Clay Jones for August 16, 2015

The damage they do is understated here. Wars are fine, among other things.

Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

They enjoy forcing other people to do what they want them to do. It is all about power and enforcing your beliefs on others. Then they go to church on Sunday and listen to a sermon on loving their fellow man which they promptly forget as they go to breakfast.

And many parents were unable to provide reasonable access to healthcare for their children. That number has dropped.

Pro-life is a misnomer, pro-birth would be more appropriate as pro-life would include the care for the care for the poor and elderly which biblical religions endorse. American Christian Reconstructionism differs from the rest of Christianity in its interpretation of the bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism “…More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God’s covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are “in submission” to him. In turn, the husband “submits” to Jesus and to God’s laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God’s laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called “theonomy.” …“http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

I fail to see how this insults my parents in any way. Maybe I have to wear magic glasses.

I always found it so hypocritical that the most fervent Right-To-Lifers don’t have any adopted babies. Maybe if they channeled some of their monomania into actually doing good for children I might have more respect for them.

In college I had a teacher who was a Lifer and he would get so – and it’s the only word appropriate – excited when showing their movies of aborted babies that his leg would twitch like he was having an orgasm. He was later arrested for abetting a bombing of a women’s health clinic. Sick man!

If I don’t think I should take care of your child then you should be allowed to kill it?

I’m not against these things. I do believe that the programs (like almost all government programs) are grossly mismanaged. Only those who believe that most people are unfeeling and selfish would think that reducing government’s control would make things worse.

Schools are financed with locally levied taxes… my share of which costs me over $4 thousand per year and I don’t have, and never wanted any, kids. But, I gladly pay the education portion of my tax bill in the belief that it might do something to actually provide an education to someone else’s “little darlings” even though I see daily remainders of the fallacy of my thinking.

I will continue to be overtaxed and under provided for in this case but please bring back the days when parents were actually responsible for the health, welfare, and nutrition of their OWN kids!If you can’t provide for their daily needs, use birth control.

Women are the sole responsible party for themselves and the tissue in their bodies. It is their choice SOLELY.

Well., I am pro-life. And adopted. But I have to admit that Margaret Sanger was successful in reducing the crime rate.

wmconellyYou left out “classroom to prison cell” policies to insure a constant supply of slave labor for the corporations. Maybe we should seal that loophole in the 13th amendment.