Northwest Indiana Discussion

This just about says it all..This is the difference between us and them.


This pretty much describes our Country today.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a veget arian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.


If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.


If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

If a conservative doesn't like abortion, he thinks it should be outlawed.
If a liberal doesn't approve of abortion, he doesn't have one.

Actually, the operative language should be;

If a Conservative doesn't want people killing babies, he thinks it should be outlawed.
If a Liberal doesn't believe in killing babies, he thinks it's OK for others to do so.

If an anti-abortionist conservative irresponsibly creates a LIFE in the heat of passion, they will carry it to full term in accordance with their beliefs.

If a liberal irresponsibly creates a LIFE in the heat of passion, they call it a mistake and shred it to pieces vacuuming it out of the womb and if the unfortunate baby happens to survive this procedure it will simply be tossed in a bucket and left to die.

If a Liberal doesn't believe in killing babies, he thinks it's OK for others to do so.

That is why it's called pro-choice.

Why would anyone think it would be ok for others to kill babies?

Yes indeed, Robin.

There is no such thing as pro-choice.

You are either Pro-Life of Pro-Abortion.

Calling the murder of a baby "choice" is a way for people who don't agree with it to assuage their conscience when other people have abortions.

As if it makes the act of killing a baby any less repulsive.

It's the same as a rapist claiming he raped a woman out of "love" for her when the fact is that rape is NOT an act of love but an act of violence.

Killing a baby and using the term "choice" does not alter the reality that abortion is taking the life of another human being.

Plain and simple.

The same attitude was prevalent in Germany during WW2. Substitute baby with Jew.

Jack, all your examples are illegal.

When I hear "killing babies", I envision post-birth children.

Interesting.

So you have no moral or ethical problem with segregation or slavery whilst they were occuring since they were legal at the time?

And you have no moral or ethical problem with the Prophet Mohammad marrying a 6 year old girl and then consummating the marriage (that means he had sex with her) when she was 9 years old because it was legal?

Hows about burning "witches" during the Salem Witch Trials..? It was clearly "legal" to burn the women because they had due process and it was "legal" when it happened, yes?

Denying women and blacks the right to vote was also morally and ethically acceptable until the law was changed because it was "legal" and so it was A-OK?

Stoning women to death in Iran or other Muslim countries is OK as well because it's "legal" in those countries?





Indeed.

Much as Tiger's example of the Jews being killed in WW2 (which was "legal" in Germany) because they were not considered fully "human", (blacks were considered "legally" to count as 3/5 of their total number for purposes of taxation and congressional representation..but I digress) it is much easier to consider a baby still in the womb as somehow not being actually "human" although they clearly are, and so they can be killed with impunity without considering the moral or ethical aspects of such a revolting act.

It is a cowardly rationale for condoning a morally reprehensible crime.

Classic...!!!!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g