Have you read Putin's Op Ed in the N Y Times?

[base2final]

I thought we were upside down when Reid, Pelosi, and other liberals are calling for bombing Syria and Republicans are opposing the bombing. We have a president who threatened what would happen if Syria crossed a red line, then threatened to bomb them, then said he fdidn't need Congresses approval, then asked for its approval, then said no let's wait when he realized he wouldn't get their approval.

Now we have Obama continuing to lead from behind and Putin leading from the front. What's going on when Russia takes the role as the peace keeper while we are threatening bombing them, well a pin prick attack, well very very small, well no let's wait.

Now did you read what Putin wrote in the N Y Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-fr...

[A4L]

Abortion has always been a hot button topic, yes? Nothing new about that.
As to rights, there is legal, moral, emotional and thoughtful grounds for wanting to protect the unborn.
As with many issues to me there are reasonable arguments for and against and there are varying degrees of complexities.

And to me it is always reasonable to come back to the consideration for balance. What is the best balance?

Would you agree that it would be a crime to beat a pregnant woman to the point where she loses her baby and charge the perpetrator with not only a crime against the mother but also one against the baby? 

I would. So the question could be, How far into pregnancy does the unborn have to be to be have rights to life?

The fact is that many people will disagree as to what that point is.

I think I get that your point is that if the Supreme court rules it to be 24 weeks than it should be unconstitutional to make a law that is in contradiction to that.


That is logical and seems reasonable. But again if I my daughter was pregnant and was treated with purposeful negligence to the point where her unborn baby died and it was at 20 weeks, I have to say that I would feel that to be a absolutely an infringement on his or her right to life, and should be punishable.  Would you feel differently? Or would feel that I was overreaching to see things this way?

My point is that abortion does ultimately take away all of the rights of the unborn. So the mother's freedom could be infringing on the baby's freedom.

But maybe some would feel that the parent should in fact have total rights over their children at any stage and government should not be involved.

I don't feel this way.

But in fact I do not feel that government should stop a woman from having an abortion, but it makes sense to me to put a time on it. My reasoning is again preserving freedoms but balancing it with common sense.

I absolutely have no problem with birth control. Much more preferable to abortion!!!

I am for anything that would help to motivate people to do the right thing or things on their own.

And I am against us going back to making all abortions illegal.

I think one can believe that it is immoral and preach that to others and still recognize that "I am not responsible for the actions of someone else."  So let each person decide. But I would feel it in the public interest to have a limit on how long.

I am much more libertarian on these types of issues.

I think that your argument that the republicans are being dictatorial on this are legitimate. But There are seemingly limitless areas of democratic "dictatorialism" also.

I think our central government tries to do way to many things and the results are often stupid. I would be more for having smaller communities in charge of many decisions of the same type than trying to make one size fits all from the capital for over three hundred million people.

I marvel when I think how we don't want to let our children work, when I see my gardener with his son that was working with his dad when he was about 5 years old, and now that he is around 14, the kid can do most of the work himself, is doing fantastic in school, and my kids, couldn't clean up the dog poop in the back yard if their next meal depended on it.

And then I get all of these things for my 6 year old to go around and try and sell so he can get some trip or some goodie so we can go bug our neighbors with our little Jonnie or Jimmie at their door to make them feel guilty if they don't want to send them on their "dream vacation" by buying a choclate bar from them that they don't even need.

So the kid can't work to make his own money to save up and buy something that he earns but it is perfectly legitimate to "use" him to make an emotional appeal for someone else's drive.


And maybe the drive is for a good thing, but I just see this as odd when I look at the results. So the kid thinks if I bug people to  "buy this from me so I can get my trip," is good, but hard work or labor, is just for others.

I don't know. Seems that we teach a lot of weird things with all of our increasing complex rules and regulations sometimes. :0)

[LoveLife&Laughter]

But in fact I do not feel that government should stop a woman from having an abortion, but it makes sense to me to put a time on it.

1. Abortion is a Constitutional Right every bit as much as guns. 

2. No where is there not a time limit, the exception being to save the life of the mother. 

3. The Church, before politicized abortion arguments, "life was when the child could breathe, eat, etc on her own."

 If you don' t like guns, don't have one.  If you don't like abortion, don't have one. No one has the right to take away constitutional rights unless they are abused.  For those we have laws.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

But There are seemingly limitless areas of democratic "dictatorialism" also.

What, pray tell?

1. Voter suppression?

2. Holding the U.S. Economy / World Economy hostage?

3. Violating Constitutional Rights (abortion)?

4. Disrespecting Democratic Presidents with never-ending manufactured scandals?  

Give us one good reason we'd ever vote Republican again?  You guys are not that different then al Qaeda or the Taliban, you govern by terrorism.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

[LoveLife&Laughter]

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Taking control is in many ways in Russia's interests: there are business interests, and there are many Russian citizens in Syria working on technology or going to college or married to Syrians. An American bombing could lead to gas falling into the hands of jihadists from Chechnya and elsewhere, who could use gas in terrorist attacks on Russia. Russia has a very strong interest in taking control of Assad's poison gas and we can trust Russia to act in its interests. But the president didn't say that Russia has a real interest in a peaceful diplomatic resolution in Syria, just as we do. Why not? Given the deep suspicion of Russia in the American psyche, that is a hard sell, too.

There are no easy direct options in Syria.

[A4L]

That makes sense too what you said!

I don't understand what outcome we can hope for that is attainable.

If we can get a larger group of the international community on board to do something, it would seem helpful. If the president's push to do something can lead to a bigger consensus that would be more positive in my estimation.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201981179199882&set=vb.2...