Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 155
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Lots of midnight runs to the grocery to get her some more peanut butter and sweet pickles?
    ...because that is all a pregnancy consists of...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    My mother in law as a devout catholic and held that view... and she was about as liberal as you can get. Always voted democratic. I don't think you can paint them all as conservatives.
    Last I checked, you can be conservative religiously and liberal politically. Not everything is politics...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Last I checked, schools do that now, yet kids still get pregnant...

    Lets not forget all of the conservative church groups trying to ban this info from being taught in schools...
    Actually, I'm pretty sure that many church groups are all for teaching kids to not have babies--with the method that has the best odds of preventing it. Like it or not, that is abstinence.

    Kids get pregnant when they use contraception too.

    The bottom line--if you're going to engage in action that creates babies--you should probably be prepared to take care of that baby.

    KAM
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #124  
    Majority of Americans, and Nearly 6 in 10 Young Adults, View Abortion as Morally Wrong

    Poll finds 56% of all Americans and 58% of those 18-29 years old say abortion 'morally wrong'

    NEW HAVEN, Conn., Jan. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the eve of the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new survey shows a strong majority of Americans believe abortion to be "morally wrong."

    "Millennials" (those 18-29) consider abortion to be "morally wrong" even more (58%) than Baby Boomers (those 45-64) (51%). Generation X (those 30-44) are similar to Millennials (60% see abortion as "morally wrong"). More than 6 in 10 of the Greatest Generation (those 65+) feel the same.

    The most recent Knights of Columbus Marist survey conducted in late December and early January is the latest in a series of such surveys commissioned by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by Marist Institute for Public Opinion. In October of 2008 and July of 2009, the survey has

    been tracking an increasing trend toward the pro-life position a trend confirmed by Gallup and Pew surveys in mid-2009. K of C Marist surveys are available online at www.kofc.org/moralcompass.

    "Americans of all ages and younger people in even greater numbers than their parents see abortion as something morally wrong," said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. "America has turned a corner and is embracing life and in doing so is embracing a future they and all of us can be proud of."

    He added: "Advances in technology show clearly and ever more clearly that an unborn child is completely a human being. That, coupled with the large number of Americans who know one of the many people who has been negatively affected by abortion are certainly two of the reasons that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with Roe v. Wade's legacy of abortion, and with abortion generally. The majority of Americans now understand that abortion has consequences, and that those consequences are not good."

    The question on abortion was part of a larger survey, which will be released in the next several days.

    This report presents the findings from a survey of 2,243 Americans -- including an oversample of 1,006 Millennials. Reports for Americans have a margin of error of +/-2% and for Millennials it is +/-3%. Data were collected from December 23, 2009 through January 4, 2010 using an online, probability-based panel from Knowledge Networks, Inc. Additional information is available at www.kofc.org. Data on the polls commissioned by the Knights of Columbus are available at www.kofc.org/moralcompass.


    SOURCE Knights of Columbus

    RELATED LINKS
    http://www.kofc.org
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I still haven't gotten an answer for why one would need an abortion.
    If not beceause of rape or endangerment to mother or child, then what legit reason could one give?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    To me, it is also despicable to bring a child into this world if you are not ready emotionally and monetarily to provide for and raise it. Your rose colored glasses view of adoption is sadly not always the case. Many kids just get passed around from foster home to foster home. Unfortunately, not all kids get adopted. Are you a foster parent? Are you willing and able to adopt these kids?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    No, it is best to just keep reproducing, no mater what the consequences...
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    And those consequences are what again?
    ^Bump

    Are you really saying: 'cut them out, because the 'consequences' are; their life may suck?'
    Just call me Berd.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    ^Bump

    Are you really saying: 'cut them out, because the 'consequences' are; their life may suck?'
    IN THIS THREAD: People who do not get the concept of sarcasm.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  7. #127  
    All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:

    1. Is it alive?
    2. Is it human?
    3. Is it a person?
    4. Is it physically independent?
    5. Does it have human rights?
    6. Is abortion murder?

    Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.

    1. Is it alive?

    Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

    Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

    But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

    A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

    And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.

    2. Is it human?

    Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

    And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

    Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

    Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

    And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.

    3. Is it a person?

    No. It's merely a potential person.

    Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

    Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

    There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.

    The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.

    The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either.

    Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception.

    But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true.

    And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.

    It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical wellbeing of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.

    4. Is it physically independent?

    No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.

    Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

    What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child - such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

    Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

    Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did - the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist - but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

    This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

    This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

    To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

    Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

    Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person - even exposing herself to the threat of death.

    This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supercede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?

    5. Does it have human rights?

    Yes and No.

    A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.

    If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.

    Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.

    It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.

    Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....

    6. Is abortion murder?

    No. Absolutely not.

    It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

    Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

    But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

    It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

    It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Wow, you're really argumentative (today?)! :
    Not really argumentative. It is just me getting grilled by 4-5 others over my personal opinions. No big deal...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    IN THIS THREAD: People who do not get the concept of sarcasm.
    I wanted someone to tell me the legit reason.

    I still haven't gotten an answer.
    Nobody has given a legit reason, other than rape or endangerment to mother and/or child.

    What is the legit reason.
    You mentioned in so many words, that the child's life may just happen to stink.

    You reiterated with 'consequences'
    Now you're telling me you meant it as sarcasm?
    Just call me Berd.
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm not sure you totally thought this through. I have a few more questions for you:

    Given your logic, wouldn't the father also have the same right to choose? What happens when the mother and father disagree on the choice? Who's rights trump the other and why? If the child is killed against one parent right to choose, what are the legal remedies to the other parent? If the child is allowed to live against the rights of one parent, should the other be allowed to get out of child support? How would that be fair?
    So if the mom has a miscarriage or still birth, can the father press charges for murder? Manslaughter? Can he sue her in civil court for taking away the civil rights of his child?
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    I wanted someone to tell me the legit reason.

    I still haven't gotten an answer.
    Nobody has given a legit reason, other than rape or endangerment to mother and/or child.

    What is the legit reason.
    You mentioned in so many words, that the child's life may just happen to stink.

    You reiterated with 'consequences'
    Now you're telling me you meant it as sarcasm?
    Because neither you nor I have any right telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. If you outlaw abortions, we will go back to coat hangers in allies. Even if don't agree with it, why not at least give the woman a safer alternative.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Because neither you nor I have any right telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. If you outlaw abortions, we will go back to coat hangers in allies. Even if don't agree with it, why not at least give the woman a safer alternative.
    So she doesn't have a legit reason?
    She just wants it gone?
    Just call me Berd.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Not really argumentative. It is just me getting grilled by 4-5 others over my personal opinions. No big deal...
    Sorry to hear that. (Do you mean on here, or elsewhere?)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post

    1. Is it alive?
    2. Is it human?
    3. Is it a person?
    4. Is it physically independent?
    5. Does it have human rights?
    6. Is abortion murder?

    Let's take a look at each of these questions...
    1. You are correct. It is alive and why it should be considered a person I will get to later.

    2. You are mostly correct. But a hair follicle and a zygote are categorically two different things and no amount of growth will change that.

    3. Wrong. Self-awareness is not enough to constitute humanness. Would a comatose person cease being a person? Would a baby born unconscious for whatever reason not be a person? Is a person with severe mental retardation to the point that they lack self-awareness not a person?

    4. Wrong. In the sense that the primary tools for survival are, at their core, food and shelter, the zygote is as independent as a fully developed human being. Any fully developed human being needs the appropriate food and shelter for survival. Now we would both agree that a six month old baby is a person, yes? But if the mother walks away from a six month old baby will they survive? Not for long. So, what's the difference? The baby, like the zygote, like the fully developed human being relies on the proper food and shelter for their stage of development in order to survive.

    5. Partly right. And excuse me but I think your answer is as flippant as the one you suggest from the anti-abortion argument. Two people can, in fact, exist in one body. Its called pregnancy. But, its also called conjoined twins if you'd rather look at it from that perspective. One twins rights can't supersede the other's can they? That, my friend, is called compromise. And its something every person has to deal with.

    6. Probably goes without saying but I think you're very wrong here too. And treating a zygote as carelessly as one might treat a hair follicle is an extremely dangerous thing.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    So if the mom has a miscarriage or still birth, can the father press charges for murder? Manslaughter? Can he sue her in civil court for taking away the civil rights of his child?
    Before answering this question, I have to say that premature births and still births is a topic sensitive to both mothers and fathers. I'm the father of a miscarried baby and it was no fun, especially for my wife. Both my wife and I always wonder why it happened.

    In attempting to answer your question, first let me state that I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman, maybe it would depend on whether or not she intentionally caused the child's death. At least in the USA, the child does not have civil rights before birth, so I doubt he'd be successful in such a suit. But once again, I think it is rare where you would find a mother who wanted to kill her own child.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    No, it is best to just keep reproducing, no mater what the consequences...
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Because neither you nor I have any right telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. ...
    Just another thought for you: If none of us have a right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body, then shouldn't she be allowed to reproduce as often as she pleases?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Sorry to hear that. (Do you mean on here, or elsewhere?)
    Here. I alone am apparently the voice for women's rights.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Because neither you nor I have any right telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body.
    As long as the child is not considered a person or a body, but merely tissue that the woman wants to have removed, then I suppose you have a point here. What if the tissue in her body was not just her body, but also belonged to another? As the father, should you or I have some say in the matter or not, and why? (I asked this question before but you did not answer.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    If you outlaw abortions, we will go back to coat hangers in allies. Even if don't agree with it, why not at least give the woman a safer alternative.
    I've never witnessed an abortion, but I've heard stories that while the women are medically cared for, that several women are lined up in waiting rooms for the doctor to perform the procedures one after the other and then non doctor medical personnel are left to deal with the aftermath, so I'm not sure abortion is as safe as you think it is. You should contact your congressmen and ask that they better regulate this profession so that the woman can have a safer alternative.

    PS: Sorry if the above description grosses you (or anyone else) out.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Here. I alone am apparently the voice for women's rights.
    I'm a voice for women's rights too. You (and they) are not alone. Also remember that about half of the unborn babies are women!

    Do you have specific life experiences that shaped your views on abortion rights? (Just curious. You can PM me if that's easier.)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Just another thought for you: If none of us have a right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body, then shouldn't she be allowed to reproduce as often as she pleases?
    Yes, she can reproduce as much as she pleases. I am not for "mandating" abortions.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions