EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6446707/

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Pathetic attempt by the government. SO so sad. I'm waiting for the day another scientist grabs a hold of power in this country. Then logic will overcome tardition/religion/propaganda. But unfortunatly, Carter was as close as I think we'll ever come...and he disappointed.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

This article is a red herring to cloud the facts.

I did research in college about this. The risk of breast cancer IS higher to those having an abortion versus someone carrying to full-term and breast-feeding.

As research proved, immature breast cells are more prone to damage from environmental pollutants than mature cells, or ones that have developed milk.

So, in reality, you can lower your chance of getting breast cancer by breast-feeding, but I don't know that any evidence attributes cancer to the act of abortion.

The truth of the matter is this, though, if you have two pregnant women (first time pregnancies) of the same age, the one that has an abortion will have a higher chance of breast cancer.

There may be some other link, but I haven't heard of it yet.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

It's not that misleading. Your research showed that breast feeding lowers the chances of breast cancer. Some women who have their babies don't even breast feed. So the link between cancer and abortions is tenuous at best. Also, the cells that produce milk exist in every woman. So are you saying there is a small window of time when the cells begin making milk and before they are 'used' that has a higher chance of environmental dammage? Somehow I doubt this is true...

deyes

I'm waiting for the day that tradition, religion, and logic can all live together harmoniously. I'm all for tradition, religion and science BTW. Logic is just what makes sense to someone so its a relative issue. I seriously wonder why so many want people to abandon their traditions and religions in this country they are more often then not a good thing.

SilverScoober02

Don't abandon them. Personal religion is a wonderful and powerful thing.

Just get it out of government!!

deyes

So we should not vote according to our beliefs and convictions?

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

You shouldn't deny other people the way they want to live thier lives (gay marriage, abortion, no prayer in schools) based on your religion.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Yes, and don't forget beastiality, polygamy, and other things associated with the loss of morals. I'll take 50s America over this any day. I want my children to say 'Under God" when they take the pledge.

deyes

I absolutely agree wrong or right people will do as they choose. The issue of gay marriage is one I have given a great deal of thought to I have been torn between my belief that it is wrong, and my belief that people should be allowed to do as they please so long as it does not harm another. I've decided that the sex is the wrong part and the issue of a civil union is one that needs be addressed. If people are to be truly free, right or wrong in this regard the government should do one of two things. Recognize all unions between consenting people of legal age, or recognize none and leave the issue of marriage up to the peoples customs and beliefs. If those were the choices on the ballot then either way the seperation of church and state would be served. But since those are not the choices I will have to follow my belief that its wrong and vote against it.

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

So even though you believe that it's wrong not to allow people to get married no matter what sex they are because they aren't hurting anyone else you still vote against it?

You sound just like Kerry to tell the truth. He also said that he doesn't believe in it and thinks we should "protect the sanctity of marriage" and they should have to settle for civil unions.

deyes

I said that if those were the choices on the ballot then I would vote for one or the other, those are not the choices on the ballot so....
In other words the government should consider all relationships between any people of legal age to be "civil unions" and wether or not people are "married" would depend on what faith they belong to. But that is not what is on the ballot, the issue on the ballot is about marriage so its an issue of faith, I vote according to my beliefs. Am I really stopping gays from calling themselves married? No. Am I stopping them from sleeping with eachother? No. Am I voting against them having the same rights as hetrosexuals? No, I think civil unions is a good idea, but my belief is that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Is a civil union settling if they have the same rights?

dub2w

Then you would have to pick the year specifically... Under God was placed into the pedge after 1950 (in fear of the pinko-Commies)

EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

Do you want people that don't believe in "God" to be forced to say that when they pledge for the great country they live in?

deyes

Do you want people to be forced to call other people "married" when they don't believe in gay marriage? If the government recognizes gay couples and heterosexual couples the same that is fine by me, if a gay goes to a church that says they can be married and they are married in that church, again fine by me. But my government forcing me to recognize a gay "marriage" is not fine by me.