<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>A Classic O&#8217;Reilly Slugfest, Part IIComments on:  - by</title> <atom:link href="http://robertringer.com/2009/06/18/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/</link> <description>In Support of Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Individual Freedom</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 21:45:46 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: LibertyBoyNM</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2526</link> <dc:creator>LibertyBoyNM</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:22:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2526</guid> <description>If a pregnant woman gets drunk, falls and that fall results in a miscarriage, she should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, right?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a pregnant woman gets drunk, falls and that fall results in a miscarriage, she should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, right?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: KevinM</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2525</link> <dc:creator>KevinM</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:15:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2525</guid> <description>&quot;For the record, the terminology is correct–it’s really only a collection of cells, a fetus, a POTENTIAL human being, until it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb. Only then, does it become a baby.&quot;
Mile54--Have you stopped to read your words to realize how Orwellian they are?  This is straight out of science fiction.  What you&#039;re describing is more akin to a tumor.  And you declare it with the certainty of a zealot with not a trace of introspection.
It proves the point that the attitudes of the pro-abortion crowd have become hardened beyond reason.  Isn&#039;t this what the Nazis were both feared and despised for?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;For the record, the terminology is correct–it’s really only a collection of cells, a fetus, a POTENTIAL human being, until it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb. Only then, does it become a baby.&#8221;</p><p>Mile54&#8211;Have you stopped to read your words to realize how Orwellian they are?  This is straight out of science fiction.  What you&#8217;re describing is more akin to a tumor.  And you declare it with the certainty of a zealot with not a trace of introspection.</p><p>It proves the point that the attitudes of the pro-abortion crowd have become hardened beyond reason.  Isn&#8217;t this what the Nazis were both feared and despised for?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: mile54</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2524</link> <dc:creator>mile54</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:47:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2524</guid> <description>Hmmm... so removing the choice of women to determine whether or not they continue any given pregnancy will make America more &quot;civilized&quot;???  I notice it is largely men commenting on this issue.  NO woman really wants a late-term abortion.  I understand this process is extremely painful and unpleasant.  They won&#039;t just wake up one day, and decide a late-term abortion might be on the agenda. There will have been many hours, days, or months of agonizing before they reach the conclusion that an abortion is their choice; you men haven&#039;t carried a fetus to term, delivered a baby, and then given it up for adoption, either, or you wouldn&#039;t be so quick to suggest that as a option. For the record, the terminology is correct--it&#039;s really only a collection of cells, a fetus, a POTENTIAL human being, until it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb.  Only then, does it become a baby.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230; so removing the choice of women to determine whether or not they continue any given pregnancy will make America more &#8220;civilized&#8221;???  I notice it is largely men commenting on this issue.  NO woman really wants a late-term abortion.  I understand this process is extremely painful and unpleasant.  They won&#8217;t just wake up one day, and decide a late-term abortion might be on the agenda. There will have been many hours, days, or months of agonizing before they reach the conclusion that an abortion is their choice; you men haven&#8217;t carried a fetus to term, delivered a baby, and then given it up for adoption, either, or you wouldn&#8217;t be so quick to suggest that as a option. For the record, the terminology is correct&#8211;it&#8217;s really only a collection of cells, a fetus, a POTENTIAL human being, until it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb.  Only then, does it become a baby.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: RonnotRob</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2523</link> <dc:creator>RonnotRob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:47:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2523</guid> <description>The eternal issue that is rarely addressed surrounding abortion is the public acceptance of single parent families. I was reminded recently of the issue by a discussion regarding the &quot;lost children&quot; of Australia, a generation of children forcibly removed from their Mothers for adoption regardless of the Mother&#039;s wishes. Similar attitudes remain today. Greater acceptance, greater options for single Mother&#039;s, fewer abortions, late term or otherwise.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The eternal issue that is rarely addressed surrounding abortion is the public acceptance of single parent families. I was reminded recently of the issue by a discussion regarding the &#8220;lost children&#8221; of Australia, a generation of children forcibly removed from their Mothers for adoption regardless of the Mother&#8217;s wishes. Similar attitudes remain today. Greater acceptance, greater options for single Mother&#8217;s, fewer abortions, late term or otherwise.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: teddyboy46</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2522</link> <dc:creator>teddyboy46</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:05 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2522</guid> <description>I agree with Mr. Ringer about stopping abortion as the first step to  returning to a civlized socity. Though I would like to add this &quot; We endure the tyranny of goverment because we can not govern ourselves. &quot; Thomas Paine.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Mr. Ringer about stopping abortion as the first step to  returning to a civlized socity. Though I would like to add this &#8221; We endure the tyranny of goverment because we can not govern ourselves. &#8221; Thomas Paine.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: deusimplicitus</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2521</link> <dc:creator>deusimplicitus</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:59:33 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2521</guid> <description>Just for the record, the misleading term &quot;progressive&quot; is a misnomer, and nothing more that a movement in advocating a return to what is in reality, a regressive and old form of communistic style government, that has utterly failed everywhere it&#039;s been implemented by a gradual or coup d&#039;etat  totalitarian rule.
Implying an advancement forward of a political philosophy by using the word &quot;progress&quot; is just another way the insidious left uses words and concepts as acts of intellectual legerdermain, to fool  mostly young people who refuse or who are unable to clearly think through how tired old ideas are being repackaged to once again be marketed and sold to a new and unsuspecting potential audience.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just for the record, the misleading term &#8220;progressive&#8221; is a misnomer, and nothing more that a movement in advocating a return to what is in reality, a regressive and old form of communistic style government, that has utterly failed everywhere it&#8217;s been implemented by a gradual or coup d&#8217;etat  totalitarian rule.</p><p>Implying an advancement forward of a political philosophy by using the word &#8220;progress&#8221; is just another way the insidious left uses words and concepts as acts of intellectual legerdermain, to fool  mostly young people who refuse or who are unable to clearly think through how tired old ideas are being repackaged to once again be marketed and sold to a new and unsuspecting potential audience.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: KevinM</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2520</link> <dc:creator>KevinM</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:37:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2520</guid> <description>Now this is errie; either I copied you, you copied me, or we have a classic case of &quot;great minds think alike&quot;.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now this is errie; either I copied you, you copied me, or we have a classic case of &#8220;great minds think alike&#8221;.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Randall</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2519</link> <dc:creator>Randall</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:16:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2519</guid> <description>Between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist who won.?
The words &quot;Constitution&quot; and &quot;Founding Fathers&quot; are put forth as if everyone knows what the original intent was at the moment. The long term goal of the Constitution was to last maybe 20 years-Thomas Jefferson.
&quot;Cracks in the Constitution&quot; by Ferdinand Lundberg, explores who the men where who created it and how it was used despite what was said. How it was used tells more than the nostalgia of the remakers of history. Our understanding may be unrelated to the facts.
Where as:
1) The Constitution puts no limits on the United States Government.
2) Conveys unlimited taxing powers.
3) Conveys unlimited power to raise armies to use anywhere.
4) Uses the Bill of Rights as window dressing to thwart the will of the people.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist who won.?</p><p>The words &#8220;Constitution&#8221; and &#8220;Founding Fathers&#8221; are put forth as if everyone knows what the original intent was at the moment. The long term goal of the Constitution was to last maybe 20 years-Thomas Jefferson.</p><p>&#8220;Cracks in the Constitution&#8221; by Ferdinand Lundberg, explores who the men where who created it and how it was used despite what was said. How it was used tells more than the nostalgia of the remakers of history. Our understanding may be unrelated to the facts.<br
/> Where as:<br
/> 1) The Constitution puts no limits on the United States Government.<br
/> 2) Conveys unlimited taxing powers.<br
/> 3) Conveys unlimited power to raise armies to use anywhere.<br
/> 4) Uses the Bill of Rights as window dressing to thwart the will of the people.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: deusimplicitus</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2518</link> <dc:creator>deusimplicitus</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:03:02 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2518</guid> <description>By the so called &quot;Supreme&quot; Court changing the premise of what constitutes a &quot;human being&quot;, they opened the door for further definitions and legal declarations of what constitutes a &quot;human being&quot;. What about the old and infirm, the mentally ill, and those that society may now declare to be useless to the health and prosperity to the gene pool and a society overall? How is it that self declared &quot;progressives&quot; actually retrograde back in their thinking and political beliefs on a failed and impoverishing political philosophy of communism that killed over 100 million people in the 20th Century, and then have the delusional belief to include the word &quot;progress&quot; in their belief system? It&#039;s progressive to return to the godless human secularist belief matrix where the state holds all authoritarian power to decided the validity and limitations of basic human rights and thus to declare who can be considered an asset to the state as well as a liability to that all powerful state?
This current American scenario of the redefinition of concepts, is a page right out of the Orwellian literature of how authoritarian governments control their people by education that population to accept the opposite concept as the meaning of the original word,
&quot;War is Peace;
Freedom is Slavery;
Ignorance is Strength.&quot;
&quot;In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes an act of rebellion.&quot;
(George Orwell)
Since the American education system has become government directed and conceived, and this propagandizing has been indoctrinating and imprinting young minds with the agenda that sustains and promotes the premises of that government in setting the standards for what passes as morality and justice, American is undeniably in a decaying orbit towards an eventual forfeiture of our right to even dissent and
publicly speak out against the policies and
authoritarian decrees of our government. To even discuss issues and topics such as this in public forums in the near future, could conceivably be declared &quot;treasonous&quot; and an act of rebellion against the state.
I recently watched a film by Ben Stein entitled &#039;Expelled..No Intelligence Allowed&#039; which clearly showed how the education system and state has shut down even the intellectual right to have academic discussions on topics not approved by the state, and those educators who violated this &quot;unwritten&quot; but clearly enforced mandate, were summarily dismissed one way or another.
By not speaking out now, defiantly and loudly, against this academic and governmental closing down of all free speech and debate on issues that are found to be against the approved line of discourse and debate, we then automatically empower and embolden the entrenched authorities to strengthen their stranglehold on people by the restricting the discussion of ideas.
”Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” (Josef Stalin)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the so called &#8220;Supreme&#8221; Court changing the premise of what constitutes a &#8220;human being&#8221;, they opened the door for further definitions and legal declarations of what constitutes a &#8220;human being&#8221;. What about the old and infirm, the mentally ill, and those that society may now declare to be useless to the health and prosperity to the gene pool and a society overall? How is it that self declared &#8220;progressives&#8221; actually retrograde back in their thinking and political beliefs on a failed and impoverishing political philosophy of communism that killed over 100 million people in the 20th Century, and then have the delusional belief to include the word &#8220;progress&#8221; in their belief system? It&#8217;s progressive to return to the godless human secularist belief matrix where the state holds all authoritarian power to decided the validity and limitations of basic human rights and thus to declare who can be considered an asset to the state as well as a liability to that all powerful state?</p><p>This current American scenario of the redefinition of concepts, is a page right out of the Orwellian literature of how authoritarian governments control their people by education that population to accept the opposite concept as the meaning of the original word,<br
/> &#8220;War is Peace;<br
/> Freedom is Slavery;<br
/> Ignorance is Strength.&#8221;</p><p>&#8220;In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes an act of rebellion.&#8221;<br
/> (George Orwell)</p><p>Since the American education system has become government directed and conceived, and this propagandizing has been indoctrinating and imprinting young minds with the agenda that sustains and promotes the premises of that government in setting the standards for what passes as morality and justice, American is undeniably in a decaying orbit towards an eventual forfeiture of our right to even dissent and<br
/> publicly speak out against the policies and<br
/> authoritarian decrees of our government. To even discuss issues and topics such as this in public forums in the near future, could conceivably be declared &#8220;treasonous&#8221; and an act of rebellion against the state.<br
/> I recently watched a film by Ben Stein entitled &#8216;Expelled..No Intelligence Allowed&#8217; which clearly showed how the education system and state has shut down even the intellectual right to have academic discussions on topics not approved by the state, and those educators who violated this &#8220;unwritten&#8221; but clearly enforced mandate, were summarily dismissed one way or another.</p><p>By not speaking out now, defiantly and loudly, against this academic and governmental closing down of all free speech and debate on issues that are found to be against the approved line of discourse and debate, we then automatically empower and embolden the entrenched authorities to strengthen their stranglehold on people by the restricting the discussion of ideas.</p><p>”Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” (Josef Stalin)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: johnvanepps</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2517</link> <dc:creator>johnvanepps</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:39:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2517</guid> <description>RR,
This is a tough one for me.  I was adopted as a baby, and had my natural mother been pro-choice (or had the times been different in the late 50&#039;s) I might never have been born at all.
Many years ago, I &#039;hooked-up&#039; with a woman who ultimately became pregnant due to what I can only legitimately say (today) was my personal failing to use adequate anti-pregnancy protection.  She subsequently had an abortion, which I helped finance.
At the time, I felt a rather large commitment had been avoided, and I was grateful that she felt the same way.
I&#039;m not proud of that period of my life today, abeit still thankful I wasn&#039;t forced to pay eighteen years of child support for a child I neither wanted nor had the ability to support in any reasonable fashion at that time - and especially with a &#039;fling&#039;.
I wouldn&#039;t be inclined to make the same decision today; nor could I even attempt to justify my actions as I did then.  From today&#039;s perspective, I realize my actions actually killed a human being.
I can&#039;t change my past - my only hope for &#039;atonement&#039; is to learn from my youthful errors, and not repeat them.
I&#039;d urge any younger person to think - truly think - about their actions prior.  The regrets and remorse you feel many years on won&#039;t be obvious at the time - but they will be a part of you forever...
JVE</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RR,<br
/> This is a tough one for me.  I was adopted as a baby, and had my natural mother been pro-choice (or had the times been different in the late 50&#8242;s) I might never have been born at all.</p><p>Many years ago, I &#8216;hooked-up&#8217; with a woman who ultimately became pregnant due to what I can only legitimately say (today) was my personal failing to use adequate anti-pregnancy protection.  She subsequently had an abortion, which I helped finance.</p><p>At the time, I felt a rather large commitment had been avoided, and I was grateful that she felt the same way.</p><p>I&#8217;m not proud of that period of my life today, abeit still thankful I wasn&#8217;t forced to pay eighteen years of child support for a child I neither wanted nor had the ability to support in any reasonable fashion at that time &#8211; and especially with a &#8216;fling&#8217;.</p><p>I wouldn&#8217;t be inclined to make the same decision today; nor could I even attempt to justify my actions as I did then.  From today&#8217;s perspective, I realize my actions actually killed a human being.</p><p>I can&#8217;t change my past &#8211; my only hope for &#8216;atonement&#8217; is to learn from my youthful errors, and not repeat them.</p><p>I&#8217;d urge any younger person to think &#8211; truly think &#8211; about their actions prior.  The regrets and remorse you feel many years on won&#8217;t be obvious at the time &#8211; but they will be a part of you forever&#8230;<br
/> JVE</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Paul Anthony</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2516</link> <dc:creator>Paul Anthony</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:49:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2516</guid> <description>The arguments for and against abortion always seem to include the claim that it is murder. I won’t debate that issue, since it would require that I answer the question of when life begins. I am not qualified to make that determination. I doubt that you are, either, although you may hold a strong opinion on the matter.
My response to abortion comes from a different perspective. I am a firm adherent of personal responsibility. The time to decide whether or not to have children is before you engage in sex!
Responsible creators visualize the outcome of their actions, and act in accordance with a plan that will produce positive results, not unintended consequences. There is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy, unless the woman was the victim of rape.
So, if you don’t want children, use birth control - first. If you are still opposed to birth control, practice abstinence. Abortion is an extreme measure that should not be considered lightly, especially since it is so easily avoidable by simply acting responsibly.
Now, an admonishment to those of you who advocate the passage of laws to enforce what you believe to be God’s Will. If you believe that God wants you to stop people from having abortions then, by all means, talk to people you know who may be considering it! But do not act as if you are God’s only servant on earth. If you live in Los Angeles for example, why would you believe that the same God that asked for your assistance would require you to affect someone in Boston?  Doesn’t God know anyone in Boston?  Where is your faith?
And, if you succeed in outlawing abortion, causing some woman in Boston to give birth to a daughter she does not want, will you be responsible for that child’s happiness and well being? You are responsible in part for her very existence, but you will have nothing else to do with her until she grows up and gets pregnant. Then, you will interfere in her life a second time.
Who gave you that right?
God gave all of us Free Will. The best way to influence people’s will is one-on-one, not by coercion of an entire populace through more laws. Talk to those within your sphere of influence, and trust that others will do the same in theirs. You can help reduce the number of abortions performed if you approach this one mind - one soul - at a time.
Of course, you could also reduce the abortion rate if you encouraged responsible people to practice birth control, instead of condemning it.
One last question, because I have always wondered about this. If you oppose abortion because you truly believe it to be murder, how do you rationalize your support for war?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The arguments for and against abortion always seem to include the claim that it is murder. I won’t debate that issue, since it would require that I answer the question of when life begins. I am not qualified to make that determination. I doubt that you are, either, although you may hold a strong opinion on the matter.<br
/> My response to abortion comes from a different perspective. I am a firm adherent of personal responsibility. The time to decide whether or not to have children is before you engage in sex!<br
/> Responsible creators visualize the outcome of their actions, and act in accordance with a plan that will produce positive results, not unintended consequences. There is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy, unless the woman was the victim of rape.<br
/> So, if you don’t want children, use birth control &#8211; first. If you are still opposed to birth control, practice abstinence. Abortion is an extreme measure that should not be considered lightly, especially since it is so easily avoidable by simply acting responsibly.<br
/> Now, an admonishment to those of you who advocate the passage of laws to enforce what you believe to be God’s Will. If you believe that God wants you to stop people from having abortions then, by all means, talk to people you know who may be considering it! But do not act as if you are God’s only servant on earth. If you live in Los Angeles for example, why would you believe that the same God that asked for your assistance would require you to affect someone in Boston?  Doesn’t God know anyone in Boston?  Where is your faith?<br
/> And, if you succeed in outlawing abortion, causing some woman in Boston to give birth to a daughter she does not want, will you be responsible for that child’s happiness and well being? You are responsible in part for her very existence, but you will have nothing else to do with her until she grows up and gets pregnant. Then, you will interfere in her life a second time.</p><p> Who gave you that right?</p><p> God gave all of us Free Will. The best way to influence people’s will is one-on-one, not by coercion of an entire populace through more laws. Talk to those within your sphere of influence, and trust that others will do the same in theirs. You can help reduce the number of abortions performed if you approach this one mind &#8211; one soul &#8211; at a time.<br
/> Of course, you could also reduce the abortion rate if you encouraged responsible people to practice birth control, instead of condemning it.<br
/> One last question, because I have always wondered about this. If you oppose abortion because you truly believe it to be murder, how do you rationalize your support for war?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Robertus</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2515</link> <dc:creator>Robertus</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:01:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2515</guid> <description>If you want absolute existential proof as to whether a fetus is a human being or not, ask a woman who is not pregnant why she does not present herself for an abortion.
Please don&#039;t laugh.  Think about it a second.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want absolute existential proof as to whether a fetus is a human being or not, ask a woman who is not pregnant why she does not present herself for an abortion.</p><p>Please don&#8217;t laugh.  Think about it a second.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: lawats</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2514</link> <dc:creator>lawats</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:29:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2514</guid> <description>Dear Mr. Ringer,
I want to thank you for your &#039;VOICE OF SANITY&quot;, it is wonderful. I do not always agree with you on certain things but you shine in a world where men refuse to &quot;step out&quot; and say what needs to be said. Please keep up the good work and maybe, just maybe your seed of oratory will land on fertile soil, take root  and grow.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those that anoint and those that embalm. Need I say more?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Mr. Ringer,</p><p> I want to thank you for your &#8216;VOICE OF SANITY&#8221;, it is wonderful. I do not always agree with you on certain things but you shine in a world where men refuse to &#8220;step out&#8221; and say what needs to be said. Please keep up the good work and maybe, just maybe your seed of oratory will land on fertile soil, take root  and grow.</p><p>There are two kinds of people in this world, those that anoint and those that embalm. Need I say more?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: joshchambers</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2513</link> <dc:creator>joshchambers</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:11:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2513</guid> <description>I have always found it interesting that performing an abortion on a woman who has gotten pregnant on accident is acceptable, yet if you were to suggest terminating the pregnancy of a breeding dog, those same people would come after you howling for your blood.  Are we to then understand that people are less important than animals?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have always found it interesting that performing an abortion on a woman who has gotten pregnant on accident is acceptable, yet if you were to suggest terminating the pregnancy of a breeding dog, those same people would come after you howling for your blood.  Are we to then understand that people are less important than animals?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: draythomp</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2512</link> <dc:creator>draythomp</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:26:15 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2512</guid> <description>I&#039;m aggressively pro life.  However, if the woman wants to abort the child and is willing to find a doctor to do it, then it can be done.  However, both of them should be arrested and brought before the court for charges of premeditated murder.  I think that in this day of hundreds of different birth control medications and devices for women and the ease of obtaining condoms, there is simply no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy.
Yes, the majority of the burden is on the woman, but biology did that and there&#039;s no way around it.  Therefore, the woman should be the person to make sure there is no possibility of conception.  Being drunk doesn&#039;t count.  Calling the child a parasite, fetus, blob of cells, doesn&#039;t change the fact that it&#039;s (if left to develop) going to be someone&#039;s mother, sister, friend, wife.
Of course, I&#039;m probably preaching to the choir here.
I don&#039;t approve of killing the doctors that perform this procedure unless it&#039;s under the rule of law but, I can certainly understand someone feeling strongly enough to do it.  Similar to shooting Stalin in the back given the chance.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m aggressively pro life.  However, if the woman wants to abort the child and is willing to find a doctor to do it, then it can be done.  However, both of them should be arrested and brought before the court for charges of premeditated murder.  I think that in this day of hundreds of different birth control medications and devices for women and the ease of obtaining condoms, there is simply no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy.</p><p>Yes, the majority of the burden is on the woman, but biology did that and there&#8217;s no way around it.  Therefore, the woman should be the person to make sure there is no possibility of conception.  Being drunk doesn&#8217;t count.  Calling the child a parasite, fetus, blob of cells, doesn&#8217;t change the fact that it&#8217;s (if left to develop) going to be someone&#8217;s mother, sister, friend, wife.</p><p>Of course, I&#8217;m probably preaching to the choir here.</p><p>I don&#8217;t approve of killing the doctors that perform this procedure unless it&#8217;s under the rule of law but, I can certainly understand someone feeling strongly enough to do it.  Similar to shooting Stalin in the back given the chance.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: bnalo</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2511</link> <dc:creator>bnalo</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:24:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2511</guid> <description>Hear hear! Mr. Ringer! Hear Hear!</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hear hear! Mr. Ringer! Hear Hear!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: gericks</title><link>http://robertringer.com/2009/06/a-classic-oreilly-slugfest-part-ii/#comment-2510</link> <dc:creator>gericks</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:56:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://blog.robertringer.com/?p=678#comment-2510</guid> <description>This conversation reminds me of Francis Schaeffer and his book, How Then Shall We Live.  He stated quite a few years ago, that by forsaking &quot;natural law&quot; (I believe natural law must find its roots in God&#039;s law or it will ultimately lose its moorings) we place ourselves and culture on shaky ground.  Whether our culture is built on governmental policy and law, or the &quot;majority opinion&quot; or &quot;survival of the fittest,&quot; or whatever, without a foundation that has its ultimate determiners built upon the ultimate of God&#039;s law, man is left to determine his own future and governance of action.  Of course, as George Wald has said, if indeed &quot;man is a random collection of molecules in the universe,&quot; then it doesn&#039;t ultimately matter.  It&#039;s everyone out for him/herself, &quot;eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.&quot;
Thanks for your provocative and stimulating articles!
Greg Ericks</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This conversation reminds me of Francis Schaeffer and his book, How Then Shall We Live.  He stated quite a few years ago, that by forsaking &#8220;natural law&#8221; (I believe natural law must find its roots in God&#8217;s law or it will ultimately lose its moorings) we place ourselves and culture on shaky ground.  Whether our culture is built on governmental policy and law, or the &#8220;majority opinion&#8221; or &#8220;survival of the fittest,&#8221; or whatever, without a foundation that has its ultimate determiners built upon the ultimate of God&#8217;s law, man is left to determine his own future and governance of action.  Of course, as George Wald has said, if indeed &#8220;man is a random collection of molecules in the universe,&#8221; then it doesn&#8217;t ultimately matter.  It&#8217;s everyone out for him/herself, &#8220;eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.&#8221;</p><p>Thanks for your provocative and stimulating articles!</p><p>Greg Ericks</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
