You wanna’ know what chaps me? II by USARottweiler
The American Civil Liberties Union claims in a federal lawsuit today (Mar 8, 2006) that California's lethal injection protocol violates the First Amendment.The ACLU says the injection protocol violates the rights of execution witnesses by not allowing them to see if the inmate is experiencing pain before death.
But THIS, evokes not a word from the Atheist Communist Lickspittle Union...
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted.
The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse.
The dead baby is then removed.
By the way, anyone happen to know where these rights of execution witnesses are written? I didn’t notice them when I was reading that document that guarantees our right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An unalienable right, I believe was the term used.
The Reverend (?) Jesse Jackson said that absentee voting in the New Orleans mayoral election will prevent a black victor, so the election should be postponed.WHAT?
Imagine, if you will, a white person in say, Bismarck SD, saying the same thing about a local election, substituting the word “white” for the word black. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that the word “racist” would emanate from the Reverend pretty quick.
This guy is the modern day Doc Holliday when it comes to playing the race card.
How does having re-located people vote by absentee ballot hurt a black candidate anyway?
Actually I do know why and if you think about it, you will too. Sad but true.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
speaking (briefly) of abortion, i have been trying very hard to figure out those in liberal circles consider it a women's rights issue. i understand that it involves the woman's body, but i have never been convinced by any of the "arguments" put forth that what is inside her is not a body as well, so why doesn't the child have a right to it's body?? why do they talk in terms of rights, rather than responsibilities??
i was particularly blown away by a debate going on here. there is a lot of "if a man doesn't want to get a woman pregnant, he shouldn't have sex," but no is saying the woman also should consider not having sex if she doesn't want to risk pregnancy. it's all very strange, and logic seems to have no place in the entire debate. so frustrating.
my first sentence should say "to figure out *why* those in liberal circles etc."
and in the second 'graph, "no *one* is saying the woman etc."
sorry!
The pro-choice crowd seems to believe that a woman's choice starts AFTER she is pregnant with an unwanted baby.
However, the first choices are actually:
1. Do I have relations with this person?
2. Do we use birth control?
Once you are pregnant, it's not a matter of choice on whether to remove a part of your body, but whether to murder one of God's precious children.
Post a Comment