Monday, 6 November 2006
…And the idiots between
an article submitted by jen s.
The abortion issue in the United States has been going on for decades. Abortion is now legal in 54 countries, and every year there are approximately 46 million abortions preformed (1.37 million in the US), only slightly less than half done legally. And everyday, 126,000 women have an abortion worldwide.
Many Americans find themselves in one of two categories, pro-life, or pro-choice, the first being anti-abortion, and the latter being against. However, the group of people claiming to be in the middle is significant, millions of Americans believe that abortions should be legal only for rape and incest cases.
These people, while holding that abortion is the very act of murdering a human life, would agree to the murder of a child, simply because they were conceived or rape. They claim that because the babies mother was raped, and was “forced” to have a child, that the baby will automatically grow up in an unloving environment, facing rejection from its family and will no doubt end up living a meaningless and lonely life.
Is that ignorant? I would certainly say so. Can one “play God” and make decisions like that about someones future? Granted, many children who were conceived out of rape do grow up in an unloving environment, but then, so do many children who were conceived willingly. A child born from rape can still be loved by it’s mother, a child from rape still has the same potential as every other living, breathing infant in the world.
Well, what if the would-be-mother didn’t want the child? It wasn’t her fault, after all, that she was raped. It wasn’t her desire to have a child, to be committed to another person for life. Again, there is a very thin line, no room to stand on. People must choose a side. Either you believe that it is always the mothers choice, or that abortion is murder, and there is no reason ever for it to be preformed. In the situation above, the pro-choice group would say that it is the mothers choice whether she wants to have an abortion, and the pro-life groups would say that abortion is murder, and there are other options besides murder.
By saying that abortion is murder, how can one then condone it under “special circumstances”, both of which the victim had no control over? They can’t. And if one says abortion is not murder, than it is never morally wrong (omiting forced abortions, etc). There is no middle ground.
The chance of conception from a rape is less than 5%, and the actual number of abortions preformed by mothers who conceived from rape or incest is less than 1%.
Monday, 28 August 2006
Saturday, 5 August 2006
There has been a lot of talk, on mindsay, and on the internets lately about homosexuality. Not so much fundementalist homophobes condeming homosexuals to hell, but homosexuals themselves, addamantly defending their sexual preference. To be honest, I couldn’t really care less whether someone was gay or straight. But when I am presented with all these opinions, it makes me think, and I want to present my opinion as well.
One of the common things I have noticed in articles written by people proclaiming their gayness is that they want respect, because being gay is “normal” and “natural”. Mind you, whether homosexuality is normal or not has little to do whether it is morally wrong or right. There are plenty of things that come natural to human beings that aren’t practiced by the general population, because they are wrong, and there are also countless things that humans do do that aren’t natural at all.
Because I don’t want to be educated on science, and gender roles, sexuality, etc. by someone who has formulated their own opinions by the popular media, I turn to people who have studied these things. Scientists from all backgrounds, liberal, conservative, christian fundamentalist, neo-pagan, and even of varying sexual practices have contributed to the research. One of my favorite researchers in this field is Professor Steven Goldberg. Goldberg is the Chairman of the sociology department at City College of NY. He acknowledges that in order to shed light on the real facts of human sociology, you have to look at the facts without bias, without standing on some ideological ground on which you base your opinions. Because, of course, the Christian scientists are going to have evidence against homosexiality, and Pro-Gay scientists are going to have evidence supporting it. :) Thats just the way it is.
A shame that such an advanced society has to mix religion and politics in science.
Goldberg has some interesting things to say about homosexuality..
“Goldberg says that gays have an ideological commitment to proving the normality of homosexuality, but they have not yet been able to make a convincing argument for it.
We cannot grant gays affirmation of the normality of their behavior unless they can give us a cause for homosexuality that can be considered normal, he says. Most gays refuse to consider the common environmental factors that have been found in the backgrounds of homosexuals; they simply insist that causation is “irrelevant.” They expect, he says, that we should suspend criteria for normality which psychologists apply in all other cases.
Many gay spokesmen actually tend to deny the logic of deeming any behavior abnormal. Yet this approach does them little good. What they really want to argue, Goldberg says, is that homosexuality is normal, while other behaviors like necrophilia and coprophilia are not. To make the argument that homosexuality is normal because “all variant behaviors are ‘normal,'” gays would then be forced to deliver an argument explaining why necrophilia and coprophilia should be viewed as perversions, while homosexuality was healthy.”
Again, do not get me wrong. I have nothing against homosexuals. I would never try to stop someone from loving their same sex partner, I would never commit or condone hate crimes, and I would never treat someone differently because of their sexuality. But I will tell people my opinions, especially when everyone else gets to share. It is Samaels turn. : ]
I have heard a lot of homosexuals, and “pro gays” on the rampage claim that people are born gay. :) That my dearies, is utter foolishness. Not only has it been dismissed by everyone in the scientific field, it’s not logical. There is no evidence supporting the “gay gene” theory either. Simon LeVay himself has said this: “It is important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”. So homosexuality is not genetic. No one is inheriantly gay. If they were, anyone who was gay would not be able to change. I personally know three people who once identified themselves and practiced bi-homosexuality, and since have found opposite sex lovers. Does this mean that all people can do this? I don’t know. But it can and does happen. An arguement against people “changing sexuality” is that they wern’t really gay, they were straight all along. Really? Who can say? No one.
I hate making long posts, so I will cut this one here. :) Enjoysed!
Friday, 23 June 2006
I recently stumbled upon a site, that I think everyone should see, regardless of political standpoint.
Saturday, 15 April 2006
An Article by People Matter
How many more kids will try and get away with plotting a Columbine style massacre?
Just tonight on the news there was this report: Student charged in threat at Michigan school.
Just do a search on any search engine and you will find line after line of incidents where kids are going overboard with their supposed "goth" mentalities.
The schools aren't giving enough lessons to occupy their time so these kids go off into cliques that get them arrested. Nice.
How about the parents and school districts getting together to stamp out the uprising of hatred and plots of this nature. If parents were paying more attention and taking initiative in their kid's lives, then they would probably NOT be into the ugly side of the goth fad. If the schools were doing their job, these kids wouldn't feel the need to jump into detrimental cliques and avenues that will ultimately hurt or kill themselves and others.
Wednesday, 22 March 2006
Well, the ACEEE ratings are out. And here are the stats!
The Worst Cars of 2006 (meanest)
|Make and Model||MPG:
|DODGE RAM SRT10||9||12||12|
|DODGE RAM 1500||12||15||17|
|HUMMER H2 b||13||17||18|
|FORD F-250 b||13||17||18|
|GMC YUKON XL K2500 b||13||17||18|
|CHEVROLET SUBURBAN K2500 b||13||17||19|
|[P] denotes premium gasoline.
“auto stk” designates manually adjustable automatic transmission.
a A listing with two emission standards (e.g., Tier 2 bin 9 / LEV I) denotes a single vehicle carrying both a federal and California emission certification. Green Scores for such listings reflect the cleaner of the two certifications.
b These vehicles, classified as heavy duty trucks, are exempt from fuel economy regulations.
c The 2wd configuration of this model also receives a Green Score of 17.
The Best Cars of 2006 (Greenest)
|Make and Model||MPG: City||MPG: Hwy||Green Score|
|HONDA CIVIC GX||30||34||57|
|HONDA CIVIC HYBRID||49||51||53|
|KIA RIO / RIO 5||32||35||45|
|PONTIAC VIBE /
TOYOTA MATRIX d
|a Certain other configurations of these models (with different transmissions or meeting different emission standards) score nearly as well.
b A listing with two emission standards (e.g., Tier 2 bin 5 / SULEV II) denotes a single vehicle carrying both a Federal and California emission certification. Green Scores for such listings reflect the cleaner of the two certifications.
c Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel economy given in gasoline-equivalent miles per gallon.
d These vehicles are “twins” — the same base model carrying different names.
Please consider the world when buying a new car. Visit greenercars.com for information on buying environment-friendly cars, and to compare cars, trucks and SUV’s.
Monday, 13 March 2006
Sparks fly in the debate over assisted suicide in the United States. Assisted suicide, by most, is thought to be something that only the very old and very sick would ever even consider. But, in other parts of the world, that is not the case.
“Each year in Holland at least 15 seriously ill babies, most of them with severe spina bifida or chromosomal abnormalities, are helped to die by doctors acting with the parents’ consent. But only a fraction of those cases are reported to the authorities because of the doctors’ fears of being charged with murder.
Things are about to change, however, making it much easier for parents and doctors to end the suffering of an infant.
A committee set up to regulate the practice will begin operating in the next few weeks, effectively making Holland, where adult euthanasia is legal, the first country in the world to allow “baby euthanasia” as well.” (1)
This could be a first step into changing the way people look at assisted suicide and “mercy killings” forever. People both for and against need to take another look at the issue, and really think about the consequences of what could happen, if this practice becomes common.
(1) -The Times Online, Matthew Campbell Read the article online here
Thursday, 9 March 2006
By Davyd 'Hu
An article in the Washington Post shows that more and more Americans have negative views of Islam, and people of Arab descent. A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC news found that 46% of Americans view Islam as a violent religion. 33% believe that Islalm is responsable for violence against non-Muslims, and one in three Americans have heard negative comments about the religion recently.
An online poll at MSNBC.com revealed this:
78% of 27,244 people said that they have unfavorable views of Islam. Why is this? Many people are claiming that this is because of frequent attacks aimed directly at Muslims by the media and politicians. It is true that most Americans don't trust Arab nations or companies, something clearly seen in the ongoing Dubai "negotiation". But does America have good reasons? The whole world has seen the effects of terrorism by Islamic fundementalists. The United States is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are seeing much violence and destruction done by Arabs and Muslim terrorists.
The reactions of thousands of Muslims over the Danish Muhammad cartoons resulted in violence and mass potests certainly dosen't help the public view Islam in a better way.
Ironically, while more people see Islam as a religion of violence and hate, it is the fastest growing religion in the United States, and, depending on who you ask, it might even be the fastest growing religion in the world. So whether you like it or not, Americans are going to have to learn to deal with it.
Tuesday, 28 February 2006
The Bush administration is planning to let an Arab nation control the security of not one, but six major American ports. On American soil. Should people be worried? After all, this is an Arab country. The same group of people this country is worried about blowing us all up.
I believe that the point is not that the Dubai company is owned and run by an Arab nation, but that a nation other than the US is controling our ports. Shouldn’t a country be in charge of their own security? If Mr. Bush is so concerned for Homeland Security, why is he giving our security over to another country? He will spy on his own people because he is supposedly afraid of Arab terrorists, but he will allow an Arab nation to control the security of our ports.
It is also worth mentioning that both conservatives and liberals are against this decision, and are working to create legislation that will not allow this deal to take place.
If the American people are truely concerned about their security as a nation, they will not allow President Bush to follow through with this deal. And that means letting people know how we feel. Find some way to let people know that you think this is a terrable decision. Contact the White House, and let your voice be heard.
Sunday, 26 February 2006
By Davyd ‘Hu
It’s hard to believe that in the year 2006, there are still racists and white supremacists. Worst still than following this sort of “philosophy” is spreading its propaganda, and that is exactly what an online movement called National Vanguard is doing.
Being slightly less than aesthetically pleasing is the least of this organizations problems. Filth and ignorant lies abound on this website. There are numerous quotes within these so called “articles” that normally would have made me laugh for the stark stupidity and ignorance, however, because they were actually serious, made me angry. People like the creators of this organization make me feel ashamed to be of European descent.
After browsing the site for merely three minutes, I found myself unable to continue, so full of crap this site was. However, I did pick out two quotes to post here, two quotes that reveal the ignorance, and hateful evil that these people are all about.
“Both he and I have been researching the Jewish connection to the sexual slavery, debauchery, and rape of White women by non-Whites and, I’m telling you, the connection is there. Jews are so dominant and influential in debasing and deceiving White women and girls on such a massive scale that, to any decent White person, no forgiveness is possible.”
“As a public service, National Alliance members in Silicon Valley have been warning residents of the area about the serious health risks for White people associated with interracial sex.”
Click the link below to go to this racist and hateful organizations homepage.
You can be sure that Twisted Press will further look into modern racism online, and especially in the media. Check back for more information soon.
Email Twisted Press: firstname.lastname@example.org