Besides, the anti-birth control/anti-women segment for the most part views the "purpose" of marriage as to have children, not two people choosing to have a committed relationship. You can see what would come next if they ever got their "no birth control" world. Next step would be penalizing people who didn't have children. They of course would be "ungodly". "Be fruitful and multiply," or else...
"Our job is to enhance life,"
And if it gets in the way of your idea of "enhancing life", i.e. being mature and recognizing you are not emotionally, and/or financially, able to do the job of raising a child -- or more children -- well that's just too bad. So you could have provided college educations for the two you had, but the third came along and that took up the money. They'll all just have to work in factories, or Burger King. Have a disabled child you need to save every penny for their future when you are gone? Too bad, have another child, or two, or three, or... Or just don't have sex for the next 20-30 years.
After all, it's not like you are a thinking-person, or have a right to decide your own life. You couldn't possibly decide what is moral, or not. Someone must do it for you!
Say it goes against your own religious beliefs? Too bad. Your right to worship as your conscience dictates ends if it doesn't fall lock step with *our* theology.
Who is behind these anti-birth control groups, and are they pro-life or simply anti-women?
By and large it's the same quasi-Christian groups. Take away abortion, take away birth-control, while they are harping on "woman's place is in the home/woman is subservient to the man" routine. The big money behind the "right", Scaife's, Coors, etc are all anti-women making a peep, or doing anything but staying home too. Then you think of how many of them have racist pasts, or still do. I have to wonder how much has to do with the projections that show "white" will be a minority around 2050 at current birth rates/immigration rates.
We don't have jobs for the people we have. We arent' able to educate the children we have, and their are millions upon millions starving to death in the world. Be more moral to adopt them than to aimlessly birth children for the sake of birthing them.
Make people have children when they aren't suited for parenting? Make them have more than they can afford, or want? All because one group wants to claim birth control is immoral. No. God is going to have to come tell me it's immoral. Until then, *&%#*&$# anyone who tries to...
Wow, YHOO taking a dive ah. Almost down 4 points.
///////
In Raleigh, N.C., President Bush dismissed Edwards' credentials to be vice president, curtly telling reporters. "Dick Cheney can be president."
Amid questions about the depth of Edwards' experience after less than six years in the Senate, the Kerry campaign on Wednesday defended the selection by pointing to his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee and his participation in an inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"He brings a great deal to the table and actually more than the current president did when he was elected in 2000," Mary Beth Cahill, the Kerry-Edwards campaign manager, told "Good Morning America" on ABC.
Polling conducted the night after the choice of Edwards was announced indicated a favorable impression among voters toward Kerry's choice. Sixty-four percent in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll taken Wednesday night said the choice of Edwards was excellent or good.
In 2000, just over half said they felt that way about the choices of Republican Dick Cheney and Democrat Joe Lieberman. Nine in 10 Democrats, and seven in 10 of all voters, said they were satisfied or enthusiastic about the Edwards pick, according to a CBS News poll.
On Capitol Hill, House Republican leaders dismissed Edwards as another liberal Democrat and doubted he would gain the party serious support in Southern states.
"It's not a very balanced ticket," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told reporters. "Senator Kerry is the No. 1 liberal in the Senate and Senator Edwards is the No. 4 liberal in the Senate."
"There has been a trend over the years that has rejected those liberals that come home and talk conservative," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "That's why Republicans are the overwhelming majority party all across the South."
Although Hastert said Edwards "didn't even carry his own state against Kerry," Edwards won both his native South Carolina during the competitive phase of the primary race and then North Carolina, which gave Edwards a victory even after he had dropped from the race.
/////////////
But if these self-appointed morality police were truly committed to upholding ethics and promoting values in government, they would begin challenging the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is hands down one of the most corrupt politicians in the United States. "The Hammer" -- DeLay got that nickname because he runs the U.S. House of Representatives with an iron fist -- has allegedly bribed his GOP colleagues to win their votes for legislation that he desperately wanted to pass in the House. He's engaged in quid pro quos with corporations seeking legislative favors, and violated campaign finance laws in Texas during the 2002 state house election contests. Now, after a seven-year truce in the U.S. House that discouraged members from filing ethics charges against one another, Rep. Chris Bell has gone to the ethics committee and filed a 187-page bombshell charging that DeLay engaged in extortion, money-laundering and other abuses of power. DeLay's brazen attacks on democratic governance -- a tangled web of truly scandalous behavior -- are so outrageous that even conservative Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has assailed the Republican leadership for fomenting an "anything goes" atmosphere: "I think we're on the edge of something dangerous if we don't turn it around ... It's like the Middle East. You just keep ratcheting up the intensity of the conflict." Real conservatives like Hagel believe that they should take responsibility for their actions. These conservatives actually value the rule of law, and they understand that the ends don't always justify the means in the pursuit of a radical right-wing ideology that serves corporate special interests above all. Tom DeLay has never understood these things. He is committed to his take-no-prisoners agenda, and he sees ethics, morality and rules as nuisances that must be flouted, disdained and ignored. DeLay has racked up a record that demands investigation and action in the ethics committee and the courts of law. His scurrilous misdeeds demonstrate the yawning gap between a former President's private indiscretions and DeLay's dangerous violations of the public trust. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/opinion/main626150.shtml
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
