|
Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right" --Guardian (UK) 6/26/06 *******************
Email me at:
gunnut -at- alphecca -dot- com Check it out:
My Latest Blatherings...
Do We Need "Assault Weapons?" DC Congressional Seat Tied To Gun Rights Go Stats Installed Grass Roots & Gun Rights Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes. . . Gun Control Bills Advancing Bye-Bye SiteMeter Gun Rights in Texas KS Bill Would Overrule City Gun Laws Some Good News More on Alphecca and IE 7 More on Giuliani on Gun Control Bloomberg Pushes Pelosi on Gun Control NY: Now it's Bullet Control Trouble Reading Alphecca With IE7? Hit Job on Gun Rights Lawyer WaPo & Guns: A Good Question SCOTUS Review of DC Circuit Could Sidestep Central Issue George Will Warns Dems on Gun Control Meanwhile in Knife-Free Scotland. . . Dell Computer Support Howler of the Day Friday Bear Blogging Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights MO: Bill To Prevent Gun Confiscations Advances Proximity Laws Against Guns? No Slippery Slope? Stuck in Massachusetts Please Welcome... NY: Gov. Spitzer to Promote Hunting?
Care to comment?
Take your best shot:
Note: Comments close-down on posts after seven days.
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer" Alphecca gets noticed! Check out these GLOWING REVIEWS I've just made up:
|
March 14, 2006Here and There...Fortunately, Tam at View From the Porch is feeling better now and she points to a curious Walter Cronkite piece about the futility of the "war on drugs". I might add that the war on law abiding gun owners (meaning endless gun control, bans, regulations, etc) hasn't had any effect on crime, either. Harshly Mellow will be hosting Carnival of the Vanities so you have until the end of today to get your entries in. Hmmm... So is Benjamin actually the Imelda Marcos of the blogosphere? I agree with Say Uncle about the busy-body state regarding abortion and guns. I've stated here many times that I am "pro-life" but I have no wish to see it outlawed again. Except, perhaps, for late-term abortions which can not be justified on any grounds short of a known, seriously crippling defect in the unborn child. Comments
I'm with you on the abortion thing. Although, if the parents are prepared for it, a child with a serious handicap who is loved anyway can still lead a happy life. Just look at Juliana Wetmore (in her case though, her parents didn't know until she was born about her terrible situation). On the other hand, if the parents aren't prepared for something like that, an abortion would probably be the most merciful thing. Posted by: ben at March 14, 2006 10:32 AMWhy does a known and seriously crippling condition diminish the value of life? Does the name Stephen Hawking mean anything to you? There are many others who have had known seriously crippling conditions who given the choice did not commit suicide...they certainly valued their own lives. Should someone have put FDR out of his misery when he came down with polio? What gives you the right to choose death for an innocent someone else? Posted by: Doug In Colorado at March 14, 2006 12:02 PMSo it should be at the parents' convenience? Bull. Children are often not convenient...but why preclude the chance of an "inconvenient" child having a good, or even important life...how dare you take it on yourself to decide that child should die for your convenience? Posted by: Doug In Colorado at March 14, 2006 12:35 PMActually, Forward Thinking is the host this week. HM is the administrator of CotV, and the post you linked is one of a bunch of posts all linked from http://harshlymellow.com/cotv so all the info is easy to find. I even compiled a list of every location of CotV for its entire history! In any event, getting your entries in is still good, and the deadline is officially 6 PM eastern time on Tuesday (some hosts will grab entries that show up after that, but assume they'll go on the next week and you won't be disappointed). Posted by: Zeuswood at March 14, 2006 01:49 PM"So it should be at the parents' convenience? Bull. Children are often not convenient...but why preclude the chance of an "inconvenient" child having a good, or even important life...how dare you take it on yourself to decide that child should die for your convenience?" I agree, but what I was saying was that it some parents would not love a child born that way. Yes, they are despicable. But that does not change the fact that the child would be born into a world where it knew it was not loved by its parents. It would be more merciful to let the parents, shit-heads that they are, kill the baby before it is born, before it can know that it is not loved. Before it experiences any real pain. By real, I mean life long torment. The simple quick pain of death, felt as a firing of nerves, void of fear, does not count. Posted by: ben at March 14, 2006 02:49 PMHeh... Ben as Imelda of the gun blogosphere. I am still laughing about that one... Personally I am Pro-its-none-of-my-buisness. But here is my one thought on the mess. I live 40 min from where the wealthy/congress critters took their girlfriends for abortions in the early 1900s, long before it was legal. All banning it will do is make it much more deadly for mother and whatever you may want to call the dividing cells... Posted by: Kirk at March 14, 2006 11:33 PMthe comment input form disappears. Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that. By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah. See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips. |