Supreme Court Ruling Favors Imigrants

"A unanimous Supreme Court said Monday that undocumented workers who use phony IDs can't be considered identity thieves without proof that they knew they were stealing real people's Social Security and other numbers". So said the Denver Post on 5/5/09.

Whether or not the identity info belonged to an actual person I think most people know when they are getting a fake identity. Isn't using a fake identity illegal whether or not you stole it or bought a made-up one? Why do we give so much leeway to non citizens who broke our law just by the way they got into our country and then knowingly got a fake identity. They broke our laws, they deserve the consequences. They are not citizens so they should have no real rites in our country.

Equal Protection

Aside from a discussion on whether abortion is right or wrong, why does our society argue about whether or not a man should have a say in the abortion decision?  According to pro-abortion people the fetus or unborn baby is part of the woman’s body so she should be able to decide what to do with it.  The other side claims men should have a say in the decision.  They say not having a say breaks equal protection under the law.  Here are a few questions to consider.

Why are there so many women pregnant that don’t want the baby?Both men and women have to make a conscious choice to get the woman pregnant.(Rape and crime bring in a whole new dimension so they will not be considered in this discussion.  We are talking about consensual sex.)Would we even need to discuss whether or not a man should have a say in the decision if we did not have such a free-for-all sex society?

Should a man and woman decide whether or not they want children before even considering sex?  Not wanting children makes sex “dangerous.”

Is our society careless with sex?  Men and women seem to have sex with whom ever suits there fancy.  Men especially are always looking for it.  It seems like every time they see a woman that is attractive to them they instantly try to find a way to get in bed with her.  Women do not seem to resist much.  Some even encourage it. Married or not makes no difference.  People use birth control measures to try to avoid the natural consequence of sex…babies.  Then they say, “Accidents happen.”

 

Would these “accidents” happen if we had more self control, and respect?  Respect for what?  Respect for others.  Respect for others choices.  Trying to get a person to have sex with you just because you are attracted to them is not respecting them as a person.  We seem to get physical attraction and love mixed up.  Physical attraction does play a part in love but should only be one of many precursors and a small motivator, but not the deciding factor.  Love is much more than attraction.

Why does our society put down people who choose some other way?  A young man cannot be a virgin and not have people try to talk him out of it.  Even if he does not offer the information, it is forced out of him.   Why do people even need to know whether one is a virgin or not?  It is a personal choice that should not concern others.  Where is the respect?  Is this not supposed to be a “tolerant” society?

More on Abortion

   A fairly well known talk show host recently referred to an unborn baby as part of the female genitalia.  He said ladies have the right to do to there bodies what they want, and government should have no say in it.  Are unborn babies part of the female body, or is the female body like an incubator for the baby? If people should have the right to do to there bodies what they want than why are suicide and self mutilation so discouraged and frowned upon?  If unborn babies are part of the female body than doing any harm to them is doing harm to the woman.  This could be put in the category of self mutilation, which in the medical world is a mental problem that needs treated. http://www.helpguide.org/mental/self_injury.htm  This is not to say that ladies who abort there babies have mental problems, but it is a logical end to the statement made by the above talk show host. 

   If the woman's body is an incubator for the baby and the baby is not part of the her body than what right does she have to harm it.  In most cases the baby is not the result of a crime such as rape.  In this case the woman had to make a choice to get pregnant.  Whether she wanted to get pregnant or not, is not the problem. She choose to put herself in a situation that is commonly known to result in pregnancy.  This is where the focus on choice should be.  

  When it comes to whether or not the government should have a say in the choice of a woman to abort her baby, most would say no.  If abortion is self mutilation as described above than the government shouldn't have a say in it. But self mutilation is, as mention above, viewed as a condition that needs medical treatment.  If the woman's body is an incubator for the baby than the government does have a say in it, and it has nothing to do with the woman's choices about her body. MURDER IS ILLEGAL!   

Making "Murder" Easier

   The Freedom of Choice Act that President Elect Barack Obama wants to sign into law is dangerous. It will make it so your average Joe can perform an abortion.  No medical experience required.  Not only will this make abortions easier to get it will make them more dangerous to the woman getting one.  Not only will innocent lives be lost in a brutal manner but the danger to the mother will increase 100%.  SAY NO HERE  http://www.fightfoca.com/ .  

   Abortion IS murder. Murder IS a crime. It seems to be the only legal form of murder there is. People say abortion is a choice and it is. What kind of people choose to slaughter other people, let alone their children?  "Its the woman's body, let her choose what to do with it." Its my puppy, let me shoot it if I want too.  Would you kill your two year old? Would you kill the fetus in your womb?  They are both children. 

The Probability of Evolution

If the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and life appeared 3.8 billion years ago than it took 0.7 billion years for life to evolve from nonliving chemicals.  0.7 billion translates into 700 million years.  So when we go by years, the chances of life coming from no life are 1 in 700 million.  Let’s break it down more.  Lets say the chemicals are mixed every hour. This brings the chances down to about 1 in 6.1 trillion.  If we break it down to seconds we come up with 1 in 527 trillion. 

Let’s compare this to the lottery.  Let’s say the lottery is $1 per ticket and is currently at 34 million. This means you have less than a 1 in 34 million chance of winning it. This means you will win the lottery 15.5 million times before life forms from nonliving chemicals. Under the above circumstances you would need to buy one lottery ticket very second for 700 million years to win it 15.5 million times. Considering you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice than winning the lottery, be careful!

Israel vs Hamas

   Hamas has been pellting Israel with rockets for years.  Now Israel is fighting back.  It seems a lot of people think Israel is over reacting.  Several countries are trying to come up with a cease fire agreement for Israel and Hamas, but Israel does not seem to be interested.  Who really trusts Hamas to keep any agreement with Israel for a reasonable amount of time?  Do these other countries have any right to tell Israel how to deal with it's problems? If an agreement is reached what should Israel's response be when Hamas continues to fire rockets at them?  Is protecting ones property/people from danger wrong? Is eliminating the source of the danger wrong? 

   Innocent civilians have been killed in this fight. Hamas uses civilians as shields. What is Israel to do with a group that has such a low regard for human life?   

   Israel is one country that does not seem to worry about what the rest of the world thinks. They should be commended for this.