[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
There was never an actual point to address, at least not one presented by raj.
[/quote]
You are completely and utterly wrong.
Are you joking around here or have you lied to yourself enough where you really believe the above?
I know you are smart enough to understand what he wrote, and it has jack and shit to do with nazi’s.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I am not understanding what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase this another way please?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Finding statistics to argue the case for life is incredibly easy. To prove the case for abortion, you must prove the unborn are NOT alive.
[/quote]
Incorrect, the death penalty is generally accepted and those people are definitely alive. So being alive or not has nothing to do with abortion being acceptable.[/quote]
[/quote]
If you are against the death penalty in ALL cases then you are expected to completely disagree with me which is understandable. In that case there is no need to rephrase as we can just agree to disagree. What is your stance on the death penalty?
Re:Chile, for kneedragger
“Concern over high maternal mortality rates resulting from illegal abortion lead the Chilean government to launch a publicly-funded family planning program in 1964. Deaths due to illegal abortions dropped from 118 to 24 per 100,000 live births between 1964 and 1979.”
^So, once family planning became a factor, less women died from illegal abortions. Imagine that.
“There was also a statistically significant decrease in maternal deaths due to abortion from 1990 to 2000.[9] Experts attribute the decline in hospitalizations due to abortion during this period to the increased use of sterilization and antibiotics by illegal abortion providers …”
^Illegal abortion providers sterilized women. That’s a much better option than abortion!
"A July 2008 all-female nation-wide face-to-face poll by NGO Corporación Humanas found that 79.2% of Chilean women were in favor of decriminalizing abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk … "
"According to the study, 74.0% of women believed abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, 70.1% in instances of fetal abnormality and 24% in all cases a woman decided it was appropriate … "
Just to quote a few. The great majority seem to believe it’s OK if the woman is at risk, if the kid is fucked up, or if she was raped. Three great reasons to have an abortion.
"In 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Council expressed concern over the country’s “improperly restrictive” legislation on abortion, especially in cases where the life of the mother is at risk … "
^In summary, kneedragger, Chile seems to have a number of abortion related issues, when 3/4 of women disagree with the law as written. Try again.
I will quote the introduction from a book written thirty two years ago by William Brennan, titled “Medical Holocausts” and here are his words rather than mine. “Although every holocaust ever perpetrated is an unprecedented event in its own right, this should not detract from what all holocausts share in common. The central element of any holocaust … whether it involves the extermination of Jews by the Nazis, the annihilation of Russians by the Soviet regime, or the slaughter of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge … is the systematic and widespread destruction of millions looked upon as indiscriminate masses of subhuman expendables. The basic ingredients for a holocaust exist whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect. This is all the fuel necessary to ignite destruction on the level of a holocaust. Once one group of individuals is deemed unworthy of the designation human, the precedent is established for defining ever growing numbers of people and groups out of the human race and along with that, denying their most fundamental right, the right to life itself. When the rights of some are extinguished, the rights of all are in jeopardy. As callousness to the value of human life increases, so does the the likelihood of a monumental holocaust.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote: You are completely and utterly wrong.
Are you joking around here or have you lied to yourself enough where you really believe the above?
I know you are smart enough to understand what he wrote, and it has jack and shit to do with nazi’s.[/quote]
The death of another human makes you no better than any other original killer. Enjoy your company because you are now a sociopath who simply justifies the killing of another person. I am totally against the death penalty fyi.
How about you travel on down to Chile and then you will realize that you can’t source wiki as anything credible. Try again.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Re:Chile, for kneedragger
“Concern over high maternal mortality rates resulting from illegal abortion lead the Chilean government to launch a publicly-funded family planning program in 1964. Deaths due to illegal abortions dropped from 118 to 24 per 100,000 live births between 1964 and 1979.”
^So, once family planning became a factor, less women died from illegal abortions. Imagine that.
“There was also a statistically significant decrease in maternal deaths due to abortion from 1990 to 2000.[9] Experts attribute the decline in hospitalizations due to abortion during this period to the increased use of sterilization and antibiotics by illegal abortion providers …”
^Illegal abortion providers sterilized women. That’s a much better option than abortion!
"A July 2008 all-female nation-wide face-to-face poll by NGO Corporación Humanas found that 79.2% of Chilean women were in favor of decriminalizing abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk … "
"According to the study, 74.0% of women believed abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, 70.1% in instances of fetal abnormality and 24% in all cases a woman decided it was appropriate … "
Just to quote a few. The great majority seem to believe it’s OK if the woman is at risk, if the kid is fucked up, or if she was raped. Three great reasons to have an abortion.
"In 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Council expressed concern over the country’s “improperly restrictive” legislation on abortion, especially in cases where the life of the mother is at risk … "
^In summary, kneedragger, Chile seems to have a number of abortion related issues, when 3/4 of women disagree with the law as written. Try again.[/quote]
a necessity in some cases.
Ok, so what about these cases ?
-an middle/upper class woman.
married.
already has a child.
want another child.
get pregnant.
Choose to abort because she suddenly realize that if she doesn’t abort, she will give birth to her child during her scheduled winter holidays.
-an upper class woman
married
occasionaly frequent swinger’s clubs because, while she loves her husband, she enjoy “recreational group sex”.
get pregnant
choose to abort because she’s unsure of who the baby’s father is (and anyways, the child would be, god forbid, a sagittarian).
Abortion-as-a-“woman’s right” allows and actively encourages this kind of irresponsible behavior.
i’m neither against sex education nor giving financial aid to young women who are pregnant. Quite the contrary.
Now about the “cases of rape”, here is a third case :
A 16 years old girl.
My best friend when i was in high school.
was drunk when she entered the car of an adult male.
was pregnant when she left the car
told me her story. Finally decided to talk to her family.
choose to abort because, well, she was a 16 year old abused girl.
choose to not go to the police because, weel, she was a 16 year old abused girl.
Abortion-as-a-“woman’s right” allows us, as a society, to bury such cases, because you don’t even have to state what the motive of the abortion is.
Do i think that this girl should spend her life in jail because she is a murderer ? Obviously not.
I actually backed her up to the clinic’s doors.
But i do think that there should at least be some degree of legal involvement in such cases. Here, the answer is (or should be) depenalization, not legalization.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The death of another human makes you no better than any other original killer. Enjoy your company because you are now a sociopath who simply justifies the killing of another person. I am totally against the death penalty fyi.
[/quote]
Now I am a sociopath? Countingbeans was right, you are impossible. Maybe one day a criminal might do something to one of your family members and you will rethink your death penalty stance.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The death of another human makes you no better than any other original killer. Enjoy your company because you are now a sociopath who simply justifies the killing of another person. I am totally against the death penalty fyi.
[/quote]
Now I am a sociopath? Countingbeans was right, you are impossible. Maybe one day a criminal might do something to one of your family members and you will rethink your death penalty stance.[/quote]
It always irks me when people make arguments like this.
The death penalty is a serious and permanent thing. If KD is only changing his mind on the topic to suit his own personal vendeta, then he’s just as wrong as he was before he changed his mind. He’s still in the mindset that his personal preferences should be coercively enforced upon and funded by the masses through the state.
Having someone agree with you means nothing if essentially all they’re doing is re-directing their ‘stupid’ at someone else. Raise your standards a bit.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I will quote the introduction from a book written thirty two years ago by William Brennan, titled “Medical Holocausts” and here are his words rather than mine. “Although every holocaust ever perpetrated is an unprecedented event in its own right, this should not detract from what all holocausts share in common. The central element of any holocaust … whether it involves the extermination of Jews by the Nazis, the annihilation of Russians by the Soviet regime, or the slaughter of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge … is the systematic and widespread destruction of millions looked upon as indiscriminate masses of subhuman expendables. The basic ingredients for a holocaust exist whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect. This is all the fuel necessary to ignite destruction on the level of a holocaust. Once one group of individuals is deemed unworthy of the designation human, the precedent is established for defining ever growing numbers of people and groups out of the human race and along with that, denying their most fundamental right, the right to life itself. When the rights of some are extinguished, the rights of all are in jeopardy. As callousness to the value of human life increases, so does the the likelihood of a monumental holocaust.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote: You are completely and utterly wrong.
Are you joking around here or have you lied to yourself enough where you really believe the above?
I know you are smart enough to understand what he wrote, and it has jack and shit to do with nazi’s.[/quote]
[/quote]
You are a googlebot.
No doubt in my mind.
Either that or retarded.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
No matter what your statistics say, I know countless women who are effected by those decisions.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
and then you will realize that you can’t source wiki as anything credible. Try again.
[/quote]
Consistency, you have none.
This page = your information contradicts my view, therefore your source isn’t creditable
Last page = your data contradicts my view, therefore anecdotal evidence trumps creditable sources
Got to be fucking kidding me.
If I kill another human murderer, what makes me different than the original killer?
Find where I changed my position on life, please. Then cite the thread. If you can find my changing of position on abortion/life then I will leave this topic forever. Interesting, how your stance on the state and yet you believe it should fund current programs. Know this tigger, I agree the death penalty is a serious topic, a seriously bad and wrong choice. Glad we agree about killing another human. The problem then becomes this; if the unborn are NOT human and alive from the very moment of conception then what are they?
edited
[quote]TigerTime wrote: It always irks me when people make arguments like this.
The death penalty is a serious and permanent thing. If KD is only changing his mind on the topic to suit his own personal vendeta, then he’s just as wrong as he was before he changed his mind. He’s still in the mindset that his personal preferences should be coercively enforced upon and funded by the masses through the state.
Having someone agree with you means nothing if essentially all they’re doing is re-directing their ‘stupid’ at someone else. Raise your standards a bit. [/quote]
Just because a book is over thirty years old, that never changes the substantiality or truth of the matter.
[quote]countingbeans wrote: You are a googlebot.
No doubt in my mind.
Either that or retarded.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If I kill another human murderer, what makes me different than the original killer?
[/quote]
Since you google your other information, you should be able to find an answer for this too. Just be sure to skip over your propaganda sites as they don’t have the answer to everything.
I will try explaining it a different way. If you search the topic of ‘abortion’ you will have this result - abortion at DuckDuckGo - and then look up the ‘positive aspects of abortion’ you find this - positive aspects of abortion at DuckDuckGo - and if you actually talk with women in front of the death machine called Planned Parenthood then the results will be different again. Or you could go look for the stories of women who regret abortion. Here is valuable source - Abortion Stories | Abort73.com - Where do you think the truth lies?
I know a HUMAN CHILD is murdered and slaughtered every single time an abortion occurs. Women are ignorant to the truth when they go into a PP clinic and the doctor performs a surgical abortion. Chemical abortions are even worse.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
No matter what your statistics say, I know countless women who are effected by those decisions.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
and then you will realize that you can’t source wiki as anything credible. Try again.
[/quote]
Consistency, you have none.
This page = your information contradicts my view, therefore your source isn’t creditable
Last page = your data contradicts my view, therefore anecdotal evidence trumps creditable sources
Got to be fucking kidding me. [/quote]
[i]WHOOSH![/i] Swing and a miss.
Obama-appointed judge dismisses Belmont Abbey’s HHS lawsuit
by Cardinal Newman Society Fri Jul 20, 2012
A U.S. District Court dismissed Belmont Abbey Collegeâ??s lawsuit against the department of Health and Human Services over the contraceptive mandate.
While this would seem devastating to the cause of religious liberty, the judge, an Obama appointee, didn’t actually judge the merits of the Catholic college’s case. The court dismissed the case because the Obama administration had not yet amended regulations to better reflect religious objections as it has promised to do. The court stated in its opinion that “Belmont’s injury is too speculative to confer standing and that the case is also not ripe for decision.”
“At the end of the day, the Court offers no opinion on the merits of the current contraception-coverage regulations or any proposed future ones,” wrote U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in the decision. “If Plaintiff (Belmont Abbey) is displeased by the ultimate regulations, it may certainly renew its suit at that time. All the court holds here is that Belmont has no basis to proceed now.”
Belmont Abbey College’s lawsuit was the first suit filed against the HHS. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College in November of last year.
“Yesterday’s decision in the Belmont Abbey College case was on technical grounds: the judge thinks that the case should be delayed for a matter of months to give HHS time to fix the mandate. The decision says nothing about the merits of Belmont Abbey’s religious freedom claims, and has no effect on any of the 22 other cases currently pending in federal court,” said Hannah Smith, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty senior legal counsel in a statement. “It simply delays Belmont Abbey College’s ability to challenge the mandate for a few months, and the court made clear we have the right to re-file the case if HHS (the Department of Health and Human Services) does not fix the problem. We are reviewing the decision and considering our options, but one thing is clear: Belmont Abbey College and the Becket Fund will continue the fight for religious liberty, even if this case is delayed for a few months.”
When the Obama administration filed it’s first legal response to Belmont Abbey College’s lawsuit, Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund told The Cardinal Newman Society that the administration didn’t argue at all on behalf of the constitutionality of the mandate.
“You might have expected them to argue that we don’t have a constitutional claim,” he said at the time. “But instead they said ‘hey didn’t you hear we may fix it someday?’”
Rienzi called it “really cynical” to have a law on the books but then argue that the court shouldn’t look at the law, because the administration said they’d fix it some day in the future.
But that argument seems to be the principal motive behind the court’s dismissal.
This has been an eventful week for the cause of religious liberty in that this is the second case against the HHS mandate to the dismissed this week -the first to be dismissed was a case brought by seven attorneys general alongside a number of other plaintiffs. The case was dismissed on similar grounds. But an evangelical college, Wheaton College, also filed a new suit alongside The Catholic University of America.
Belmont Abbey College President Bill Thierfelder was reportedly out of town this week and wasn’t available for comment.
This article originally appeared on Campus Notes, the blog of the Cardinal Newman Society.
^ A screenshot from one of CARE’s documents outlining their enthusiastic support for and provision of contraception. ^
U.S. bishopsâ?? relief agency gives $5.3 million to major contraception-providing charity
by John-Henry Westen Tue Jul 17, 2012
Co-author Angela Oâ??Brien
July 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the epic battle between the American Catholic bishops and the Obama Administration over being forced to pay for contraceptive coverage, the efforts of the bishops have been undermined time and again by individual Catholics and Catholic entities that support contraception. One major example of this is within the Bishopsâ?? own jurisdiction.
Catholic Relief Services (CRS), â??the official overseas relief and development agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishopsâ?? has recently given millions to an organization that doles out contraceptives, including abortifacient â??emergency contraception.â??
The most recent CRS annual returns (2010) indicate that the largest CRS grant â?? $5.3 million â?? went to CARE, an international â??relief and development organization,â?? that actively promotes and provides contraceptives for women in developing countries, and supports pro-abortion groups and legislation.
According to the 2010 990s, CRS gave $5,380,466 to CARE, which is noted on page 86 of the filing.
Noted theologian Dr. William Marshner told LifeSiteNews that he believes the CRSâ?? funding of CARE is â??ghastly.â??
â??Obviously this expenditure of funds on the part of Catholic Relief Services is an immoral use of the money,â?? he said.
Human Life International, the largest international pro-life Catholic organization is similarly troubled. There is â??no way to support CARE financially that does not also support the problematic work that they do,â?? Fr. Shenan Boquet told LifeSiteNews.
The HLI president noted that that CARE has made â??â??reproductive healthâ??â??which typically includes contraception as well as abortionâ??a cornerstone of their â??developmentâ?? strategies.â?? Because the revenues that CARE receives are fungible, he said, any funds given them would automatically support their whole programâ??including abortion lobbying and contraception.
â??We hope that CRS reconsiders its funding for CARE and for other groups who have for some time, whether knowingly or not, set themselves against the Churchâ??s view of the dignity of the human person,â?? said Fr. Boquet.
When asked if, given the evidence on CARE, CRS would end its partnership with the organization, CRS Communications Director John Rivera said â??no.â?? He indicated that concerns had already been raised and dismissed.
Rivera told LifeSiteNews that CRS doesnâ??t so much give the money to the organization as act as a â??pass-throughâ?? for federal funding to such groups, and that the money is given only to projects in line with Catholic teaching.
However, when asked if CRS would similarly issue â??pass-throughâ?? funding to Planned Parenthood for a morally neutral project, Rivera replied in the negative. â??We would never partner with Planned Parenthood,â?? he said.
He explained the difference saying, itâ??s about â??the preponderance of work they do.â?? Rivera noted that CRS acts on criteria developed by the U.S. bishops. â??Weâ??ve given this a lot of consideration, and thereâ??s a threshold in terms of what the focus of an agency is, and the preponderance of their work.â??
Marshner, the founding professor of theology at Christendom College, took issue with this rationale:
â??Well this is like saying that we will fund an organization that does 50 or fewer assassinations a year, but not one that will commit 50 or more assassinations a year. The idea of such a threshold is preposterous. The only defense would be if a group to whom they had given money incidentally, or rarely, or accidentally, or inadvertently did something immoral with it. But, if the group to whom the money is given has a regular practice of using some of their funds in this way, then it is immoral for a Church organization to give money to that outfit.â??
In its Mission Statement, CRS claims to â??uphold the sacredness and dignity of all human life,â?? and â??embody Catholic social and moral teaching.â?? In April 2009, CRS senior communications manager, Tom Price, told LifeSiteNews: â??We would not fund any [abortion] advocacy organization.â??
Price said at the time that CRSâ??s official policy â??on relationships with organizations that carry out activities counter to Church teaching is that we would not partner or fund them. This is very clear policy at CRS. We are an agency of the Catholic Church and we do not just follow Church teachings, we embrace them.â??
However, CAREâ??s provision of contraceptives is explicit. In a statement on International Womenâ??s Day, the CARE website declared: â??â?¦CARE instituted community-based distribution systems to make contraceptives available at clientsâ?? doorstepsâ??.
While claiming that â??CARE does not fund, support or perform abortions,â?? CARE notes its partnership with leading abortion-provider Marie Stopes International (page 4).
CARE also provides abortifacient emergency contraception. â??Together with governments and other partners,â?? the CARE website states, â??we are focusing on emergency obstetric care, family planning (including emergency contraception)â?¦â??
In an article titled â??A Request for President Obamaâ?? on the CARE website, CARE clearly expresses its hostility to anti-abortion legislation: â??Thankfully, on Election Day, we did not choose four more years of conservative, unsympathetic leaders. Under the previous administration, we simply made it far too difficult for women outside of the U.S. to access reproductive-health and family-planning services. Case in point: In 1984, the Reagan administration established the Mexico City Policyâ?¦ because it denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family-planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion or counsel, or even to refer abortion or to lobby for the legalization of abortion.â??
HLI President Fr. Boquet called for the immediate defunding of CARE, and for a review of its granting policies.
Protected–Unless You’re Pro-Life
On July 13, Andy Moore of Texas, woke to a knock on the door. Not so strange, if a bit earlyâ??perhaps a neighbour with a question, or a wrong addressâ?? But when he opened the front door, he found two men from FBI standing there; and they had a list of questions for him.
So what did Andy do to merit this federal attention? Deal drugs? Plan jihad? Illegally download thousands of movies and mp3 files?
Nope.
Andy is a sidewalk counselor, and Right to Life activist, and he stands in front of a late-term abortion facility most days of the week. He prays there. And he offers Crisis Pregnancy center flyers to the women who pass him, and a choice other than the killing of their unborn child.
Heâ??s also the son-in-law of prominent pro-life blogger and commentator Jill Stanek, who as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., discovered the hospital doing late-term abortions, and then leaving the babies who survived in a utility closet to die. Sometimes, it was an agonising eight hours before the infants breathed their last.
So why was the FBI at his home again, this balmy July 13, bright and early?
Thatâ??s what we want to know; and itâ??s a question any individual valuing their Constitutional rights ought to be asking at this point.
Since Obama took office, numerous suits have been thrown at Right to Life proponents, and the administration has tried to throw FACE at the courts to rationalise their witch hunt. Often, those bringing the suit offer a â??settlementâ?? in which the counselors must pay thousands in a fine, and agree to stand some specified distance further away from the clinic if they choose to come back. This kind of intimidation has scared some off for good.
â??Targeted bullying by our government because of an individualâ??s viewpoint and willingness to share that message in the public square is intolerable,â?? says Allison Aranda, an attorney with LLDF (Life Legal Defense). And if cock-and-bull lawsuits are targeted bullying, sending the FBI out to a private residentâ??s home is downright gestapo.
Making the claim that the clinic had complained of trespassingâ??a misdemeanor of which their was no record, no proof, and which Moore has never been charged withâ??the two agents proceeded to ask a string of prying questions: Aside from church, what were Mooreâ??s affiliations? How long had he known his wife? Why did he believe in his cause? What was the belief system behind it? Did he know people had made complaints about him? And did he know thatâ??as an immigrantâ??he would be deported if he had a felony on his record?
A felony? Deported?
They also were kind enough to let him know their specific division was responsible for dealing with abortion cases, along with White Supremacy, and Hate Crimes. If this isnâ??t outright scare tactics, the KGB never tortured a confession out of a prisoner.
It is Planned Parenthood that was founded by a eugenicist, not Operation Rescue. But Obamaâ??s administration has set itself stridently against the Right to Life movement, and any link which puts a smudge on the perception of pro-lifers seems to be a greenlight from the get-go.
â??Thatâ??s why this election is so important. We need to get this administration out of the White House,â?? says Dana Cody, director of LLDF, â??What business does the FBI have investigating someone like that when thereâ??s no record of any misconduct, when Jill Stanek is openly stating her position on blogs? They just donâ??t like the viewpoint.â??
Moore hasnâ??t a speck on his record, and the most anyone has on him is â??complaintsâ??. Sounds like a job for the local sheriff, doesnâ??t it? Or more reasonably, a job for a journalist looking for a story, since all Moore had was his story, his passion for protecting the unborn and helping their mothers, and a dead-end dearth of any illegal activity.
The spine-chilling aspect in all of this is that I have done more radical activism than Mr. Moore. I have never been arrested, nor have I broken the law. But I stand in front of clinics. I have used a bullhorn at Obama fundraisers and in front of the Chinese Consulate, and I have written blogs and opinions since I was 12 defending life and attacking the legalisation of child-killing. So should the FBI show up to see me? Do I deserve a visit? The Survivors stand out on the sidewalk all year roundâ??in front of abortuaries, in front of and on the campuses of colleges and high schools, speaking the truth. The Survivors during Pro-Life Training Camp make a two-week marathon of prayerful, intense, truth-telling action, witnessing to the fact that human life is valuable at any stage, no matter how vulnerable. Have we merited the attention of the FBI?
What if our speech was no longer â??protectedâ?? speech under the First Amendment. After all, we are sub-categorised with Hate Crimes (a bosh category if ever there was one).
The First Amendment guarantees a right to free speech, free press, freedom to demonstrate in favor of or against a current administration, law, or idea.
We believe that it is inherently wrong, socially detrimental, and morally abhorrent to kill a human being, whatever age, size, or intelligence that human has attained. We speak that, act on it, demonstrate in favor of protection for pre-born people, and that constitutionally protected speech has been lumped with hate crimes under the current administration.
Andy Moore has given us a first glimpse of what the current administration will look like if we give them four more years. The HHS Mandate is not the end of the Obamaâ??s administrationâ??s evangelical support of the Culture of Deathâ??it is symbol on the books of what Obama believes about our rights, and our lives. That belief spells out the defense of life as â??hate crimeâ??, and demands a full-blooded participation in the killing of thousands of innocents each day by all of us, regardless of our beliefs. It is a declaration by those calling themselves pro-choice that they will give others no voice, and no choice in this matter.
â??Thatâ??s why this election is so important,â?? said Cody, director of Life Legal Defense, â??What business does the FBI have investigating someone like that when thereâ??s no record of any misconduct? They just donâ??t like the viewpoint.â??
That is why this election is so important. No child deserves the death penalty, and no mother deserves to be told that killing is a valid choice. And this is not just a viewpoint: this is the truth.