The part of my post about abortion was to separate religionists from the rest of the herd.

The part about shooting illegal invaders was to separate patriots from the Left and Right both.

I did this to see if anyone out there is a realist, and I want to thank all of you for helping me make up my list. You see, the religionists, regardless of politics, think that human life is the only life that's sacred. If I'd asked if it was okay to kill a cow with an unborn calf, few would have objected. But reality is that if any life is sacred, then all of it is. Or vice versa.

Likewise the idea of shooting those who enter illegally. They are wrecking our country, or helping to, at least, and must be controlled, and we do have the right to control them. This isn't just in our laws, it's reality, like it or not. A lot of you don't like it and your solution to the quandary I put in front of you was to call me names.

Now that I have my list, I'll know right off who and what is responding to me and what to expect. Thanks.

The part of my post about abortion was to separate religionists from the rest of the herd.

The part about shooting illegal invaders was to separate patriots from the Left and Right both.

I did this to see if anyone out there is a realist, and I want to thank all of you for helping me make up my list. You see, the religionists, regardless of politics, think that human life is the only life that's sacred. If I'd asked if it was okay to kill a cow with an unborn calf, few would have objected. But reality is that if any life is sacred, then all of it is. Or vice versa.

Likewise the idea of shooting those who enter illegally. They are wrecking our country, or helping to, at least, and must be controlled, and we do have the right to control them. This isn't just in our laws, it's reality, like it or not. A lot of you don't like it and your solution to the quandary I put in front of you was to call me names.

Now that I have my list, I'll know right off who and what is responding to me and what to expect. Thanks.

If I kick the women in the guts and kill that baby, I go to jail for murder, if she for whatever reason she feels like playing on in that moment decides to kill the baby shes within her "RIGHTS"?, please someone in here in this vast majority of Solomon's explain to me where "MORALS" play into either one of these scenarios????? if a living plant is growing under the topsoil but we cannot see it is it not still alive and growing? if the baby is alive and growing inside the womb but we cant see it is it not still alive and growing, how then does the word "RIGHTS" play or weigh in on the fact that you are killing it, whether or not you call it "it" or give it a name or buy clothes or decorate a baby room, whatever, you have "KILLED" that living thing, but in the socialogistical mindset of our "we know better than you" PC progressive world of anything goes, we make ourselves believe that there's nothing wrong with "KILLING" the "LIVING" thing inside of "HER" womb if she chooses that path because its "HER RIGHT" as a women to do so. now as I asked please someone come back to me with the moral aspect of saying thinking and being okay with this thought process.

Abortion has always been a religious issue over these morals or those morals, instead of being a total non-issue. All that the flap over abortion really is, is control by men over women.

If someone deliberately kills an unborn baby against the mother's wishes, that should be murder, as well as assault and battery. But if the woman wants to rid herself of her pregnancy, that should not, because it's Her Body.

Anyone attempting to illegally enter our nation outside of our regular ports of entry should be shot on sight because that constitutes Invasion. We have every right as a sovereign nation to repel invaders any way we see fit. Start shooting the bastards and they'll stop swarming in.

The other thing is that the baby in her womb has a different DNA than that of the mother. So if the baby's DNA is different than the mothers DNA how is that the mothers body then that we talk about. I would say that any part of the mother like her leg or arm or feet and hands all have the same DNA and are therefore the mothers body. Once that DNA is different than the mothers it is not the mothers body any more and must be considered a life unto itself and would therefore be covered under the constitution to have the full benefits of the constitution. I believe those benefits are also given by our creator and that is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything short of that should be considered murder and tried as such. I also know that Obama while a senator in IL tried to introduce a bill that would have allowed for the killing of the baby even if and when it is completely outside the womb and laying on the table. We have really gone down hill as a society when we condone this type of behavior. Also if you look at statistics it has been shown that this being used to control the size of certain ethnic groups of people. I believe that the highest rate of abortion is in the black community and the second is in the hispanic community.

I hate to say this Blacksheep, but you sir, are an idiot. You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose when any law will be enforced. If it is murder if she wants to keep her baby, then it is still murder if she decides to kill it. If it is not murder if she does it, then it is not murder if someone else does it. It's that simple.

Now then, as to your stupid statement about it being her body, that is the biggest crock I have ever heard. That baby is not her body and she does not have the right to kill it. That baby has it's own life and it's own body, so where do you come off saying it does not deserve to live just because Mommy decides she doesn't want it?

You say this is a religious issue and that is a total crock too. It is a human rights issue and it is that simple, but you are to stupid to see it or you just like killing babies. So according to you, when does a baby get it rights, before or after you kill it?

One more thing. This has never had anything to do with men having power over women. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but then considering the source I can understand why you would say that. You just can't help it.

I really don't understand were you get off saying it is OK to murder someone and that everything is fine just because they have not been born yet. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you are not...........

Blacksheep commented: "If the woman wants to RID HERSELF OF HER PREGNANCY?" How cold is that? He's talking about a baby here. If the woman does not want to become pregnant, there are enough pills and birth control out there for her to avoid the circumstance.

What should be fostered is the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with being a parent, including the lifestyle changes and the financial requirements. Having and taking care of a child can be the greatest delight in our lives (I have been blessed twice with that joy) - but without preparations for its entrance into the world, the child will suffer, and the parents as well.

And yes, I believe in choice - what I disagree with is WHEN that choice should be made. And what of the choice of the unborn baby? When were we granted an option to deny them THEIR right to life? It is BEFORE pregnancy that we should be making these decisions - both the prospective mother AND father.

It is our obligation as mature adults to consider the consequences of our actions and our task as parents to advise our teenagers of the same. Passion is an intense, yet temporary emotion. Parenthood is a lifetime commitment.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." (Ronald Reagan)

I thought this issue would be more real on this forum. Men do not have a voice in this issue unless the female involved wishes to include him. Women have the right to chose until birth is eminent. Get over it. This is a freedom issue and no one has the right to tell a woman what to do in this dilemma.


Our borders are arbitrary lines set up based on wars of aggression by governments or treaties after the wars. Mostly they have no basis in reality, it is hoodoo. Capt. Freemont in 1848 took California by conquest. General Pershing did the same. The Mexicans took California back. Quit whining. Move on.
Wetbacks from any of the Latin countries are usually good people. Who would you rather have someone with the courage to travel a thousand miles to get to our southern border; find a way to cross and find work.
Or a Somali read follower of islam imported by obama? I'll take the Mexican every time. A contractor friend of mine would call up the workers agency and tell them if they are Mexican send me two, if they are white or black send me three.