Town of Braintree

nice placement pro-life type



although we appreciate the thought,
what does it have to do with this thread? i know that Jesus loves you and I'm glad for that as well,but that's as reverent here as the Patriots/Dolphins box score, you know?
good luck with that,OK? God bless.










To kill a foetus after 24 weeks

Oct 11, 2004
It is time to think what it means to kill a foetus after 24 weeks

I am not in favour of making all abortion illegal: I believe that any abortion is a source for profound regret, but that it is a choice that women are entitled to make at an early stage in a pregnancy, often because of other factors in their lives.

I strongly believe, however, that there now needs to be a fresh debate about the number of weeks at which a pregnancy can be legally terminated.

This should come in the wake of recent medical technology which has deepened our understanding of a baby's development in the womb, coupled with the fact that medical advances now allow growing numbers of premature babies to survive at an increasingly early stage.

Doctors should not be aborting foetuses at a stage at which another doctor - operating under a different set of instructions - could give that same baby a reasonable chance of leading a full and healthy life.

Too many women treat abortion as a morally viable option even at a very late stage in a pregnancy. They create the demand, and culpable doctors such as Dr Tanda go on to fulfil it by providing illegal, late-term abortions - effectively early infanticide.

But if these women could be persuaded to endure just another three months of pregnancy - which almost all would if illegal interventions such as those we uncovered in Barcelona were not available - such is the demand for adoption that their unwanted babies could be guaranteed a loving home for the rest of their lives.

At no point did BPAS attempt to talk me out of my apparent ''decision'' to terminate my pregnancy at such a late stage. No counselling was offered.

Many women who seek late-term abortions are themselves in a state of confusion and desperation. If they were offered professional reassurance instead of encouraged towards such a grotesque ''solution'', they might be prevented from making a decision which may well haunt them for the rest of their lives.


-By not in favour of making allabort



By townie home owner

oranges and apples:gotta luv'em




fruits good for you;so the doctor says.
any how,what's with the obsession with comparing dead with living presidents?
FDR should never be mentioned in the same breath with the Knock off president.the only thing they have in common is that we refer to them both as president.Bushie couldn't wipe FDR Butt.or Truman's,Ike's JFK'S or even Reagan's.










Roosevelt Was Not Todays liberal

Oct 11, 2004
President Roosevelt was an old time democrat with the courage of his convictions not a liberal he was very much like Zell Miller!!!
Liberals in those days were called socialists, communists, take your pick.

Republicans of that time were largely ultra conservative and isolationists!

One thing Roosevelt saw was a way out of the great depression in the war! The president
understood economics of putting people to work! The problem was to get the people stirred up
and Pearl Harbor sure provided that, just like 9/11 does to me!

-By Lived through It



By townie home owner

Not to mention

If we had lost the Revolutionary war we would all be speaking English today..

Sam

Putting Words in the President's

Putting Words in the President's Mouth
Sixteen obvious points that George W. Bush should make during the Wednesday night debate.

(1) My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver . . .

(2) There are two organizations pushing for change in November--al Qaeda and the Democratic party. And they both have the same message: ''We're going to fix you, America.'' On the whole, the terrorists have a more straightforward plan for fixing things. They're going to blow themselves up. Although, come to think of it, Howard Dean did that.

(3) Senator Kerry, what do you mean my administration ''lost'' 1.6 million jobs? Did Dick Cheney accidentally leave 1.6 million jobs in the Senate men's room or something? Did you find them? Have you got 1.6 million jobs that you're hiding, Senator Kerry? And if you're elected, are you going to give them back?

(4) Speaking of jobs, Senator, how come every illegal immigrant who wades the Rio is able to find one in about 10 minutes? Meanwhile, your Democratic core constituency has been unemployed for years. Are your supporters lazy, Senator Kerry? Or are they stupid? Back when Clinton was president, did your supporters think they got their jobs at Burger King because Bill was sleeping with the cow?

(5) You say health care costs are soaring? Well, I'm not the one with a personal injury lawyer on my ticket. I loved the billboards that John Edwards used to have all over North Carolina: ''Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE GOT HURT AT WORK AND NOT EVEN KNOWN IT'' and ''FEELIN' POORLY? LEMME SUE YER DOCTOR!''

(6) Yeah, we're running a deficit. Like Democrats never did that. But at least we're borrowing the money when interest rates are low. It's the same as refinancing your home loan. Not that you'd know, Senator Kerry, since your rich wife paid off your mortgage.

(7) You say that we won the war, but we're losing the peace because Iraq is so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq?

(8) No, it turns out Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And how crazy does that make Saddam? All he had to do was tell Hans Blix, ''Look anywhere you want. Look under the bed. Look beneath the couch. Look behind the toilet tank in the third presidential palace on the left, but keep your mitts off my copies of Maxim.'' And Saddam could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld gets elected head of the World Council of Churches. But no . .

By Puff And Stuff