...child. Parental rights should apply at the time of birth. I did
answer it. If it is yours...Are you sure it is? Sounds like you might
want to go get your kid checked to see...

Syrius

"It's a woman's choice, and a man's responsibility."

I know the silliest thing one can do is argue with a fool, but here goes.(I agree, but, here it goes...)

An underage girl is just that, underage. In most states you can't get a
tattoo or a piercing until you reach the age of consent. You can't
enter into a legal agreement. And again, a doctor won't treat you for a
cold without a parents permission. And yet, you have no problem with a
girl as young as 13 waltzing into a doctor all by herself and making a
life altering decision all by herself? That is simply insane.(Why didn't she listen to her parents about abstinence?)

To put it differently, the kid can't even legally buy cigarettes to
smoke after having sex, but it's OK to have an abortion performed by a
group(I believe it's a doctor that performs the procedure), Planned Parenthood, that won't even allow her to be presented
with other options, or fully explain the ramifications of the ones they
offer?(Proof?) Im mean at the grand old age of 13 she has plenty of life
experiences to make such a lofty decision doesn't she.(She probably learned most of what she knows from her parents.) With all of the
worldly experience she might have gained, shouldn't she be able to hear
ALL of the options, hmmm?(Sure, I don't have a problem with that as long as you're ok with her final decision in the end.)

And you just try being a kid in school and get caught with an
aspirin in you're backpack. You'd have an easier time if they caught
you with a nuclear device, you liberal loon!(Stop with the name calling, you self-righteous buffoon...sarc.)

I'm not even going there with RU-486 (too tough for you?), because
while that might be an option for an adult, whose lifestyle is such she
engages in meaningless sex(Mmmm...meaningless sex, you should try it sometimes but not alone), most 13 year olds might not even realize
they are pregnant until well past the time it is effective.(MOST 13 year olds are having sex? Maybe, immaculate conception might be in the works?) And there
is plenty of data out there that says that it may indeed cause problems
in later life.(Proof? Please cite an unbiased Medical Study other than a biased right wing, pro-life study.)

And oh yeah, by ALL means lets hope someone accompanies the 13 year
old girl who respects her well informed worldly wise opinions.(It should be obvious to you, she doesn't respect authority.) Because
we know at 13 we have learned everything we will ever learn!(That fact has been proven by ALL of your statements...) Wow, are
you a moron.(Name calling again...)

No, it's not OK for a 13 year old to have unprotected sex. It's not
OK for a 13 year old to be having sex at all. Granted, I'm not that
naive, but I also don't think abortion should be the preferred birth
control method for 13 year olds!(I absolutely agree for the first time in your long winded diatribe!)

So just because an extremely small percentage of men, since the
beginning of all time have chosen to kill a woman rather than deal with
an unwanted pregnancy(So, you do agree with me.), men get no say at all in pregnancy.(Correct.) Do I have
that right?(NO.) Man, could I run laps with that one(I think you're a little winded at the moment.) How about women who
trick men into THINKING they are pregnant, so they will marry them?(I'm sorry that happen to you.) I
bet the percentages are higher of that than the "murdered woman and
baby" scenario!(Relevance?)

There is no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution.
That was one of those "found" rights. Here's the thing, a parent has a
right to know what their kid is up to. Would you defend a kid's "right
to privacy" if say mom was putting their socks away, and found a baggy
of dope in the drawer? Or a bottle of booze. If you do, you're an
idiot, and if you don't, your "right to privacy" argument just fell
through!(Name calling diminishes your argument, you self-righteous buffoon. sarcasm, lots of sarcasm)

As for a married woman, if she gets pregnant, and doesn't tell her
husband she had an abortion, that is totally unfair to the man.(Some women do get 'raped' by their husbands. You do know that, correct?) It
would be grounds for divorce, but of course, you'd probably say this
say woman was deserving of all sorts of spousal support.(Your own personal experience? Bitter?)

A single woman can do whatever she wants, but until the day comes a
single man is not held responsible for an unwanted baby, I don't want
to hear it's none of his business!(As I have said before- It's a woman's choice, a man's responsibility. A man is allowed to fight in court against supporting a child if he feels he was trapped in the pregnancy. He has no right in forcing her to have an abortion to avoid the pregnancy.)

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

Did I say it was his fault? Absolutely not! He just started too late in the game. How can you bitterly brand that as untrue? It's not like I said he was a terrible campaigner and a fool. It's my opinion - not fact. How can something totally subjective be labeled as untrue? Please, some sense of proportion here.
Sell out conservative principles? Where in the heck did that come from? How am I selling out conservative principles, by offering my very benign and sympathetic opinion on why Fred Thompson was unsuccessful? Look, being disppointed that your candidate (and mine, I might add) dropped out is fine. But taking it out on a fellow conservative is misdirected and going way too far. Some people here need to simmer down. If this is any small indication of the bitterness and backbiting within the party going into the long campaign, we may as well get used to saying "President Clinton" again.

Won't make me mad, I'm here for a lively debate!

I like Fred a lot. But frankly, he's not a pure conservative. His backing of McCain-Feingold would have sent Reagan reeling. But when I say it is his fault, it is all about his late entry into the field, and the way he tried to stay above it. He even missed his first chance at a debate to go on a TV show. That's not the best way to start out.

I think Fred would have been an OK President, but nothing special. He's not Ronald Reagan reincarnate. And frankly, if you can't run a good campaign, especially when people are thirsty for someone like you, just how effective of a leader are you?

A lot of Fred's supporters have said he wanted to be asked to be President, because it is unseemly to "want" to be President. My goodness, if you don't want to be President with every ounce of your soul, you shouldn't run.

This isn't a dig at Fred, but while it is a cool thing on the old resume, and as dirt poor Clinton and Algore have proved, you can turn it into big money. But it is also a thankless job, that ages everyone incredibly. You are hated by half of the people! So you have to have a certain passion, a real fire in the belly. Fred may have had that deep down, but he never showed it.

I'm not willing to go against my principals, but I'm also not willing to give up. Reagan wasn't perfect, he wasn't even always a strong pro-life supporter. If you can believe he saw the light, why not someone else? Reagan allowed 3 million illegals to receive amnesty, which has resulted in 20 million more coming into the country. It can even be argued that while he was defeating the Soviet Union, he failed to see the growing Islamic threat, which has led us to where we are now. I loved Ronald Reagan. He was an inspiration to all of us. No one will ever measure up to his greatness. Hell even Obama is singing his praises!

But, when there is one candidate, still in the race, who understands what Reagan is about, why wouldn't you vote for him? Mitt Romney is not Reagan. He's not even trying to pretend he is, but he knows and understands what Reagan was about. Just like George Bush was the right man at the right time, so is he. Romney understands business, and at this point in time, that's very important. Romney understands we have to defeat the terrorists, and Romney realizes we gotta close the borders. Can you honestly tell me anything is more important that those three things?

All I know is this, the democrat candidates have no clue about how the economy works. They have no clue how to win a war, any war. And they damned sure have no intention of closing the borders.

So what are we to do?