So do terrorists, or the particular target in question, coincidentally.
However, aiming a bomb at Al Qaeda's media house is certainly not the same as killing your own child.
That's for you to say. Just a few months ago the US bombed a village in Pakistan. Apparently they were only villagers, families. They all died together. And of course it is not the same. You aborting an unwanted pregnancy is a decision you make for your own life. Someone killing you and your family and kids is murder.
There is deliberate intent to kill children through abortion.
What children? The purpose is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that would result in unwanted children. As far as I'm concerned I'm not a donkey so you put a burden on me and make me to carry it without having to decide for myself. I don't have a problem with letting a fetus live on its own. If it can't, it is too bad.
Firstly, if it is your statement, I would think that the burden of responsibility would fall upon yourself.
You for example said that SSO is not to be trusted with paying back when you are going to get retired. So you said they should let you have an account where you save the portion you have to pay to the SSO, so that you can decide for yourself, as if it is all about you. Little did you think about a child left on welfare or what would happen if you should have an accident and become disabled. How your little account is going to take care of you in that condition? How is it supposed to help a child left on welfare? You certainly didn't see that in your plan. So here, I made a perfect example with your own proposal, about those who are going to ruin the SSO. If I can't support a child, I'm not going to have one. My child hopefully wouldn't rely on any welfare, unless I die untimely.
Secondly, I break up messages not to spin or confuse (I didn't realize the "quote" brackets made it so hard for you to delineate), but rather, to dissect each individual statement and its merit (or lack thereof).
Good then, since I began to enjoy it.
You're saying that conservatives, like myself, quote, "try to eliminate the SSO altogether." However, I would think this is grossly incorrect, especially since most (if not all) conservative platforms advocate moderate-to-heavy reform rather than total elimination.
Read the answer for the two quotes above.
It wasn't directed at you, it was for others who might read my response to your post.
It warms my heart that one less Iranian wishes to emigrate to my fine country. Please continue to enjoy the mullahs, fatwahs, the Ayatollah's, and the Roses of the Prophet Mohammed. It shant be long before Iran decides to either war with Iraq or another neighbor, or go on an Israeli-killing spree, lending itself to annihilation from the Hebrews.
Cheers. We've already got enough anti-Americanism in this country as it is.
Your fine country is the result of immigration of intellectuals from all over the world. Look up the number of foreign scientists and see how many of them were students from other countries who got the US citizenship afterward. I wonder what happens if one day everyone realizes they better do something for their own country rather than escaping the problems and choose the easy route. That would be very heartwarming for me as well. I'll continue enjoying Danish pastries and care less for what Mullahs say. After all the main job of a mullah is talking and nothing more. Iran has never attacked its neighbors in the past hundred years, because people would never fight such wars. Yet it has fallen to be the victim of Iraq attacks backed with the support of European countries and the US and its military defense is almost ruined. What makes the US really nervous is not the possibility of WMDs, but the plan that Iran is going to sell the oil with Euro currency that would weaken the US dollar. But I guess the US always needs to find a reason to attack us anyway so WMDs are always good and if you didn't find any, you've given us a chance to give us this false freedom after all.
Actually, I think it comes down to those of us like Mad Johnny and myself who believe in the sanctity of innocent life (requisite qualifying statement should we happen to have the inevitable discussion on the death penalty for the 1000th time), and those like Afsanah and yourself who believe in the sanctity of convenient immorality and murder shadowed in the name of "women's rights."
It is quite simple. Don't get an abortion if you think it is immoral. Keep your morals to yourself. That by no means is murder according to my morals, since it is a long way before a fetus becomes a human being. We can't suite everything according to your morals.
Mind telling me how you can delineate between a regular murder and a "far greater" one? How to we gauge which is which?
I mean, after all, wouldn't the Mullah's list of assassinations and executions against oppositions be considered a "far greater" murder(s)?
By my own morals. You are following Mullahs very closely according to my scale on murder. Still, this is my morals, so why that makes you worried? Sleep tight at nights, no biggie, I'm not God after all and my judgment is worth nothing, just the same as yours. :p
