Agree that!...and that last sentence is about the scariest thing I've read on OSA this year.
Agree that!...and that last sentence is about the scariest thing I've read on OSA this year.
Well, one out of two ain't bad...the doctors gave me 24 hours and if I lived I was gonna "be retarded".
Well, one out of two ain't bad...
...and that last sentence is about the scariest thing I've read on OSA this year.
1. Abortion is largely indiscriminate; eugenics is about creating a better gene pool (or, as some put it, a master race).I don't see why, Abortion is basically watered down eugenics.
1. Abortion is largely indiscriminate; eugenics is about creating a better gene pool (or, as some put it, a master race).
2. Aren't you in the wrong party? Eugenics is traditionally a progressive idea.
You try to dig that hole any deeper and you're going to need a backhoe.Well, i only think eugenics would weed out the liberals. So i guess that kind of rules that out.
I never said it did; in fact, you're the one who brought the topic up. I'm not sure I want to take moral advice from somebody who has "never been opposed to eugenics."You say abortion is indiscriminate, but it largely effects minority communities. So it's a sort of an elective Holocaust in a way. Just because it doesn't target a particular group of people doesn't make it right, though.
You try to dig that hole any deeper and you're going to need a backhoe.
I never said it did; in fact, you're the one who brought the topic up. I'm not sure I want to take moral advice from somebody who has "never been opposed to eugenics."
I take it back; I am sure. I don't.
Nothing has changed in the Constitution that would affect Buck v. Bell (or Plessy, for that matter; the Civil Rights Act is legislation, not an amendment, so if it were repealed, your argument would be moot).you're obviously not understanding the facetious nature of my comments.
I don't support eugenics and i only stated that i did as a sarcastic response to your statement that an original interpretation of the constitution would mean that i would have to tacitly support eugenics and segregation.
I oppose Eugenics, segregation and abortion. As i've said many times before...
The Court reverses itself for many reasons. Sometimes, it's because the Court got it wrong the first time. Sometimes, it realizes the error as a result of evolving knowledge. Are you saying we should perpetuate a bad decision to avoid "evolving?'that's what always irritated me about the 'evolving' judiciary. What was unconstitutional when it was written is constitutional now. Makes the constitution nothing more than a piece of paper.
If it was constitutional when it was written, it should be constitutional now.
Enter your email address to join: