Failure to protect the life for all citizens (who have not been convicted in a court of law) from the time of conception to natrual death.
These dependent cells aren't citizens. Heck Mexicans aren't citizens and they're actual human beings.
Mexicans who do not follow proper immigration procedures should not be in the country in the first place. Citizenship does not start until birth. But it should start at conception.
No such thing. We secularists are trying to defend our right not to have your disgusting practices and primitive rites shoved down our throats in the public forum and on the public dime.
[/quote]
In a sense we fight for the same thing. I want my right to practice my religion and your lack of religion could just as easily be considered "disgusting practices and primitive rites" and that you are shoving secularism down our throats. The real question is where does the line between endorsing and restricting religion begin.
Do you mean like the latest attempt at censorship by the GOP?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_co/congress_indecency_1[/quote]
I'm sure that would be one of them. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (1998 or 1999, passed the Senate 99-0) is the first one that comes to mind. But this is both parties, not just the Republicans. Keep in mind though that most of California (which is heavily liberal) has been on the wrong side of these type of issues as well (since Hollywood is in California). This also ties into my fifth point about rich corporations. They have the money to get things like that passed as well as getting thier tax rate lowered.
And some people wonder why I voted for neither Bush nor Kerry.
