straightUp Loc: California

Is that what you call rational arguments and facts that conflict with what your daddy tells you?


You mean, your *thought leaders* disagree with all my premises. You just follow their narrative.


I'm not telling you how to worship I'm just calling out the BS about gathering being so critical to faith and worship.


Oh, is there more than one god Marty?


Look who's talking. Christian Conservatives have been trying to control people for as long as I can remember, telling people who they can and can't marry, what they can and can't smoke, who can and can't enter the country. Seriously pull your head out of your anus.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL - that's a good one Ranger... So, by the same token I can join all those people who say "pigs are people too". You might not agree but it's MY interpretation which is no less valid than saying God is love. So therefore eating pigs is the same as eating people. See how that works?

Look, people have been getting married long before any of the Abrahamic religions started teaching monotheism. It's absurd to claim that marriage has no basis other than God.


Love happens whether people believe in God or not. It's a human trait. If you want to dress it up in religion that's your prerogative. If you want everyone else to believe what you believe well, that's a personal problem.


I'm not sure what you're even talking about here. But I'm wondering why you said "let's look at some of the misconceptions you stated" and then just went off on a tangent. You didn't mention one point that I made and as far as I can tell, nothing in your statement has anything to do with ANY of my assertions.

I also wonder why you think serving in two wars put you you in the "heart of conservatives". There are lots of liberals that also served in multiple wars. Not everyone in the military is conservative. Neither can I understand how being a Roman Catholic or serving as an alter boy puts you in the "heart of conservatives". Most Roman Catholics I know are liberals and the Pope is certainly at odds with right-wing movements here and elsewhere.


As a liberal, I don't think the phrase "Merry Christmas" should be banned and I still continue to say it because despite the outrage, the phrase was never actually banned. Just because you get some excessive people with some crazy ideas doesn't mean they represent the views of of the left in general. Our agenda isn't set by a few crazy strays. That would be like me saying the conservative agenda set by the KKK.


In general, I suppose.


First of all, not everyone needs to religion to do that and secondly, if you really love thy neighbor you would wear a mask to help protect them from C****-**. If you aren't 100% that the masks make any difference then you would wear one anyway to be on the safe side. If you ARE 100% sure then you're more committed to that conclusion than even Trump himself, who wore a mask to a conference this morning. But even THEN, if you really love your neighbor you would wear a mask in public anyway because those neighbors that you claim to love aren't always so sure and telling them that your opinion is more important than their lives isn't exactly a gesture of love.


I never said that the universal desire to live in peace, happiness and prosperity is propaganda. Nor have I said success is punishment, nor have ANY of the Democrats in government said either of those things. So please stop being so dramatic. Stop trying to frame the fight against corporate corruption as a fight against success. It's one of the most r****ded things I see conservatives doing.


Reagan was a popular president who did some good things and some bad things. He was right about some things and wrong about other things. In short he was like most other presidents. He just looks better to Democrats now because compared to Trump, Reagan WAS a liberal.


I don't know if you are still considering "love" synonymous with "God", or what you mean by advancing the human person. But I don't think principals have to come from love or God before they can benefit mankind.


Actually, my "rant" was a set of logical responses to what YOU were ranting about and nothing more.


There you go being all dramatic again. What I demonstrated was a calm and logical response to your baseless claims. You haven't responded directly to ANY of my counter points probably because you can't and yes, I get tired of opinionated people telling me things that I know are not true. So maybe there's some frustration on my part, but that's a far cry from being controlled by hatred.


Yeah, get some sleep and if you wake up an decide to tell me more, please make it factual. Broad generalizations and opinions without any basis don't prove anything.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Well since the crowd here enjoys the debate of Roe vs Wade, I will now enguage in the subject....

If prevention is the key, and abstinence is 100% effective, then not having sex would prevent a******ns and the need for contraception. The chances of getting pregnant using abstinence is more effective, than the mask is in preventing the spread of C****-**.

Since it is too hard for our society to practice abstinence, those who are sexually active created contraception. But like the mask doesn't prevent c****-**, nor does contraception prevent pregnancy.

If a person has the freedom to use abstinence or contraception, the strong would abstain and the weak will use contraception. Thus, the logic should be to abstain rather then use artificial means to prevent pregnancy, while in the act that causes pregnancy. So shouldn't the young be taught to respect their own bodies and abstain? Weak people allow thier emotions rule thier logic. Strong people allow logic over feeling.

Then a person who had a great night at sex then wakes up and finds that they are pregnant. But it is not the end of the world but it is the beginning of a new world. The possibilities of a new born is endless. But there is fear attached to the joys of a new child.

There are those who believe that big families should be band. They come up with loads of excuses why life should be destroyed. But they cannot explain why the innocence must pay the debt of the sin.

We as humans are masters of.our own environment that we control, however ask a s***e if a master is perfect, what would the s***e say? Although masters of our own, we are far from perfect, which is okay. It really is. But we strive towards perfection.

However there are some of us who take advantage of seemingly desperate situations and tell the young woman and her man, "you can't afford a child"

And here we go again with money. Can money create a child from with in the body? No, and if it could how many third world countries would it cost to do so?

Nature has a way of solving the problem of the weak. But there are times that the emotional toll is too much for the couple to bear. This is the example of the famous 1973 case....Roe vs Wade.

If the decision in the case is just, then explain one simple principle, why is Roe today, an advocate for Life?

A******n by the nature of the term means to k**l. To abort is to stop is to k**l. To k**l is to end. To abort is to end. Therefore a******n is to k**l.

There is no other way around it. Now is "to k**l" murder? Well, let's explore that.
It is known scientifically that a fetus becomes a human being. And an embryo becomes a fetus. And a sperm fertilizes an egg and become an embryo.

So, normally we all shed hair. So if I cut the hair, does that harm the person? Could cutting hairs cause the death of a person? If your name was Samson, and your girlfriend was Delilah maybe you would die, but since we aren't then a hair cut doesn't cause death.

But messing with the design of nature for the destruction of the human person is murder. Price check, God is free the devil costs the world.

Someone asked me the question do you know how our government works. Well, I may be Roman Catholic and believe in the Church and all the dogma that goes with it, but I also believe in the founders. From Adams and Jefferson, to Franklin and Madison, I know this government well.

Hamilton made the statement I repeated twice already that was used by Reagan in 1964. Therefore Hamilton's statement is a statement that confirms a principle.

This principle is against a******n in whole or partly.

But the other principle is if you are losing the game change the rules, is a selfish totaltarian principle, and in a free society it is a false philosophy. A******n is a tool of control. That control does not free the woman but ens***ed her further. To the degree of genocide.

It is being proven today, that Democrats unwittingly lied to the American republic. This is not proganda, this is t***h. Obamacare hurt society. The purpose of government is to restrict the people. A free society that has a small government is a happy society, a free society that has a big government is a fearful society that is in fear, therefore does not exercise thier freedom.

What did Jefferson say in the declaration of independence? People are disposed to suffer evils than to change and solve the very evils that plague them. That is a paraphrase but I'm sure you have the intelligence to see that the very next line says when some evils are sufferable, some are not. And when governments by men abuse the people it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government, and institute new government based upon the principles of the old.

Now 47 years later, after the decision of Roe vs Wade, we have seen that the freedom debated at the Supreme Court level has provided an evil expelled upon the people, that must be remedied. The abolishment of a******n is only half the battle, but new rules need to be implemented based upon the principles of that freedom. These new rules need to protect both the man and woman. Not to be used as a weapon of genocide.

Death comes to us all. Yet we push our neighbors into a situation where money decides who lives or dies rather than nature. And since the stewards of the earth have claimed the powers of the master, then the consequences of those decisions are being played out right before your eyes.

Government is intended as a force of good to restrict or prohibit such devices to promote the joyful sanctity of life. Regardless of any society category.

To get an a******n, one cannot use social status as an excuse. From the rich claiming it would destroy the reputation of the family, to the poor mother scratching to stay alive. These are genocidal reasons not natural reasons. There is only one reason to have an a******n....if it is a choice between the mother and the child and the child is not expected to live....save the mother. This principle also applies to rape, where the mothers psychological health is in jeopardy. For what benefit to mankind is there for the rape was so bad that the mother teaches the new child how to h**e, for the mother h**es the child?

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

People are not animals.
Scientists have discovered a light source at conception.
You’re lucky you’re not a victim of a******n. You had a good mom.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Okay, since you wish to hang on to every word that I wrote instead of contenplating the meaning of what I wrote, I will do the same and here goes:



I wrote: "God is Love. Love is God". This was my statement. Before Abrahamic religions there still was God. Therefore you wrote a misconception. So its absurd to claim that Marriage does not have a basis in Love, therefore God. Statement still stands and it stands so strong that it has lasted over 8000 years in human history. I guess you didn't get that memo.



Love is a human trait, that was given to man by the source of Love, God. This part of my statement is wrapped up in thousands of years of theology. Bottom line is Faith, Hope, and Love are virtues that God granted to man, to increase the knowledge and wisdom of man. Regardless of what God you ascribe to the meaning remains the same from Age to Age. However, in the case of Good vs Evil, Faith, Hope, and Love can be just as healing as it can be destructive. It is a virtue, that can be used as a power, that all human beings have as an innate part of their self being. Therefore, one can punish and that same person can forgive for the very same reasons. Therefore the best exercise of wisdom is Live and Let Live.



To show how fair I am, I agree with the premise of this statement. We can all agree that the extreme of our perspective groups, whether Liberal or Conservative, the crazies are not really accepted, nor do we accept their psycho views. However, if history is observed, the KKK originated out of the Democrat party not the Republican party. Jesse James was part of the Democrat party, Frank James too. They were Southern Democrats from Missouri.



"If you really love thy neighbor, you would..." that is a very slippery slope, for the argument could be made, "if you really love thy neighbor, you would not need a mask because of your faith and you can teach others to have faith therefore we will get over the v***s"

As ridiculous the counter statement is, it does demonstrate my point. This begins the debate of the government telling the people what to do. So for your own personal safety who's decision is more effective, yours? or the government's? especially when it is a matter of life and death.



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." ---The Constitution of the United States

The preamble establishes the rules and regulations based upon the Declaration of Independence the immortal words of Jefferson, who wrote:

"We hold these t***hs to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"--Declaration of Independence.

These unalienable Rights are exercised to ensure happiness while journeying through life. The exercise of these rights include peace and prosperity based upon the principles of that we established in the founding documents. Also, in a free society it is self evident that freedom breaks the chains of monopolies that dictate how people are to live. To participate in this type of freedom allows a man to decide for himself what is equal. Therefore has the freedom to achieve that reality of e******y. Now in the Constitution e******y only applies to law, however society sets their own rules which the government is entrusted to regulate to provide what the constitution's preamble states. Therefore, Hamilton is correct when he and Madison agreed that the purpose of government is to restrict the people. This is called loosely the order of freedom. For more information on the order of freedom read St. Thomas Aquinas' book, "Treatise on Law"--its a good read. Hundreds of years before the constitution of the US was written.

Basically in order for freedom to be embraced and fully experienced, one must exercise it in a peaceful, orderly, way. In doing so, the ideas are pure, clear and concise. This is where the basis of the American freedom comes from, otherwise known in the Declaration of Independence, as the "powers of the earth". Each one of us has the powers of the earth with in us. That being said. Attacking a successful entity for the profits they make is absurd. However, if the corporation is harming the public, then the government has a right to regulate or dissolve such entity. By over taxing a corporation that is successful, you make the corporation move, which makes the community lose jobs. In doing so, you damage the community you belong to.

Thus, your comment is moot and not valid. However, it is a good argument if the corporation is damaging the public which they serve.



after I stated, "Good principles don't die. But these principles must come from love before they advance the human person."

What is the human condition? The human condition is all of the characteristics and key events that compose the essentials of human existence, including birth, growth, emotion, aspiration, conflict, and mortality. As the human condition matures or advances, human beings increase in knowledge, wisdom, and prosperity. There was a time when the human condition regressed, this period of time is known as the medieval period of time. During this period of time the Roman Catholic Church was tested, and humanity was tested, for the worthiness of its position in nature. These Christians established a kingdom based upon the old Roman Empire headed by Charlemagne who consolidated the kingdoms of Europe into one kings and queens of Europe. For centuries after the fall of Rome, leaders of Europe dreamt of a time when the power would be consolidated into a single kingdom. This was accomplished by Charlemagne.

Thus, the line of Charlemagne is within the whole of the royal families of Europe. Due to this disaster, which did not work in ancient days, the new countries established a different form of government. The United State's revolution against the great king of Britain, brought cause for a new establishment of humanity. One where the freedom ideas of the ancient Greeks and ancient Israel were flawed. Jefferson and Madison created a system where the Constitution was the law of the land, not any one single individual. Freedom from King to subject was the first step in breaking the ancient rule of master and s***e.

As the colonists gained ground in establishing a new wave of thinking on how the people shall be ruled the human condition changed. Freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, right to bear arms, and freedom from unlawful search and seizure, all of these ideas became rights, the rights all Americans believe and support. These rights were elevated for the purpose of holding sacred powers that God granted us naturally. Now man matured enough to accept these rights and have now vowed to protect them. This advanced the human condition.

I speak freely of God, so should all men. Whether or not you believe in him, it doesn't matter. We can say all day long to the sun, "I want you to rise in the west and set in the east". Neither the Sun, nor the moon would acknowledge the man. However if God commanded it, it would be done.

God created principles, and man discovers them. For the principles themselves come from knowledge and wisdom, along with freedom, Man can make righteous decisions. All man has to do is discover these principles.



When I describe the principles, you say I am dramatic. Why? You claim that the statements I made are baseless. So the human condition which is all of the characteristics and key events that compose the essentials of human existence, including birth, growth, emotion, aspiration, conflict, and mortality; is baseless? How?

It is the human condition that can be measured, as we go from yesterday into tomorrow. And the knowledge of the human condition, can increase the evolution of man from a savage to a civilized man or from an ancient way, to a modern way. But I guess the history of man from savage to modern is baseless? I always examine the human condition and the human nature of man. I am a student of that. It is here I have found the difference between the real and the phony. There are many principles of both the conservatives and liberals I have supported. But I guess these principles are baseless too.

If all of this is baseless then what's the point in worrying about the office of President then? If all is baseless, and has no effect, why worry about it?

Because I constantly speak of Christianity, and Americanism. I speak of the benefits of both, and the rules that make them golden and beautiful. But at the same time I recognize the dangers of both, as well as the attacks of both. Separation of Church and State is a concept to keep the fantasy ideas of religion out of the facts. Myth or fantasy cannot be proven, but facts can be.

What if I said, I can prove the existence of God, in the same manner in which the ancients used in their functional statements to establish the foundation of all the world? The ancient people witnessed events, that they believe were so awesome, that fear was brought about them and they cautiously approached. In this simple minded way, they discovered the principles we take for granted. Therefore, nothing I say is baseless, but the beholder has a tendency of treating some of what I say as baseless and in turn misses the whole message of what I wrote. Same is true of you.

Dissecting each word a person posts, is like dissecting the Bible. I can find contradictions in the bible as I find contradictions in which people describe their point of view. But even in contradictions the meaning can be found. I have completed at this point my dissection of your review of my statements. In conclusion, some of what you posted is good criticism of my view point, although we disagree, I can accept criticism. This is healthy, but all in all, I believe you have grown to be closed minded worse then the past conservatives were toward liberal ideas.

I see a lot of your comments to be rendered on me as condensation. When in fact it is you that fear the future and try to control all those that you are around.

Lets talk about control for a moment. Why should a free person control another free person and why is that the duty of society? If I am free and you are free, that means you can criticize me, just as I can criticize you. Therefore we establish that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore, in an orderly way, we can establish solutions to all the problems we discuss by approaching the problems from two different angles and accomplish the impossible. Or we can fight against each other, calling each other names left and right. Which category do you fall into?

Control, everyone seeks control. I don't. I don't want to control, and if I live in a truly free society I need not control. Once we fail to protect the free society and it turns into a s***e/master situation, then the need for control is necessary but an evil nonetheless.

Tag your it.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

So what weight do you place on what noun, "pigs", "people", "God" or "love"? An argument can be made to justify the statement that "pigs are people too" and that "eating pigs is the same as eating people", didn't Orson wells make that comparison in Animal Farm?

But there is one catch, Orson Wells did it in satire using anecdotes to depict the reality of the situation in which he was writing. Satire is an interesting form of writing and telling a story, because with satire you can make your audience laugh or scare the jeepers out of them.

Christ was so excited to tell the people, and share His Good News with the world, that He spoke plainly at first about the Kingdom of God. No one understood Him, therefore, He began telling parables. Parables are similar to anecdotes. For example a not so well known parable is this:

"One day the Sun and the Wind argued about a man. The Wind bet the Sun that the Wind could make the man take off his jacket. The Sun took that bet. The wind started to blow, and the man held on to his coat. The more the wind blew, the more the man hung on to his jacket. Eventually the Wind got tired and quit blowing. Then the Sun came out and smiled upon the man. The man then took off his jacket."

This parable or anecdote, can be applied to the Democrats in their arguments against Donald Trump. For the harder the Dems attack Trump, the harder Trump attacks them. Someday, the Dems will get tired, and the people will smile on Trump, and Trump will give up his power.

Do you understand the moral of the story? Do you understand the value of the story? Or are you blinded by your ways, that you still can't see the error of your ways?

This parable is easy to understand, there are many more that are complex that even philosophers have pondered for centuries to understand. But this is a lesson in communication. For if you seek to present an idea that can be proven to work and you promote it. There is no shame.

For example, I promote Trump as president. Why should there be any shame? That is my opinion and since I am in the American family of v**ers or should I say the jury set to judge our elected officials, and my v**e is to retain Trump, what right does my colleagues have to demonize me? For if they can demonize me, can I not do the same in reverse?

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Who is the elite? Here is the elected elite: Nancy Pelosi, Mike Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Camila Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, AOC and the rest of Senator John Kennedy's "four horseman of the apocalypse", Chris Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, and there is more. Then you have the Hollywood elite, like many people who work as reporters or anchors on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, Fox News, ESPN. There is much more, but you asked me to name the crowd well here's the start.

Well lets see... The people elect representatives to represent them and their interests in Washington DC. Two Senators from each state, where as there are 50 states. Representatives are determined by population. Article I of the US Constitution explains their duties and how a bill becomes a law. Article II of the US constitution establishes the office of the President of the United States and his duties, where as Article III establishes the Supreme Court and their duties. Article IV is the powers granted to the States and their Citizens thereof. Article V establishes the rules to amend the Constitution. Thereafter is the Amendments to the constitution, the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights.



My, my don't we put the cart before the horse. Let's see, I stated a simple question, "Would you rather be free to be equal, or have someone tell you, that you are equal?"

This is a valid question, a very valid question. For four years, the media has been cramming down the throat of the American public that r****m is a major problem. Yet I look around me today and don't see men with white hoods burning crosses at black homes, Lynching B****s, etc. Yet the intensity on the news is that we as a nation have erupted into another civil war based on r****m and Fort Sumner is about to be attacked. Don't watch the Dukes of Hazzard or General Lee will be fighting Gettysburg on your front lawn. Come on now.

The protests would remain peaceful, if groups like A****a and B*M would quit handing out r**t gear to protesters who are seeking to r**t. Therefore it is blatantly obvious, that the crazies of the democratic party had too much weed and are paranoid so they act it out in the streets.

Please define w***e s*******y and what it means in 2020? And if you definition includes the same definition of the 1960's,70's,80's or 90's, we are 20 years removed from the 1900's it doesn't apply. Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler are dead. Other Neo groups based on the people I just listed are dead or dying. Gone are the days of Jim Crowe.

Thus my question makes sense for people of all generations because what one man says is equal, another man says is prejudice.



Again you misinterpret what I wrote. I h**e google auto correct for this very reason. What was written was, "

"Banning anything, with the exception of bans against people for the sake of sex, color, creed, or culture, (for this is prohibited by the Constitution by its nature) is wrong and will always end up in a fight of sorts. But to nominate a person to dictate how we think therefore live, is an act of a totalitarian. And Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, as well as Saddam Hussein were all totalitarians." This was the intent.

Sometimes I feel like, I am speaking on a high level then my intended audience, StraightUp:



In nature any attack on any entity is "taking away". In law any restriction on freedom, is a removal of that freedom so your premise does not hold up. Remember in the evolution of time, as the human race matures, the humans go from liberal to conservative, to liberal to conservative, as a the pendulum swings.

Think of it like this, I have a magnetic ball tied to a string. Call that ball society or the people. And the liberals have a magnet and the conservatives have a magnet. These magnets are disguised as the Democrats and the Republicans. At one time they were unified, for it was originally called the Democrat-Republican party. But during the Lincoln administration the two parties split. For Lincoln's party was conservative, and the rebel side was the liberal side. Thus you had Yankee Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Conservatives and the Liberals.

The conservatives use their magnet and it pulls the people towards them(public support) and thus a Republican becomes president. And say this Republican starts implementing his conservative ideas, then another president is elected and he too is Republican and advances his ideas. At this point the conservatives have too much power, thus with absolute power corruption is absolute. And from 1968-1976 that is what happened.

Then the power of the magnet increases on the Democrat side, and the Dems elect Jimmy Carter. Who changes the dynamic of the magnet and creates power for the progressives who slowly gobble up the power from the liberals. But Jimmy Carter lost his magnetic appeal, when he appeared weak so in 1980 Reagan is elected president, who brings back the conservative Ideals. But the lust for power on the conservative end becomes an absolute, thus the liberals who are hurt by it begin complaining. The people hear this complaint and agree and sympathize with the liberals. 1992 comes along and Bill Clinton is elected president.

So after 12 years of irresponsible conservative power, Bill Clinton is a breath of fresh air. But he begins taking the liberals and progressives too far to the left. By this time the left is being consumed by the progressives and progressive thinking. It begins to meld into the new liberal-progressive party. Thus, gone are the days of John and Robert Kennedy.

Like with Jimmy Carter, the Conservatives take control in the new Millennium. So from 2000 to 2008 a revised form of security that would back fire on the conservatives take place, and Obama is elected president who went after the conservative groups using the IRS. Trump didn't go after any group using the IRS go figure... anyways after suffering for 8 years under Obama the magnet is strong on the Republican side and Trump rises to power.

But in the few examples I've shown, never has the Conservatives ever, imploded upon themselves, however there was many times in the liberal Democrats past that they did.

Now back to the subject, during the times the Democrats had the power, they slowly and progressively started attacking religious groups until Nuns of the Catholic Church was ordered by the Government to pay for contraception and a******n. This order brought forth a civil disobedience. And it wasn't until real recently that the constitution up held the rights of the Nuns and the order was reversed by the Supreme Court.

Now the United States has always been a Christian nation, but more so it has always been a free 'religion' nation to mean that we have many religions within our country and each one is equally allowed to practice their religion. No we are not a secular nation. There is a major difference.

In Jefferson's time the Conservatives went too far too, that is why Jefferson wanted a separation of Church and State to get pure facts and not those derived from unprovable means. It is here in the substance that lawyers and judges lean toward when deciding law.

Now you are correct in the fact that if the Christian right has their way we will lose the 1st Amendment, but that is just as correct as the opposite is true. What is the opposite, if A****a, or B*M, or any other extreme left group has their way, there goes the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th amendments. That is why I set my warning out for the conservatives as well. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. And it does not discriminate between Progressive, Liberal, or Conservative, for they are all guilty of that lust for power. The one that lasts is the one wise enough to be conservative with the power.



"As of May 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republican"--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

So how do you explain the above statistic?

If a baby is a gift from God, why should a human being deny the gift? If I gave you a gift and you destroyed it, then why should I give you another gift?

Murder is not a solution to keep the family together just ask Roe in Roe vs Wade.

I'm done for now.