Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Mike Hawk's Journal: In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census 11

Journal by Mike Hawk
The results are in! The latest projections indicate that the progressivist culture of death still doesn't work. Outside of the pacific coast states (and somehow I don't get the feeling the growth here is due to an incredibly high reproductive rate among whites females in San Fransisco), the blue states are growing at a slow rate. Thats more electoral votes passed to the red states for free. And who are having the babies that are fueling the growth? Shore ain't dem folk dat be havin dem dere abortions. Liberals still hate families.

Of course, if the goal has always been to kill off the human race, screw the economy, and/or turn history on its ear, well then its right on target. "As the oldest baby boomers become senior citizens in 2011, the population 65 and older is projected to grow faster than the total population in every state. In fact, 26 states are projected to double their 65- and-older population between 2000 and 2030." Well shucks, its a good thing there are plenty of judges out there ready to order your life support removed at the drop of a hat. Lets see if I can sum up the agenda here. We'll create an unconstitutional wealth redistribution scheme that discourages personal responsibility and participation in the traditional family structure, then when the scheme is in danger of being crushed under its own weight, we'll relieve the pressure by being ready willing and able to kill old people through the judiciary. The circle is complete. Hello Netherlands!

Roe, Roe, Roe your boat...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census More

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census

Comments Filter:
  • Pro-choice is pro-life. Always pregnant women have to choose to have or not to have, that's pro-choice. Then always they have to choose the lesser of the two 'unfavourables', which is whether to have babies without worrying about economy to raise their kids -that's pro-life for their babies or not to have babies, which might cause further economic troubles for them parents, which is pro-life for them parents. whichever they choose, they have to choose and live.

    So always pro-choice is at the same time pro-

    • Pro-choice is pro-life. Always pregnant women have to choose to have or not to have, that's pro-choice.

      No, women can choose to become pregnant or not. This is 2005. Pregnancy isn't some mystery. That's where the choice lies. A pregnant woman has made her choice. I don't see how defining a family as "unfavorable" is pro-life at all. I can't think of anything more anti-life.

      they are choosing their 'life' prior to their babies, -that's pro-choice and pro-life.

      No, they've chosen death. And sel
      • I wanted to mean both pro-life and pro-choice are based on humanitalian viewpoint. I wanted to emphasise the opposite of pro-life is not pro-choice. Both two notions are supplementary relations to make a humanitalian viewpoint perfect.

        I'll have to assume that your attempts to redefine words is due to English not being your first language. If a native speaker tried what you just tried, well, it would be pure nonsense.

        It is your freedom to assume my analysis of word definition is derived from my shortsight

      • Pro-choice is pro-life. Always pregnant women have to choose to have or not to have, that's pro-choice.

        No, women can choose to become pregnant or not.

        Not if she is raped, she can't. Now, if you want to argue that being raped is a valid reason to abort a pregnancy, then you're saying it's okay to murder babies if you have a good enough reason. A baby concieved as the result of rape is no different from one conceived through consentual sex.

        This is 2005. Pregnancy isn't some mystery. That's where the c

        • I have seen very little difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice groups. Both support some forms of abortion and both (usually) oppose some forms of abortion. Neither side is usually very consistent.

          Since Supreme Court admittted some forms of abotion, the difference between two standpoints are more and more ambiguous.

    • Pro-choice is pro-life. Always pregnant women have to choose to have or not to have, that's pro-choice.

      I an afraid I may have to agree with Mike Hawk that you're redefining the terms. That's not pro-life. The so-called 'pro-life' movement generally opposes abortions with some exceptions. Basically the pro-choice groups supports abortion on demand, the pro-life groups supports abortion on demand if you have a good enough reason to demand one. Many will classify 'incest' as a good enough reason, some won'

  • Think Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel from the Simpsons.

    That's you. And the red states.

    You must be proud.
  • Liberals still hate families.

    Just wow.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close