Not that anyone should hope that this means a long-term abandonment of the issue of choice as a vote-getter for Republicans.
Isn’t that an evil thing for those nasty Republicans to talk about in reference to eletions?
Choice?
Not that anyone should hope that this means a long-term abandonment of the issue of choice as a vote-getter for Republicans.
Isn’t that an evil thing for those nasty Republicans to talk about in reference to eletions?
Choice?
Tags: Idiotarians
© 2006–2007 Tim Worstall — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson
5 responses so far ↓
1 JuliaM // Jul 15, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Then, whatever it is, I’m for it.
No, I’m not even going to click on the link. I’m that confident.
2 Newmania // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I have read it and its a chilling piece , the closest thing we have to the belief god is on your side so anything is ok.
I would feel more confident in the supposedly scientific basis of the pro death lobby if the same logic did not work just as well for 6 month year old children.
3 Mark Wadsworth // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Looking on the bright side, ‘Sir’ Jonathan Porritt nearly got run over by a taxi today on the way to the Channel 4 News studio.
4 Newmania // Jul 16, 2009 at 9:46 am
Sorry Mark I`m a cup half empty man and “nearly” just depresses me
5 gene berman // Jul 18, 2009 at 12:55 am
Newmania:
You’re absolutely right! And the Princeton ethicist, Peter Singer, is in favor of extending the “free-kill” zone somewhat to the right of “birth” on the axis of the “conception” to
“adulthood” line plot.
Leave a Comment