Forcing others to compromise moral integrity...

1. 67

   SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

   "It is one thing to hold fast to the pro-abortion position as a matter of a personal opinion, it is quite another to force someone else to compromise their moral integrity."
   
   To read the rest of the article go to
   
   http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gingri … ode=7C36-1
   
   This is not just an abortion issue that we are seeing coming down the pike...its been happening for decades across many issues.
   
   does it make it any more correct for one side to do it to the other, just because it was done to them ???  Where will it stop...a person's conscience is the basis of individual liberty.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I just looked at the link (thanks for posting it, very interesting).  It would appear that Obama is attempting to turn back the tide of restrictive legislation making it easier use religious or ethical coercion as a means to withholding patients' rights to treatment.  At the moment, it is ok for a healthcare providers to say sorry, not gonna let you have X treatment (whatever it is) because of my religion, conscience, whatever.  Imagine if firefighters decided not to put out a fire at your house because they didn't like your politics/religion/views on euthanasia/whatever -- unless the fire was life-threatening?  Or if they told you that you shouldn't have let your chip pan catch fire in the first place?  The legislation that Obama is trying to reverse is any legislation that discriminates against women's rights concerning medical treatment.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting article! I wonder what many doctors and nurses will do? Either they go against their conscince and perform procedures they object to, or defy the request, and possibly face disciplinary action (eg dismissal). Bit like having religion forced upon you, just in reverse! There is not enough unemployment, and shortage in the medical profession, but now they are likely to add to the uneplyment lines. (Health professionals no less)
      I have just one thing to say to that. "COME ON DOWN (UNDER)!!!, We have a real shortage of you here, and we won't force "nuthin'"on you. We still allow people to live by their convictions. Heck, even polititians get a chance (from time to time) to take part in a "conscience vote" on contraversial issues. It's a time they are allowed to diverge from party political views. I love that!!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah this should bring a lot of our doctors and nurses back to Canada, maybe even more.  We can use them.  This law has implications of shutting down whole hospitals in the U.S.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            SparklingJewelposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            yes, from what I have read the whole Catholic system of hospitals, several thousand in the US, pretty much stated they will do the 'conscientious objector'  activist thing. or worse, shut down.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Having a value system or morals also depends on the background, experiences and attitudes. If I want my system to become the universal system then there certainly would be a problem or even not practical. For example I personally waited to have a physical experience until marriage at 25 but if I expect everyone not to have a physical experience till marriage would it not be imposing my "values" on others and also may not be practical to expect too. The catholic pope recently in Africa has said "no condoms" against AIDS but is it advisable that a person of his position and influence to try to expect of the vast humanity such high expectations. Humanity is made up of people having different levels of commitment, attitudes and experiences (and that is not going to change anytime soon)

               replyreport
            2. 64

               Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               They'll probably go back to doing whatever they were doing before the Bush executive order, whatever that was. I just read the Gingrich article, and I think the dire results he predicts are exaggerated, ie, Catholic hospitals closing and careers ruined. Gingrich is an untrustworthy character.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  SparklingJewelposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Frankly, I am still waiting for Obama to stand up and say, people are putting things in a context that he did not mean...but we're not hearing that...so what to believe?
                  
                  Does Obama really mean to force health care people to do something that is so against their conscience?
                  
                  I don't believe there is no way that things can't be worked out for people to be free to act in their own good conscience. And like my taxes paying for things I don't morally object to...its can be done as simply as we do things now...you want to donate to an organization that does this that or the other thing...you just send them a check or email a payment...its that simple. Nothing impractical about that.

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Completely agree.  There is a well-known Catholic medical school in Omaha, NE, my hometown--Creighton.  Very seriously doubt they are gonna shut down.  They've been there many a year before Bush operating in whatever manner.  Though I know students there skipped the part about how to perform an abortion.
                  
                  And doesn't Obama have enough on his plate without worrying about, literally, 'shadow' issues like this?

                  replyreport
   3. 67

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I read the article posted.  I would like to note that is was a news article on Gingrich's opinions. 
      That religious angle goes both ways here.  Jehovah Witnesses  don't believe in blood transfusions.  In some remote areas of the North West, an emerg.room is no bigger than a master bath.  Often times there are only one doctor at a time to staff the facility.   What if a person is brought down from a mountain with his legs cut off.  Often happens.  Technically under Bush's law and the laws Newt is pouting about could cost that person their life.  Under the law, that Doctor who happens to be a Jehovah Witness won't give the guy a blood transfusion.  So he bleeds to death in the name of religion.  Disgusting.  This law just doesn't concern 1 procedure.  I, for one is glad Obama can see the whole picture and not just the religious angle.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Quite apart from the religionist morals, what about other morals? Fat people - forget it - a doctor can say no, I refuse to treat this person because they offend my moral standards. . Alcohol abuse - nope. Too skinny? Nope. Lost a limb murdering people for the oil companies in Iraq - Nope. Not going to treat you. Car crash victim? Not a chance - pollution mongers deserve all they get. Slippery slope. Just another right-wing religionist squawk against a woman's right to choose. Moral integrity. What a joke.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly. The article just didn't touch on abortion, but stem-cell research.  The GOP have lost their aim and focus in the America.

            replyreport
   4. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know many people who are "pro abortion." This misleading formulation reveals where you are coming from. Pro choice does not mean pro abortion. You may as well say pro child murder, or baby killing, or other extreme statements that inspire whackjobs to attack abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform legal abortions.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      AlexiusComnenusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      A person's conscience is just about all they have in this world. Nobody could ever force me to do something that would weigh my conscience with guilt. As a soldier I am asked to do things I don't agree with, but for my superiors to ask me to do anything that conflicted with my religious or constitutional beliefs is an impossibility. I would gladly go to a court-martial hearing for disobeying an order that caused me shame, reproach, or guilt in crossing my faith or the constitution.

      replyreport
   6. 64

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      How do you feel about authorizing and encouraging torture in order to get false intelligence to support our invasion of Iraq?
      
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opini … ef=opinion

      replyreport
2. 59

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   " Where will it stop...a person's conscience is the basis of individual liberty."
   So do you think they should have as much freedom in India or China with a billion people each, as we in the US with 360 million?

   replyreport
3. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   I sure as heck am not going to listen to Republican Newt Gingrich (who, btw, made his cancer stricken wife, ill in the hospital at the time, sign divorce papers) for anything approaching nonpartisan news.  Bleh!
   
   On this one, absolutely--cross reference, cross reference, cross reference...
   
   Interestingly, I think there are probably few truly pro-life doctors out there, actually.  To speak bluntly:  Even the most conservative family I know of here--while the wife and daughter are moaning, oh, the poor babies at dinner (talking of a baby who was born with multiple birth defects and died shortly after it was born in pain) the father, MD, conservative, could see that the pregnancy shouldn't have come to term.
   
   They deal with life and death in very real terms--I don't think its a question of a general sense of opinion and integrity, often for them.
   
   For those doctors for whom it is a moral choice--I as a patient wouldn't be interested in a provider with no inclination or desire to treat me.  I would really question the wording of this legislation and whether it is being presented in the correct manner in this 'article' (opinion piece).

   replyreport
   1. 67

      SparklingJewelposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      But isn't that part of the whole problem when it comes to the reasons behind partisan perspectives?  You say its just an opinion, but make it sound as if the other sides' is something more than an opinion ??? i.e "...presented in the correct manner..."  ???
      
      The sides think differently, period. One side doesn't comprehend what the other side thinks/feels/knows/believes. No one side is right...or wrong. They just have their opinion/beliefs.
      
      For instance, what makes it right to make me pay my taxes that will go for things that I don't believe are moral, that makes me karmically responsible to a degree...that is an abuse of my freedom of conscience. What do they think they are doing "making" me pay for something...give me the choice to choose where my taxes go...there will be plenty of people who will want to pay for the things I don't want to pay for. None of those kinds of things should be under government control.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         SJ- Unfortunately in a democracy the one who wins with a majority tends to decide what policies they want to take. When Bush won the elections and decided to go to Iraq (with tax money) then also it is those majority who elected are responsible. As individuals we don't matter as much as a collective group whom we elect.
         
         And if you believe in karma then every soul which should have a specific purpose(based on cause/effect) and hence the body to fulfill that plan then the counter point is based on another belief called reincarnation where the soul where it sees that its purpose wasn't served this time would get a second chance. It is definitely a tough choice and no woman willingly should have to go through it unless it is an absolute necessity.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Abhishek87posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         There is no doubt that the law will have to be rescinded sooner or later. You Cannot have the medical world working this way. As Lita said, who would like to be treated by someone not interested in doing the job.
         
         As regards to the taxes, now what you are suggesting would create one heck of a chaos. Okay, agreed majority of the people may not like the way their money is being used but how do you manage giving people a choice. Its like giving every person the right to individually go to the govt. and say here's my money, I want you to do this with it.
         Sounds ideal, isn't practical.

         replyreport
      3. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I guess I would have to reply to this that I believe the 'side' I choose to be the right one.
         
         You are wrong in the assumption that it is for me, at least, just a partisan opinion on these matters, although I am decidedly liberal, yes.  I simply do not operate that fashion, but instead read all I can, find out all I can--across the partisan lines--to figure out what and why I think as I do.  I believe that is the way to do anything, frankly.
         
         I fully comprehend the opposing view of abortion and the thoughts and feelings therein--but I also reject them as a valid argument--because I find it incomplete thinking that does not take into consideration the ramifications of past, present and future events, but instead centers itself on the 'uncomfortable' feelings of the individuals who hold such beliefs.  I feel they do not often think  for the whole good--and the rights--of those involved, but for their own sakes.
         
         This is a similar thing with the taxes.  Misha asks is it fair that we pay for the mistakes of others?  And of course no it is not.  But is this the right question to ask?  As you say, there will be others who will want to pay for the things you don't want to pay for.  So, you paying this, they paying that-- I'd imagine these funds would then level out.  So why do we have to go through all the 'bean counting' like children?  That's the question I'd ask.  It doesn't seem very efficient!
         
         The liberal side is just, from how I see it, most completely correct.  Now, this belief is different from someone taking on a partisan personality for identities' sake--which, lol, I feel some among us here on hubpages have done, and which I actually always had a problem with as far as progressives, say, among college students.  But it is an entirely different thing to play act and 'wing it' than to have actually done your homework.  And 9 times out of 10, I feel when doing the homework, the 'progressive' side wins hands down for complete consideration of the issues.

         replyreport
      4. 61

         GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Hello,
         
         You've had a lot of valid points. And I agree with you on one thing: the Federal government is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. However, forcing "morality" on someone aside, these are the basis of our laws and Constitution. Morality.
         
         Morality, though, changes with the times and the community it exists in. I believe that we need to look towards our communities and local legislation process to enact these type of laws as we feel needed.
         
         It is a truth that "personal liberty" is all part of a persons conscious. However, the real world tries to please the most people as often as it can. Fifty different states, fifty different flavors of democracy. This is what America was destined to be.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Not that I disagree to your post in general, but this part caught my attention. I tend to think that the real world tries to piss off the most people as often as it can

            replyreport
            1. 61

               GeneriqueMediaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Seems that way, doesn't it?
               
               Okay, how about...
               
               The real word tries to please those with the most money as often as it can.
               
               Sound more realistic?

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep! Too much money sloshing around in Washington, state legislatures and city councils. One partial answer is public financing of election campaigns.

                  replyreport
4. 80

   LondonGirlposted 15 years ago

   The article is pretty silly to talk about people being "pro abortion". Very few are. Some see it, in some circumstances, as the least-worst option.

   replyreport
5. 67

   SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

   My main point is the individuals right to conscience. There are more than enough doctors out there that will provide what someone wants.
   
   Why make someone a "bad guy" because they don't believe like you think they should? But it is not right to force anyone to do something against their conscience. If the laws weren't being obeyed by not respecting the individual conscience of someone, what is wrong with trying to make them more clear so that they will be followed?
   
   Surely there have been problems with the laws that are on the books not being followed or the laws wouldn't have needed to be reinforced with new ones, right?

   replyreport
6. 57

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   I am lost - as usual. Forcing others to compromise moral integrity? Like invading another country and killing people for oil company profits?
   
   And since when does "religious freedom" = "making others do what your invisible magical super being tells you into your head"?
   
   I guess these people will keep on banging away at a woman's right to choose an abortion for as long as their invisible magical super being tells them to huh?

   replyreport
   1. 68

      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Ye, or a bit like the Communists revolting anainst the monacrchy and killing all the royals, and the intellectuals, and the religious, and the aristocrisy, so they can create "equality" for all (Russian and Soviet) peoples. Of course the new heirarchy was MORE equal, so they got more out of it that the poor, common folk.
      Sad to say, I don't see you ever condemning these attrocities. 
      PS: I think they were of your "faith", (ie. atheists) , weren't they?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Consider them roundly condemned. LOL
         
         And if you are too ignorant to understand the difference between not believing in a magical, invisible super being and communism, I don't really know what to say. You could try reading a few books. That might help?

         replyreport
         1. 68

            aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Nah!  Thanks, I'll learn from you right here. I have little time to go elsewhere. I devote all my spare time to Hubpages. I'm ADDICTED! Help!! 

            replyreport
7. 66

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   LOL I think Aka-dj is pretty close to the facts in his analogy. The more I learn about christianity, the more similarities with "communism" I see. Looks like bolsheviks borrowed quite a few methods from the church.
   
   And Aka-dj, just one small correction - they did not revolt against monarchy, they revolted against rich that were ripping much benefits at a taxpayer expense while the country was suffering... Does it ring any bell?

   replyreport
   1. 68

      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      They are changing now, right? (Under Putin, I mean).

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Russia changed quite a bit no question, but what I was saying is that USA came frighteningly close to repeating Russian experience of the last century. All that anti-rich hysteria with unfolding enormous economic crisis on the background are likely to cause something similar...

         replyreport
         1. 68

            aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I could be ancestrally related to you, so I am not as distant from the situation as you might think. I think you are right about the US. Just don't write them off just yet. They may be on the course to achieving that soon. I doubt Obama will do as much "good" for the country (and the people) as many hope. Lets wait and see.

            replyreport
         2. 74

            earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            The mother and her doctor are in the best position to make the decision, not some bloody religiously driven flat earth advocate.

            replyreport
   2. 57

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      dj was suggesting that because I do not believe in a magical,invisible super being, I am a communist. Especially as he never see me condemning the Russian communists.
      
      Got to say I too see an awful lot of similarities between the christian and communist political approaches.

      replyreport
8. 68

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   It just dawned on me. There must be different denominations of atheism! You are an adherent of one kind, and the communists another kind. So, which one are the North Koreans, and the Chinese. One totally rejects anything captitalist, the other embraces it.

   replyreport
9. 68

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   If I'm not mistaken, the original communist idology seems to be christian based, in that all men are equal (underGod of copurse) and all should have equality in matters natural, economic etc. However, due to human greed (or lust) for wealth and power, it became just another form of domination of the masses, for the benefit if the (top) few.
   So the real culprit of all our woes is NOT religion, the Bible, God, politics or ideologies, but the corrupt (sinful) nature of man himself. :

   replyreport
10. 66

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Oooops, ok, yes, we did derail the thread, sorry

    replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "I don't know many people who are "pro abortion." "
    I am and have been since I was a kid.
    Knew an emergency room nurse in a big city general hospital, who told me when these gang guys came in with gun shot or whatever and had nazi tatoos, the jewish doctors were like to make mistakes, if their oath didn't prevent it.
    Course she said who would ever know.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I think we might call that "abortion after the fact"

       replyreport
12. 67

    RKHenryposted 15 years ago

    I'm for abortion.

    replyreport
13. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    I'm pro choice and pro human rights with education as far as population control.

    replyreport
14. 59

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Does Obama really mean to force health care people to do something that is so against their conscience?"
    If doctors and nurses are treating people they don't like or doing treatments they don't agree with, to save their consciences they should get out of the service and work for a private relgious health treatment facility that does not use tax payer money.

    replyreport
15. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    From U.S. hospitals won't comply with unjust laws
    
    
    There are a pile of Catholic hospitals and health care centers in the U.S.
    http://www.catholichealthcare.us/Find/Directory.htm
    
    Countrywomen actually the Pope said "research has shown that distributing condoms "increases" the AIDS problem."  It's more than just about "values".  It looks like there are two competing sources of research for this.  But we have already covered this in another thread.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Mike- It depends on what "research" one wants to trust. If one is advocating absolute abstinence and marital monogamy alone should solve the AIDS crisis then there is a problem with that approach too since it is not practical. Yes "Condom" may sometimes make a person engage in risky interactions but for that condemning the usage completely doesn't seem reasonable. I agree "condom" alone won't solve the AIDS crisis as there are multiple approaches but to say some thing like that when at the ground level several charity/aid workers are trying to advocate safe practices seems to me an idealistic stand taken based on his personal beliefs/value system.

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Countrywomen again it is not just about Pope Benedict's personal beliefs/value system.
          
          The Pope in Africa and Secular Media reporting
          A must read - from a former atheist.
          
          From Saint Peter’s Square to Harvard Square
          "We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”
          
          So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.
          
          Green goes on to say “The pope is correct,”
          
          Benedict Has It Right
          The Catholic argument - the disease should be treated essentially as a social ailment.
          
          Are Condoms Foolproof?

          replyreport
          1. 60

             countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Mike- Thanks a lot for taking the time and effort to inform me. Forgive me for what I am about to say since I know you are a devout catholic. Even though I admire your knowledge in general but I would humbly like to differ with you. Sir if a Nobel Prize in Medicine says something about health then it is that person's academic knowledge and recognition that person has that people give credibility(and even his/her personal views based on their background).
             If Pope talks about love/kindness and the bible then he is certainly an authority but in certain matters their statements can be considered by many as subtle religious statements.
             
             I hope you are not offended by anything I have said and in case you did then please excuse me as it was totally unintended. Have a great day

             replyreport
16. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Countrywomen if you have read the top 3 web sites above you should have come to the conclusion that the Pope's Catholic take on this is "respect for women".  That is why the Catholic take on AIDS in Africa should be treated essentially as a social ailment.  Your sad story in the 'killing babies??' thread about the girl in India that committed suicide is related to this.  The social ailment being there is not enough "respect for women" in some parts of the world.  Do you understand what I am saying?
    
    Now I have to say the same as what you sometimes say.  I hope I have not offended you.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Mike- No no you haven't offended me at all. Thanks for the elaboration and if the Pope really meant "respect for women" then I am beginning to see some point in your assertions.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          The pope respects nothing except propagating the church's finances, protecting priests who sexually abuse children and killing Africans by lying to them about condom use.
          
          No offense

          replyreport
       2. 66

          Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Good countrywomen.  Yes "respect for women" is the main Catholic take on the AIDS problem in Africa.  It's working in some parts and is one of the reasons why the Church is growing in Africa.  If you read just the first web site above titled "The Pope in Africa and Secular Media reporting" you'll see that is the case.
          
          No offense Mark, but it's written by a former atheist.

          replyreport
17. 60

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    In India, women are respected more than men.  In a family, the family goes well in tact as long as the mother stays there. After the mother women, the family begins to disintegrate. So, Ms.Countrywomen, be happy with the already overwhelming respect commanded by women in India.  Every one calls "Amma" while slipping and falling. No one calls "Appa" or father. So, all the respects are with the women in our country.  Most of the gods are women gods. And Kali is the main god to destroy evils. There is enough respect for women.
    
    If there is a complaint of disrespect for women, it would be inside a family and no one has the right to trespass into others' family affairs.

    replyreport
18. 60

    AlexiusComnenusposted 15 years ago

    The only thing I would be afraid of with condoms in Africa is the false sense of security. By telling them condoms make things more secure they may feel freer to use them which, on the surface, is a good thing. However, without the education requisite with condom use they may not know that they don't protect one's self entirely.
    As for the pope, while this may lead to a much bigger topic, I don't trust one mortal man who claims tobe "infallible". That title is reserved for a person who proved himself beyond human.

    replyreport
19. 67

    RKHenryposted 15 years ago

    Bush spent 1.86 Billion dollars the last couple of years on his abstinence campaign.  This year the report can in that, since that policy and mind set, America is now the #1 Nation in the world for teenage pregnancies. 
    
    How about we work on programs that are effective and maybe this issue won't need to be posted anymore.

    replyreport
20. 62

    calebdposted 15 years ago

    If you can't fulfill part of your job description, find another job. Pharmacists that refuse to fill out birth control have no right to continue working in an industry where it is expected of them. Similarly for nurses. If you don't want to deal with reproductive issues, become some other kind of nurse.
    
    This isn't a question of moral integrity. It's a question of filling positions with people who can't fulfill its demands. Also, there's no such pro-abortion movement. It's not typically an easy choice to make for most people and your derogatory rhetoric trivializes real problems.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       great comment.  -- cogent and relevant.

       replyreport
21. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    "If you can't fulfill part of your job description, find another job."
    
    That is exactly what might happen with many health care professionals in the U.S. calebd.
    
    I was just forwarded this message today.
    
    

    replyreport
22. 62

    calebdposted 15 years ago

    Let them leave if they want. No one's forcing them to work a job they don't want. Are their numbers significant enough to reduce access for everyone? I sincerely doubt it.
    
    "Your legal right to refuse to remain involved with abortions may disappear."
    
    No, it'll still remain. By taking yourself out of the relevant job, you are exercising your right to refuse. More power to you. I say let Ms. Donna Harrison and those that believe what she does follow through on their threat.

    replyreport
23. 67

    SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

    There are many issues to learn about and take a stand on, one way or another. The torture stuff I haven't spent time on, because there is so much malicious and unprovable information out there.
    
    I don't like the idea of torture; but I also don't like the idea of doing nothing to protect myself and others from those who choose to do harm.
    
    i would defend myself and others...that is about as far as I have gotten in thoughts about it.

    replyreport