I'll be back later! Talk to you then!
Edit: Well, I am back. :-) As Alex talked about today, there was a young man who recorded a liberal geography teacher ranting about the similarities between Bush and Hitler while in class. (Just wondering...What does political theory have to do with geography anyway?) But that was a big issue today and will continue to be one to watch.
Also, the Senate Approved the Patriot Act Renewal.
Another story which didn't seem to get as much attention was this story intitled "Bush differs with South Dakota abortion bill". It is a bit late for me to write a full comment, perhaps more on that later.
One thing though, is it right to kill a child because something wrong and evil happened to the mother?
James Robison's mother didn't think so.
Just some food for thought.
Goodnight all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
*goes to turn on FNC*
is it right to kill a child because something bad happened to its mom?
No. Just because something happened to the mother is not the child's fault (unless its one of those stories you hear on the news, but in that case its like never little kids doing it....)so the child shouldn't have to pay for something it didn't do.
Kindof playing off what Zach Said, As far as I know (and my parents have researched this) there has NEVER been a case where the mother's life was in enough danger to require an abortion.
However, now that I think about it...what is "immediate danger" defined as? because if we leave it open like we did with the filibuster thing with the term "extreme circumstances" the Abortion fanatics/doctors could interret that however they want.
though,I would imagine that immediate danger is something that is hard to misunderstand... anyway My 2 pennies.
Kp
Post a Comment