Agree that!
Man oh man ... I was born 3 months pre-mature back in ... well, a LONG time ago. My mom was an RN at the hospital I was born in. I weighed 3 pounds, the doctors gave me 24 hours and if I lived I was gonna "be retarded". My parents were very open about the fact that they believed that the only reason I survived is the nurses took turns feeding me every 30 minutes, a teaspoon of formula at a time, instead of the "standard" back then, which was every 4 hours, as much as you I could get a baby to take.
I guess they should have just drowned me and gotten it over with. Sheesh ...
I guess they should have just drowned me and gotten it over with. Sheesh ...
Well, one out of two ain't bad...
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.
Well, i only think eugenics would weed out the liberals. So i guess that kind of rules that out.
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.
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...
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affect Buck v. Bell (or Plessy, for that matter; the Civil Rights Act is legislation, not an amendment, so if it were repealed, your argument would be moot).
Your statement was
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?'
