impersonal, central government; it is the beating heart of the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, if it is important to you and your neighbors that a woman be able to enjoy her child-killing experience in clean, non-judgemental surroundings - then enact precisely those laws in your state. But stop trying to do a judicial end-run around MY rights!

Mariner said:
I'm happy to see segregation removed, along with Jim Crow laws.

Thank conservatives.

Mariner said:
Crime's down...

Thank conservatives.

Mariner said:
I do see smoking ruins of a Christian society, but I think that's good.

I applaud your candor, if nothing else. The power brokers of liberalism feel exactly as you do, but do not - as yet - find it politically expedient to blurt out the truth of their hearts so nakedly. As they continue to watch power and influence slip away, they'll become more desperate - less subtle - comically hysterical. I, for one, look forward to it. You guys will be easy to spot - spewing out your impotent rage to audiences unsympathetic and contemptuous. I want a front-row seat.

Mariner said:
If America tossed out its non-Christians today, it would be the end of our global scientific dominance, much of which has been due to its ability to attract foreign scientific talent.

But America - being founded on Christian priciples of tolerance, and the unfettered exercise of free will, tempered only by the rule of law - is not about to do that. For that level of murderous, tyrannical exclusion, one would have to look....hmmm... where? Oh - I know:

Mariner said:
Long live multiculturalism and secular humanism...

Mariner.
 
musicman said:
I know you don't. More's the pity.

That they have managed to do so over the steady drumbeat of the destuctive, hedonistic liberal culture is nearly miraculous.

The conservative movement is not about outlawing abortion outright. It is concerned with restoring to the people their rightful power to determine the conduct their everyday lives. This is done at the state, community, and - ultimately, then - INDIVIDUAL levels. It is the devolution of power away from large, impersonal, central government; it is the beating heart of the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, if it is important to you and your neighbors that a woman be able to enjoy her child-killing experience in clean, non-judgemental surroundings - then enact precisely those laws in your state. But stop trying to do a judicial end-run around MY rights!

I applaud your candor, if nothing else. The power brokers of liberalism feel exactly as you do, but do not - as yet - find it politically expedient to blurt out the truth of their hearts so nakedly. As they continue to watch power and influence slip away, they'll become more desperate - less subtle - comically hysterical. I, for one, look forward to it. You guys will be easy to spot - spewing out your impotent rage to audiences unsympathetic and contemptuous. I want a front-row seat.


But America - being founded on Christian priciples of tolerance, and the unfettered exercise of free will, tempered only by the rule of law - is not about to do that. For that level of murderous, tyrannical exclusion, one would have to look....hmmm... where? Oh - I know:

One excellent point after another. Great post, MM.
 
musicman said:
Therefore, if it is important to you and your neighbors that a woman be able to enjoy her child-killing experience in clean, non-judgemental surroundings - then enact precisely those laws in your state. But stop trying to do a judicial end-run around MY rights!

Can you specify which of YOUR constitutional rights is being violated when a woman has an abortion?
 
MissileMan said:
Can you specify which of YOUR constitutional rights is being violated when a woman has an abortion?

It's the baby's rights being violated, oaf.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I'm just saying: Typically objections to abortion are based on the fact that it's baby killing.

In this case, Musicman is claiming HIS rights are being violated if a woman gets an abortion. I was asking which right.
 
MissileMan said:
In this case, Musicman is claiming HIS rights are being violated if a woman gets an abortion. I was asking which right.

Oh yeah. Umm. well... er.. ummmmm... yah....
 
MissileMan said:
Can you specify which of YOUR constitutional rights is being violated when a woman has an abortion?

Sure, MM - glad to.

When the federal judiciary institutes - and enforces - a national policy on abortion - irrespective of the wishes of the people and their duly elected representatives - it has insinuated the central government in an area where it is expressly forbidden - in Amendments I and X - to go.
 
To answer your question more squarely and directly, then - what is being violated by "abortion rights" as proscribed by the federal judiciary - is MY right to representative government.
 
musicman said:
Sure, MM - glad to.

When the federal judiciary institutes - and enforces - a national policy on abortion - irrespective of the wishes of the people and their duly elected representatives - it has insinuated the central government in an area where it is expressly forbidden - in Amendments I and X - to go.

The way I understand it, the SCOTUS found that states were in violation of the U.S. Constitution which is strictly forbidden, regardless of the wishes of the people.
 
MissileMan said:
The way I understand it, the SCOTUS found that states were in violation of the U.S. Constitution which is strictly forbidden, regardless of the wishes of the people.

Ah, yes - you'd be talking about yet another rank perversion of the XIVth Amendment. Roe was a grotesquely flawed, agenda-driven misinterpretation of both IV and XIV; the worst kind of judicial abuse of power. Constructionists know it - conservatives know it - and the American voters know it. That's why they keep electing conservatives who promise to rein in the judiciary. Roe is a dead man walking.
 
"Why is it that all you smart injuns can't make shit of your own country?"

The answer is the legacy of colonialism.

When the British arrived in India in the 1600's, India had no impoverished masses, and was not overpopulated. It had 17% of the world's productivity, while Britain had 3%.

The British, driven by the typical Western view that their superior culture and religion gave them the right to exploit other societies, skillfully moved this wealth to England. An egregious but typical example was cutting off the hands of silk-weavers, then taking the silk (raw material) to England where it could be woven, so the added value and profits accrued to the British, not the Indians.

As a result, England became an empire, with India its "jewel in the crown," while India itself sank from the richest country in the world to one of the poorest.

With poverty comes overpopulation. With overpopulation comes more poverty.

England did, however, leave India several things that will likely help it drag itself out of this sad state, includiing unity, schools and the English language.

When my cousin came to M.I.T. a few years ago, over 90% of his Indian classmates left India for America, because that's where the opportunity was. Now, fewer than half do. So the brain drain that has helped keep India down (and build America up) is ending.

1/6 of the Harvard medical students whom I teach are Indian. This shows the terrific potential of Indians--the benign, accommodating nature of Indian culture makes it easy for Indians to succeed in the U.S. (officially, we're the most successful immigrant group).

Another cousin, a vice president for a large American investment firm in India, is bullish on the country. All her investments are there.

The U.S. has been far too complacent about the importance of imported talent to our success. 50% of my cousin's M.I.T. class were non-American, and this is generally true of our graduate schools in the sciences and technology.

In the year 2100, a resurgent India might be outsourcing work to an impoverished America.

Mariner
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top