Redstate

Posted at 4:06pm on Oct. 9, 2007 3 Simple & Fair - Tax & Spending Reforms

By dvdmsr

With all this talk of a fair versus a flat tax, and creating a simplified tax code I started to wonder what that might look like. The criteria I'd have for such a tax would include the following 1) the code would need to be so simple and clear, that most Americans of average intelligence could caculate their own tax bill with little fuss, and 2) the code would have to be such that it would eliminate most special interest and pork politics from complicating matters year after year. From these two criteria, I pulled the following far-fetched, not a chance in hell of ever passing idea for an amendment to our Constitution:

Posted in Taxes — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:54pm on Apr. 25, 2006 Planning for Victory

By dvdmsr

This is No contract for America, but here are five conservative legislative initiatives that Republicans in Congress can champion in the run up to the elections this fall to redeem themselves in the eyes of their base and swing voters:

1. Reduce Dependency on Foreign Oil - w/ Tax Incentives & Ease/Amending Regulations

• Expand oil drilling offshore & Alaska
  
• Expand oil refining capacity
  
• Double the number of Nuclear power plants in United States w/in 20 years.
  
• Expand tax incentives to encourage conservation, innovation & efficiency:

Establish a congressional prize for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles so that:

1. If a Company produces a 5-passenger vehicle that has an average fuel economy of 60HWY/45City miles/gallon, and a base-selling price  under $15,000 (to be raised each year at rate of inflation or 5%, which ever is lower), or a
   
   
2. 7-passenger vehicle that has an average fuel economy of 40HWY/35City miles/gallon, and a base-selling price under $19,000 (to be raised each year at rate of inflation or 5%, which ever is lower), then
   
   
3. Its profits over the production costs earned at the base-selling price for either type of vehicle will be exempt from taxation, and
   
   
4. Consumers may claim a 500 dollar tax credit for each registered/licensed vehicle they own that has been rated with an average fuel economy of 40HWY/35City miles/gallon (limit two credits/yr) (vehicles may have to pass an inspection each year to qualify).
   
   
5. Develop a similar prize for hydrogen vehicles as needed.
   

Note: particulars are debatable

2. Reduce Spending

Fight aggressively for the passage a line-item veto amendment proposal (Such a fight will at least shows the public you're willing to do something to significantly reduce deficits and the debt, even if it is unlikely to pass).

3. Border Security & Immigration Reform

• Build a wall (in high traffic areas first)
  
• Double border agents & port inspectors
  
• Implement a policy of Catch, Verify, & Deport
  
• Implement a Status Verification System
  
• Penalize all employers who fail to verify or knowingly employ illegal aliens.
  
• Expand the number of Green Cards given out each year, and
  
• Dramatically expand the number of different types of work visas given out each year.
  
• Allow foreign citizens currently in the country w/o a green card regardless of legal status to apply for a green card under existing standards, or to receive a 1-year work visa
  
• Require all foreign citizens to submit to being finger printed, photographed, retina scanned & their DNA documented.
  
• In addition, all foreign workers or visitors shall be required:
  

1.    To await entry until a background check is completed.

2.    Carry an alien status identification card.

3.    Report each month & update work & address info.

4.    To be deported if fail to report w/in 5 days of report date.

5.    To be deported for false identification.

6.    To be deported if unemployed for more than 45 days in a 90-day period.

7.    To be deported if convicted of a felony.

8.    To be deported if convicted of three misdemeanors.

• Allow each person to renew w/o leaving the country their work visa once, if they are currently employed & have been employed for more than ½ of the duration of their visa.  After which, they must exit the country and get back in line.
  
• Prohibit any federal agency, or State or local agency receiving federal aid from providing tax supported welfare or unemployment benefits to foreign workers unless they have a Green Card.
  
• Clarify citizenship rules to qualify that a person must be lawfully born in this country in order to be recognized under the law as a citizen, thus preventing a person, whose mother is in the country illegally at the time of birth, from becoming a citizen.

4. Define Marriage

Fight aggressively for the passage of a marriage amendment proposal (Such a fight shows you care about issues that are important to the religious wing of our base even if it is unlikely to pass. Remember they are not deaf to the fact that support for such an amendment decreases with every passing day, so don't not let them down, or someday soon they may let you down).

5. Reduce Taxes

Make tax cuts permanent, and start with those directed at the middle class (per child tax credit and the like) because they are the bulk of our voting block.

We need plan that most Republicans and Americans can stand behind, a plan that addresses the most pressing problems of our country today in a simple cost efficient way, and a conservative plan that we can hold up and point to and promote as the best way to solve our problems while not sinking the economy or disrupting the country in the process.  Moreover, Republicans need to wage a very aggressive and public battle over for it, so that if by autumn some elements of our plan are held up or halted, we can better cast the blame to for our nations troubles.  Maybe this particular plan isn't the plan for us, but at least its a start.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:16am on Oct. 10, 2005 Pro-life - What is the Point?

By dvdmsr

Am I missing something, because it seems to me that many people who call themselves pro-life seem to be approaching this issue as if it comes down to State's rights.   For instance, when I read about the prospects of overturning Roe v. Wade, it seems that many conclude that if the SCOTUS does so then it will simply throw the issue back to the States to decide.  What concerns me here is that many of these same people seem to be okay with this as if this is a good compromise.  

Is this the extent of it?  Would Frederick Douglas or Martin Luther King jr. have been satisfied with freedom being protected in only some States?  Maybe I'm splitting-hairs here, but for me the right to life has never been a State's rights issue, but rather it has always been a civil rights issue.  Was slavery and voting rights merely issues of States rights?  IMO the Dred Scott decision was a travesty because the SCOTUS failed to recognize Scott and other African Americans as citizens, and the Roe decision was equally wrong because it failed to recognize unborn human beings as persons under the law, and not because it ruled against some right of the States.  

Are these "States rights pro-lifers" the same folks who when referring to an unborn human being choose to call him or her a fetus, an embryo, or simply a human life.  Certainly they are entitled to use whatever term they want, but if someone is truly an advocate for the rights of unborn human beings, then why choose a term that further degrades his or her status as a human being.

Are these "States rights pro-lifers" the same folks who are counseling Republicans to trust the President on Harriet Meirs?  

Is this how we build a culture of life, by watering down of what is most important?  Am I expecting too much too soon from people who supposedly support the right to life, or is it they who have seemingly lost focus?  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:06pm on Oct. 3, 2005 Bush is apparently Not pro-life enough, I hate to tell you I told you so,

By dvdmsr

but I did in my very first comment post here at RS.

Is the GOP Truly the Pro-Life Party?

The GOP has courted and solicited the Pro-life vote for years with grandiose promises that if elected they would pass legislation to nibble away at the Roe v. Wade precedent of abortion on demand, and push for the appointment of pro-life judges, with the ultimate prize of having a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, and a legal foundation prepared to support their decision to overturn Roe.  Once upon a time I believed in this fairy tale quest and its champions. I bought their excuses hook line and sinker, that only the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade; Congress and the States are powerless to end unjustified abortions without amending the Constitution.  But no longer am I confident in their path, let alone their leadership.  I find myself questioning their intentions and their intelligence constantly.

Last year, yet another federal court ruled against the futile and half-baked attempt of the Republicans in government to limited abortions in this country, and I just wanted to shout, when will you people learn that as long as unborn human beings are not legally recognized as persons, any attempts to protect them from the actions of others will go down in defeat!  It is as if they're trying to invent the cart before the wheel.  I wish these politicians would stop paying lip service to the pro-life movement with piece after piece of inadequate legislation like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and simply cut to the chase, and pass a law that recognizes that a `person' under the law, includes unborn human beings, and that guarantees unborn human beings equal protection of the laws regardless of their prenatal development or condition of viability.

For over two years the Republicans (the so-called pro-life party) have controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and yet no such a law has ever been introduced into the Congress.  The closest unborn human beings ever came to any sort of legal recognition was when the Human Life bill was introduced during Reagan's first term, but that was destined to fail for two reasons.  First, the Congress was divided, and second the bill lacked substance.  With the former no longer true, I figured some similar bill would have been in the makings, but nothing happened.  I became so frustrated that last spring I started to write my congressmen, but then it suddenly occurred to me.  The GOP was purposely holding back.  They must have calculated that given their razor slim majority in the Senate, passage of such a bill would be questionable, while the debate over this issue could just as likely turn away pro-abortion Republicans and swing voters from voting Republican.  The risks of were too great.  After all, if we lost the Presidency or the Senate no pro-life justices would be nominated.  With this little rationalization my confidence was restored, and like a good little pro-life Republican I went to work to campaigning for my President and Party.

But last week I heard something that re-awoke my doubts.  It was the President, speaking to a group of pro-life supporters.  For some reason as he began speaking, I imagined he was going to make some bold statement of support, that election year politics cautioned him against earlier.  I imagined him saying no honorable president can in good conscious appoint any Supreme Court Justice who would not overturn Roe v. Wade.  But instead I heard the President speak of "working to build a culture of life, a culture that will protect the most innocent among us."  Building a Culture?  That's going to take years.  Did the Court have to build a culture of death in order to decree abortion legal no matter what the cause?  Absolutely not! Then he listed off his legislative victories, not a one of which has yet to prevent a single unjustified abortion.  Then he said something about changing hearts and seeking common ground, but that was it.  That was his pro-life agenda for the next four years: Build a culture, change hearts, and seek common ground.  I was incredulous, there had to be more.  So I went to the Republican Party website, and sure enough at the `GOP Agenda' link, there was absolutely nothing remotely related to pro-life initiatives.  Could this be possible?  Could we all have been duped?  The crowd that heard President Bush speak sure cheered and applauded enough.  They bought it.  They really believe that crap.  I don't know if they're just plain stupid, or if they truly find such token efforts satisfying.

As for me, I have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party really doesn't care much about the fate unborn people, they care about winning elections period.  By simply calling themselves pro-life, and supporting a constitutionally pathetic attempt to limit an obscure and seldom used abortion procedure, they know the pro-life lobby will continue to throw money at them, and all the good pro-life crusaders will vote for them like lemmings.  Why ruin a good thing by passing an effective law that can easily withstand judicial scrutiny.  Hey, but lest we not be disheartened, we are constructing legal precedents for an eventual constitutional showdown which in 5 or 50 years might lead to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.  Give me a break!  Over 3,000 people are being killed each day by unjustified abortions. There is no more pressing issue in our time.  Unborn people need us today not tomorrow.

The sad fact is that Republicans do have the power today.  They are either too clueless, too calculative, or simply uncaring enough to do anything about it.  For the first time since before Roe v. Wade was decided they control both houses of the Congress and the Presidency.  The truth is the Congress has always had the power to make unjustified abortions illegal, just like Dorothy always had the power to get back to Kansas.  The 14th Amendment is the Congress' pair of ruby slippers.  They need only pass legislation that recognizes unborn human beings are persons under the law, and that equally protects them.  Section 5, of the 14th Amendment gives the Congress the power to pass legislation to clarify the meaning of the term `person' used in the this amendment, just as Section 2, of the 18th Amendment gave the Congress the power to pass legislation to clarify the meaning of the terms `intoxicating liquors,' which it did when it passed the Volstead Act of 1919.  After all, if an Act of Congress can make a business organization a legal person, then it can certainly make an unborn human being one.

I have to laugh, with so many people wiping their eyes and choking back phlegm consoling themselves with unrealistic hopes of somehow sabotaging Bushes' pick before she can be confirmed.  I'm betting that most Republican Senators don't have the testicles to do anything but vote yes on Miers (what good little pro-lifers they are, or so they'll say), and at least 22 Dems will follow.  The best you can hope for is a close vote so as to send a message to Bush, etc. But let me give you a clue, this is a message he ain't going to get; never did; never will; doesn't care!  

I'm laughing at my self too.  I have to admit I found myself on many a sunny day this summer dreaming of the possibility of two more conservatives on the court, and epic confirmation battles.  We all were taken.  I personally feel as if we were politically molested.

But the heck with all that, tomorrow is a new day, and the Congress has the power to set standards of weights and measures. Thus Congress can set the standard by which we measure and determine whether an organism is alive, is a human being, and thus a person.  The 14th Amendment grants the Congress the power to clarify the term "person" as used in the amendment.  Disagree with me on this point if you will, but insisting that all existing and future candidates for public office support legislation that does this before we give them our support is the last best recourse of the pro-life movement.  Such demands are the only way to ensure that the candidates you vote for are true to their words.  You can test them on this during each session of Congress, and replace the liars and cowards in the next election.  Supreme Court Justices only come up every five to ten years if your lucky so using these nominations as a test of loyalty for elected officials is obviously now pretty silly.

We should draft a bill, call it the Unborn Persons Recognition and Protection Act of 2006 or the Civil Rights Act of 2006, or whatever, and ask our congressmen, Senators, and candidates to sponsor and pass it.  Those who agree will receive our support, while those who don't will receive nothing, no excuses.

This will force all to either put up or shut up.  No longer will anyone be able to feign support for unborn human beings with useless legislation, initiatives, and empty promises.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:18pm on Jun. 8, 2005 Why Viability is a Sham, and Other Criticism of Roe v. Wade

By dvdmsr

I believe that before a sovereign state can address the questions of who is, or is not a subject of its laws; it must first determine whether a subject actually exists.  As far as I know, to date subjects of the laws of the United States are at least persons, and persons are at least corporations and human beings who are born alive.  I also believe that the United States has no obligation to protect within its jurisdiction any person when there is no reasonable evidence that this person exists or is alive, and that such measures that assist the United States in determining the existence or status of a person must be reasonably valid and reliable, and must be premised on defined standards.  Moreover, I believe that the Constitution of the United States grants the Congress the power to fix such standards and measures, and the States share this power concurrently over their own territory.

Based on the above perspective, I further believe that legal protections provided for unborn subjects in the past were few partly due to the lack of valid and non-evasive measures available to reliably observe and determine if first, an unborn human being is in fact present in the womb, and second, if the unborn human being in the womb is alive.   Prior to the Roe v. Wade (1973) case, the custom was to offer some protection to an unborn human being following the `quickening' experience (that moment when the motions of the unborn child first become perceptive to the mother), because this provided the earliest, non-evasive, and reliable observable evidence (for the time) outside of birth, that the child present in the womb was in fact alive.  Ultrasound technology was not then available, so people could not peer into the womb to observe proof of life at earlier stages of prenatal development, and other signs of pregnancy were not reliable in predicting birth.  Also our knowledge human biology then did not yet conclusively support the claim that earlier signs of pregnancy could be construed to mean that an unborn subject was present, was a alive, and was a separate individual human being.

Early in the 19th century, some of the first statutory limits on abortion were enacted in the United States.  The rise of these statutory prohibitions was consistent with the general shift, occurring throughout the first half of the 19th century, from a reliance on English common law to American statutory law, which was seen as more representative of democratic values, and as more fit to address the needs of our rapidly changing and uniquely American society.  The standard that was initially adopted within most of these statutes to determine when an abortion would no longer be legal was the quickening experience; again most likely due to the reality that other signs of pregnancy then proved less reliable in predicting birth.  Remember this was before the development of modern pregnancy tests.  Although, as knowledge of prenatal development increased in the medical community during the 19th Century, and the public became more aware, they began to increasingly demand that their States protect unborn subjects from certain abortion procedures much earlier than quickening.  Then beginning in the early 20th century other (so-called progressive) constituencies seeking to serve their own convenience regardless of the merits and rights of unborn human beings began to lobby the various State legislatures to amend or drop their bans on abortion.  But the sentiment against abortion both in the medical community and the public was too strong.  So unable to achieve their goals democratically, they later began to demand that the courts rule these laws unconstitutional.  

In Roe v Wade, I believe the Supreme Court of the United States intentionally ignored or erroneously discounted the preceding facts, and failed to adequately explore the merits of the most relevant questions: What constitutes a human being, when does a human being appear within the womb, what constitutes life, and when is the human being within a womb not alive?  To simply declare as the Supreme Court of the United States did, that the States may not answer these questions, and then to further rule that there is no consensus on when life begins as an excuse for declining to answer these questions is itself highly suspect, especially given the relevance of these questions and the gravity of what hung in the balance.  Whatever merits unborn human beings may have for protection, this one dereliction or deliberate act by the Blackmun court made these merits easier to ignore.

Our technological ability to observe microscopic cellular activity and the developing human being within a womb has advanced far beyond that of the early 19th century.   We have since amassed a body of empirical knowledge about micro/human biology, human reproduction, development, and genetics that supports conclusively the general rule that the unborn human child is a living human being from the zygote stage to birth. I addressed this assertion earlier here.

In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a standard of `viability' must be met before the States may protect an unborn child.  This effectively established a legal basis for discriminating against unborn human beings on account of their lack of prenatal development or condition of viability.  The standard of viability cited by the Blackmun court in their ruling was borrowed from a medical term of the same name, and is defined as that stage of prenatal development when the baby is potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial help. In the medical field this term is used to describe a pinnacle reached in prenatal human development much like the term `adolescence' or `puberty' is used to describe moments later in human development, but nowhere in this medical definition is it suggested that this is the point at which personhood should or does begin, nor does it suggest that legal protection should be denied prior to this point.  On this matter, the Supreme Court of the United States used its own judicial license.

I believe the standard of `viability' is an unfair standard to determine when recognition and protection can be provided to human beings for the following reasons:

(1) Viability is an unfair standard because it continues to be inconsistently applied as illustrated by the fact that even though unborn human beings have been shown to be viable as early as 21 weeks, it is still permissible to kill them at points later than this for reasons completely unrelated to the life or even the health of the mother.

(2) Viability is an unfair standard because it is biased against most unborn human beings.  The viability standard is designed so that most unborn people can't possibly meet it.  Most legally recognized persons never had to prove they could meet the standard of viability prior to the 39th week of prenatal development, while all unborn human beings selected for termination are expected to be viable outside of the womb much earlier than this in order to win their rights and thus avoid termination.   It's simply not fair to expect one group to meet a higher standard than another group in order to win legal protection.  This is similar to giving everyone regardless of age the same general math test, and then denying legal protection to any age group who fails.  Even if the one year-olds are provided with `artificial help,' like calculators, formulas, and tutors, they are always going to fail such a test.

(3) Viability is an unfair standard because it demands that unborn human beings who are selected for termination must survive outside their natural environment (as per their age/stage of development) in an environment that is dramatically alien and hostile to them.  It thus demands that unborn human beings pass a cruel and an unusually high hurdle in order to receive legal recognition and protection, whereas most legally recognized human beings never had to endure such an ordeal.

(4) Viability is an unfair standard because there exist a presumption of failure in regards to an unborn human being's ability to meet the standard whenever a pregnancy is slated for an early end, as evidenced by the consistent lack of efforts to save the lives of unborn human beings in these cases, or as evidenced by the choice of deadly extraction methods even in cases where gestation has progressed beyond the point at which others have proved to be viable outside of the womb.

Considering the unfair nature and biased application of the viability standard, it is apparent that viability has more often served as a political and legal ploy to justify denying unborn human beings legal protection at moments most expedient and convenient for certain constituencies, than as a legitimate guide for assessing an individual's worthiness for said protection.

There will always be an environment in which an organism cannot live, even with artificial help.  Remove an adult human being to the planet Jupiter, or newly conceived human being from his mother's womb, and neither will thrive for long.  Now, one day technology may improve the quality of artificial help available to each, and then surviving in an environment that is dramatically alien and hostile to each may be possible, but until then neither should be denied rights due to their particular lack of viability in environments that are unnatural for them.  Just as we should not expect the adult to live on Jupiter in order to obtain legal recognition protection, neither should we expect the newly conceived to live outside their mother's wombs to obtain such recognition and protection.  The contrary is more a test of our technical prowess than the merits of the individual.

Regardless of the stage of prenatal development unborn human beings have achieved, they can live and thrive in the womb, which is their natural environment given their age, and the least restrictive environment for them.  Human beings including unborn human beings have the capacity for meaningful life outside of the womb if they are permitted to develop sufficiently within the womb. Just as with human beings already born, the decision of whether an unborn human being's life is meaningful, or whether it will continue to be meaningful outside of the womb must rest with the individual whose life is in question.  If they have not made, or are unable to make such a decision for themselves, we must decide in the best interest of that individual, and whenever these issues are in dispute the rule of law must always error on the side of preserving the individual's life whenever reasonably possible.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that all persons have a constitutional right to privacy, and that the federal and state governments cannot ban a woman's right to terminate the unborn human being she was carrying because this choice is protected under her right of privacy.  No liberty, whether expressed in the Constitution of the United States, or otherwise extrapolated through creative interpretation by any court, can be construed to legitimize or permit the killing without just cause, of another human being, or to immune from civil or criminal action those responsible for or a party to such killing.  

Whenever human beings through no cause of their own are dependent on others, this has never been a justification to disregard or kill these dependents without just cause.  On the contrary, custom dictates that we have certain obligations to provide care and protection to those human beings who we know are dependent upon us.  Given the empirical support for their status, and the history of brutality and injustice endured by unborn human beings as a result of the legal discrimination permitted under the Court's standard of viability (for no higher cause than to satisfy the convenience of others), the degree of prenatal development achieved, or a condition of `viability' should no longer be used to determine when unborn human beings may or may not be protected.

Since it was inherently impossible for most unborn human beings to meet the viability standard 32 years ago and is slightly less today, we must then ask ourselves, what was the point?  Is the basis for recognition and protection going to be whether a human being at a set age can survive under the natural conditions that we all experience at that time in our development, or is it going to be based on whether he or she can survive under unnatural conditions for that time in his life?  If it is the latter, then why do we expect more from them than we do from ourselves?  Why are unborn people subjected to such an unnatural ordeal of savage proportions?  Do we want them to fail?  Did the Blackmun court want them to fail?

The ordeal we subject them to is similar to those that were supposedly used in medieval times to determine if someone was a witch or not.  If you were found to be a witch you would be burned at the stake. One such ordeal required the suspected witch to be thrown into a pool of water, and if he sank (thus drowning) he was deemed not a witch and free to go, but if he floated then he obviously had unholy powers, and was executed.  In such an ordeal, like with the case of viability, the subject of the test is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.  He couldn't possibly win or pass such an unfair test.  Both are setups.  Today it seems obvious the accusers of the witch wanted him or her to fail, (but then this insight was lost upon the common folk) and that this ordeal is merely a necessary formality designed by the accuser to lend legitimacy to their foregone judgment.  They simply needed to provide a semblance of justice and fairness to distract and appease the simple minded and gullible public, while they pull the rug out from under those they accuse behind the cover of this farce. Likewise the standard of viability provides the pretence of fairness, (as its proponents would have us believe that everyone whether they are born or unborn, must be able to survive outside the womb), and a bit of modern scientific credibility (citing medical termminology) which adds an air of knowledge and expertise that is beyond the comprehension of most of us simple folk.

Thus their illusion is complete, but advocates for unborn human beings must remind themselves that the viability standard for recognition and protection did not exist before abortion rights became an issue.  Given this and the fact that the Blackmun court forbade the States from adopting their own standard of life(Why?, it is not difficult to conclude that the standard of viability was created simply as a way to bolster the forgone conclusion of the Supreme Court.   Prior to the debate over abortion, this nation had no use for creating a litmus test for who deserved to be legally recognized as a living person and protected as such.  Those who were observed by the legislatures to be human beings and living were generally recognized and protected under the law.

In Roe v. Wade, the Blackmun court saw no need to recognize unborn human beings as legal persons in their decision, but they did find the need to support a standard that any born person could easily meet, and that most unborn human beings could not. Considering all of this, the question of an unborn being's viability clearly becomes a loaded question, and the fact that this has been successfully lost upon the general public shows that all the smoke and mirrors worked.  

The fabricators of viability were like con men, who set the people up to buy into their scam, and while others were brought in as knowing accomplices, many others simply turned a blind eye to the scam. A good question is, were certain Supreme Court justices patsies or accomplices in this scheme?  If you think this is an unfair or loaded question, then now you know how the advocates for unborn human beings feel about the question of viability.  We can take heart in the fact that this scheme is not seamless. Their maliciousness is revealed by their inconsistent application of the viability standard.  Here we most clearly see that their claims of high principle are only feigned, and that their true intention is to preserve their most favored creation: the right to kill another person regardless of just cause for the purpose of personal convenience.

Finally, an easy rebuttal to this dairy is to point out that I am as guilty, in creating a standard that most unborn children cannot fail, as the Blackmun court was in creating a standard that most can't pass, but whether these children are living human beings, or potential persons, or only have future potentiality (someone actually tried to argue that the difference between potential and future potentiality was relevant here, how ridiculous) they should never be disregarded for the simplest convenience of others.  The standard laid out in Roe v. Wade permits this, while the alternative does not. What harm is there in recognizing all unborn human beings as persons under the law?  Are we afraid this will preclude us from killing our identical twin (clone) in the future so we can rob him or her to treat our own afflictions, or that this will prevent us from killing our innocent grandchild to save our daughter the anguish of delivering this child she shares with her rapist's? Recognizing and protecting all unborn human beings does not preclude compassion, rather it requires it for all parties involved.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:14pm on Jun. 1, 2005 All I know About Unborn Human Beings I Learned in HS Biology

By dvdmsr

Does biology support or undermine the notion that a human zygote, a human morula, a human blastula, human gastrula, a human embryo, or human fetuses are human beings?   Many times I have read contributors at RedState basically assert that the immediate outcome fertilization in human sexual reproduction is the creation of a new human being, and that this is supported by an understanding gained through a high school biology course, or the equivalent.  I have asserted this position many times myself.  Now I'm no biologist, but I did take two years of HS biology, and did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once.  However, I must admit my recollection is not perfect.  So just to be sure that I wasn't filling the gaps with my own bias I decided to borrow a biology textbook from a public high school.  The text was called Inquiry into Life, written by Sylvia L. Mader, and published by Wm. C. Brown Publishers, and I read through several key chapters hoping to determine if my assertions were correct or false.    

What follows is a summary of findings based on an understanding of biology from the above textbook.  Of course the subsequent conclusions are my own.

(1) All living things share the following characteristics:

a. Living things are organized; their parts are specialized for special functions.

b. Living things take materials and energy from the environment; they need an outside source of nutrients to thrive.

c. Living things are homeostatic; internally they stay just about the same despite changes in the external environment.

d. Living things respond to stimuli; they react to internal and external events.

e. Living things reproduce; they produce offspring that resembles themselves.

f. Living things grow and develop; during their lives they change - most multi cellular organisms undergo various stages from fertilization to death.

g. Living things are adapted; they have modifications that make them suited to a particular way of life.

(2) The basic structural unit for all living things is the cell.

(3) Living cells divide either by the process of mitosis or meiosis.

a. Mitosis is a type of cell division in which the cell divides into two cells in which both of these cells have the exact chromosome and genetic makeup as the original cell (diploid number of chromosomes); in multi cellular organisms mitosis occurs during growth and repair of somatic cells(body cells) and tissues.

b. Meiosis is a type of cell division in organisms in which a cell divides into four gametes cells (sex cells) each with half (haploid) the number of chromosomes as the original cell.

(4) Organisms are either single cellular (one cell organisms i.e. bacteria, algae, amoebas, etc.) or multi cellular organisms (i.e. sponges, trees, human beings, etc.).

(5) The appearance, mode(s) of functioning, and the resulting behavior of most organisms varies from stage to stage in their life span.

(6) Human beings can be accurately distinguished from the members of other species with a comparison of their respective DNA.

(7) Human beings can be distinguished from each other with a comparison of their respective DNA.

(8) Human beings reproduce by the process of sexual reproduction.

(9) Human sexual reproduction creates a distinctly new human being, and involves the fertilization process that occurs when a gamete cell called an ovum (egg) from one human being is united with a gamete cell called a spermatozoon (sperm) from another human being.

(10) During the fertilization process both the ovum and spermatozoon are fused, and the nucleus of the spermatozoon, which contained half the required DNA (haploid) needed to create a new human being, enters the cell body of an ovum, and fuses with the nucleus of the ovum cell, which also contained half the required DNA (haploid) needed to create a new human being.  Upon this fusion of these two nuclei, the DNA from both are also fused transforming the fertilized ovum into a entirely new type of cell called a zygote, which now has all the DNA (diploid number of chromosomes) of an entirely new human being.

(11) The zygote upon its creation is genetically distinct from its parents, but unlike any other type of human cell (i.e. somatic, or gamete), the zygote has all the inherent properties necessary to (begin to) naturally grow and develop as all other human beings commonly do during their life span, and does so without any external prompting (stimuli).

(12) A Human zygote, unlike other human cells (i.e. somatic or gamete), is the product of human sexual reproduction and is the offspring of human beings just as is a human morula, a human blastula, a human gastrula, a human embryo, a human fetus, a human newborn, a human toddler, a human adolescent, a human teenager, and a human adult.

Subsequently:

(1) A human zygote, unlike any other human cell (i.e. somatic or gamete), is a human being, just as is a human embryo, just as is a human fetus, just as is a human newborn, and so on.

a. A single cell organism is a human being if it contains within its nucleus DNA that taken in its entirety is consistent with other human beings but not another species, and he or she functions as other human beings generally do at that stage of human development.

b. A single cell human being (zygote) can be distinguished from a mere human (somatic or gamete) cell because these other types of human cells cannot function as other human beings generally do at this stage of human development.

c. An unborn human being exists upon conception, and that conception is at least the creation of a single cell human being by fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm, or the creation of a single cell human being by any other means.

(i) The phrase `any other means' recognizes that it is at least theoretically (South Korea?) possible to create a human being by means other than the fertilization process.

(ii) Specifically, it is theoretically possible to artificially manipulated a mere human cell (cloning process) so as to change this cell into a new type of cell that possesses the inherent properties necessary for it to behave as single cell human being (zygote) does.

(iii) Whenever such an artificial process succeeds in creating a single cell organism that contains within its nucleus DNA that taken in its entirety is consistent with other human beings but not another species, and he or she functions as other human beings generally do at that stage of human development, then they too must be welcomed into the ranks of human beings.

(2) Unborn human beings are alive from the moment of their conception, and proof of their life is evidenced by the existence of normal biological activity (i.e. metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, reproduction, etc.) within them according to their current stage of human development.

a. Behavior and capability commonly displayed by individuals vary according to their stage of development, and it would be wrong expect an unborn human being to perform as does any average human being already born in order to receive legal protection for the same reasons it is wrong to expect a 1 year-old to perform as an adult in order to receive the same protection.

b. Tests of consciousness and cognitive ability are not valid measures for determining whether an organism is living or not, nor are they valid measures for determining whether an organism is a human being or not.

c. It is the rule, and not the exception, that unborn human beings are alive upon their conception.

d. Valid measures exist to reliably verify whether or not a living human being exists within another person.

(3) As with human beings already born, each unborn human being should be presumed to be alive, unless other reliable and valid evidence to the contrary is verified, especially considering the history of discrimination unborn human beings have faced to date.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (110) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:44am on May 25, 2005 Veto-The Only Truly Constitutional Check of the Tyranny of the Majority

By dvdmsr

President Bush is set to exercise the only truly constitutional check on the tyranny of the majority - the veto, which he says he will do if the Congress (controlled by the Republicans, the so-called pro-life party) passes H.R. 810, or the equivalent.  

There was a time when if you needed an organ transplant you could ask a close relative, or you could patiently wait for a person who had consented to donate his or her vital organs to pass away, but that was then.  Now however, many people no longer feel the need to wait.  These people no longer are content with the mere close matches of living and dead donors; they desire the flesh of their identical twin brothers and sisters and to hell with their consent, and damn their lives.  

Is this where progress has brought us, to the point where we cultivate innocent human beings like corn to be harvested and devoured to satisfy our own primitive hungers?  Are we to believe that simply because they exist they are expendable?  Human beings are animals, and history has time and time again shown us to behave no better than other animals, but what has always set us apart from animals is (was) our conscience attempt to rise above this nature.  There was a time when the progress of human society was gauged by advances in this struggle.  Are we now admitting defeat, surrendering, and giving in to our dark side?  I suppose some eagerly welcome this moment; possibly for them it is a relief to no longer have to live a lie.  I can hear them now, someone therapeutically confessing: I'm an animal. Yes, I'm an animal, a savage and selfish beast, and I no longer have to hide behind a mask of humanity.  His is fellow beast then comfort him with affirming words, hugs, and pats on the back.

Who will save our humanity, who will save us from ourselves?

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:16am on May 9, 2005 Culture of Life Ponderings Part. II

By dvdmsr

Let us presume for a moment that the Congress is of the political mind to fix a standard by which we could weigh and measure living organisms in order to determine if they are human beings or something else.  This immediately begs the question, what is a human being?

I suppose the Congress will tell us after they create the standard, but waiting for this legislation is not necessary.

First, the U.S. Code already defines human beings, persons, etc. as any member of the species Homo sapiens, and second there already exists a readily identifiable group of living organisms that are legally recognized as human beings.  We need only examine the qualities this group has in common to help us determine what a human being is.

So why bother with fixing a standard or designing a test?  Because to date, there is no legal consensus on a particular group of living organisms who some of us claim are human beings while others do not.  

Whatever standard and subsequent test is developed it must be valid and reliable.  So my question to you is what might this be?

Finally, some might be quick to respond that anyone can design a biased test to obtain the desired results they wish, so any effort to do so would be inherently wrong.  My response to them would be to say now you know how most pro-lifers feel about Roe v. Wade.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:18am on May 6, 2005 Culture of Life Ponderings

By dvdmsr

Some people claim that the human zygote is no different than any other cell in the human body, however a remedial understanding of biology clearly refutes this.  Others claim a human embryo and fetus are just globs of cells and not true human beings, but this description could be used to describe any number of us.  Still others claim that a human zygote is a human being, as is a human embryo, as is a human fetus, as is a human newborn infant, as is a human toddler etc, while others believe the truth lies somewhere in between.  IMO the number of cells we have or our appearances is not definitive.  I'm pretty sure it would be difficult not to exclude certain individuals who are already recognized as such under these standards.  Oh if only the Framer's of our Constitution had anticipated our dilemma, and simply told us the answer in the preamble.  Now we have to think for ourselves, and make difficult (political) choices.  Ouch.  

What defines us as human beings, and not something else is an important question.  But before it can be answered, we need to decide who is going fix the standards by which we're going to measure, weigh, and assess the various organisms around us, that is to say whose definition shall we use.  Who shall it be?  Who shall create the legal standards by which judgments are made?  A religious answer might be to say God, while another answer might be to say the people.  No matter which of these we choose some people will always be influenced by, or they will influence what is interpreted as God's will.  Thus why not cut to the chase, and simply say the people.  I wonder then how we might gauge the will of the people on this issue?  

Weren't legislatures created to channel the will of the people into law?  Of course Roe v. Wade nixed the power of the States to adopt a theory of when life begins, but what of the Congress?  I think we all know the answer to that one.  They wouldn't do it. Why articulate a legal consensus on an issue if it risks your job.  I guess that's why we're left with Roe v. Wade.  Somebody had to do it, and to think all this time I blamed Blackmun.  It's ironic that a question that concerns so many is being left to so few; especially since these few are the least accountable to the many.  Typical. I'm usually the first to groan at the thought of an activist judiciary, but it seems to me that the problem here rests rather with an inactive legislature.  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:43pm on Apr. 11, 2005 what Love wants

By dvdmsr

As a straight man, I'm clearly not the best person to comment on what the homosexual community wants, but I can't help but think that all they really want is to gain legitimacy for what in most places is still characterized as abhorrent or abnormal behavior.  Possibly they want to magically wake up in a world where they are no longer made to feel guilty for their actions and thoughts.  A place where as if by some divine degree, homosexual behavior is erased from the pantheon of sins outlined in many of their own religions; minus the revisions.  If they want to believe what they're doing or feeling is okay, that's fine by me.  If they want to be gay and walk the streets proudly displaying their affections for each other, go for it.  And if they want to live as husband and husband or wife and wife, then let it be.  But don't expect me to join in lock step and all to support the legal validation of what I know is wrong.  I can tolerate homosexuals and their choices, and accept that they have a right to make them, but what I won't tolerate is the expectation that I accept their decisions as being proper.   I don't expect them to think their life is perverted, so don't expect me to think it is not.  They can raise their children to believe being gay is okay, but as for me, I will teach my children that while it is their right to make such a choice, it is not the right choice to make.  

One other thing, when some one says that they did not choose to be gay, but they were born that way, I can't help but feel no sympathy for them.  After all, I personally believe that we are all born sinners, and that we all have natural tendencies towards sinful behavior.  Sure they may be more inclined to homosexual behavior, but how is that any different than the person who is prone to infidelity, gluttony, murder, lying, or stealing?  We can argue and debate all day about which is the most egregious sin, and we can whine and cry all day about how life is unfair: some people are smarter, some faster, some better looking, but where is it written that life is to be equally difficult for all.  In the end, God challenges all sinners to some how find the strength and courage to put aside our natural inclination for sinful desires and our personal hardships, and to simply choose Him.  By living our lives according to His way and not ours, we demonstrate our love for Him.  If we can do this, then we shall have passed His test.  Cries of inequity are no excuse for failure, after all we, and not God, chose this path for ourselves.  I for one believe that the greatness of a person's achievement is measured by the difficulty of his particular challenge.  Still, this is not an easy task for any man or woman, nor is it an easy pill to swallow for that matter.  Many try, and the best of us fail, but thankfully we have a forgiving God.  But, what of hermaphrodites and the like, some might inquire?  When you are unsure of something it is always better to error on the side of caution.  Celibacy is recommended to us all, and on this question I would refer them to that.  Homosexuals can make the argument that they don't choose to be gay, but when they continue their sinful ways, they definitely aren't choosing God.  Happily, it is not too late for them, for Christ said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11)

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:08pm on Apr. 7, 2005 The Judicial Restraint Amendment

By dvdmsr

I imagine that if the framers of the Constitution had some way to see the future, and they saw the unbalanced, unchecked, and tyrannical federal judiciary that has evolved today, they would quickly attach the following sections to the third article of the Constitution before submitting it to the States.  

But if we now amend the Constitution in such a way, I wonder how these provisions might be perverted in the next 200 years to serve the unintended agenda of some faction bent on violating the letter and spirit of the law?

The Judicial Restraint Amendment

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to identifying or defining those rights inferred by the Constitution of the United States, or those rights not enumerated therein as such power is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Section 2.

In determining the meaning of any provision of the Constitution of the United States, or any law created theretofore, the courts of the United States or of the several States shall base their judgment solely on the intentions of those proposing and supporting said provision, amendment, or law in the Congress or a constitutional convention.

Section 3.

In judging any suit in law or equity, the courts of the United States or of the several States shall not consult, acknowledge, or be swayed by any foreign law, principle, or standard of behavior or morality, beyond the common law of England compiled prior to the Declaration Independence of the United States.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:00pm on Mar. 31, 2005 Great Ape Project?

By dvdmsr

The other day I was looking for info on the Geneva Conventions and human rights, and I stumbled upon a website for the Great Ape Project  Is anyone familiar with this group?  

Apparently, these folks want to "include the non-human great apes within the community of equals by granting them the basic moral and legal protection that only human beings currently enjoy."

They are "an international group founded to work for the removal of the non-human great apes from the category of property, and for their immediate inclusion within the category of persons."

Oh boy, all they have to do is get France and Canada on board, and Justice Kennedy will follow.

Am I the only one who finds this unbelievable, that people can expend so much energy championing simians while other human beings are being slaughtered by the thousands daily by unjustified abortions?   These people ought to be ashamed.

Which group is more deserving of human rights? You be the Judge.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:12pm on Mar. 7, 2005 My theory about the JFK Assassination

By dvdmsr

I've weight the facts, watched the documentaries, and the answer that has haunted a nation for decades is obvious.  Clearly it was a suicide.  Oswald, Ruby, Hoover, the Cubans, the MOB, were mere pawns in the greater JFK conspiracy.  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:24pm on Mar. 7, 2005 Debating Gay Marriage for Extra-Credit

By dvdmsr

I recently developed the following assignment for my class.  (I teach high school U.S. Gov't & History)  Not being a lawyer myself, I'm not sure the arguments I made here are any good legally speaking.  That is precisely why I am posting this assignment.   Hopefully some of the lawyers who frequent this site will at least point out the holes and errors I made, and at best offer a challenging rebuttal to South Carolina's case so that I can revise this assignment, and better assess the responses of my students.  Also because I'm lazy and I don't subscribe to the viewpoint of G. Clayton, I may use any good arguments raised here to create a companion assignment to this one in which the students are asked to refute the arguments for G. Clayton.  Any and all comments would be appreciated, regardless of your credentials.  Thank you.

Acting as the attorney for G. Clayton, your assignment is to refute South Carolina's arguments.

The Hypothetical Case of G. Clayton v. South Carolina

The Facts of the Case:

The State of South Carolina passed an amendment to its constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  It also prohibits the State from instituting civil unions, and declares that special privileges and immunities can be awarded to those parties to a marriage that meet the above standard, and not to civil unions or marriages that are entered into under different standards (i.e. same-sex unions, or unions involving pets or more than two people), because this will encourage the stability and continuity of bonds that are essential for proper procreation and child rearing, while ignoring those bonds that are deemed improper by the cultural standards of South Carolina.  Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature passed a law that requires employers to extend health care coverage to dependent children of, and to only the opposite-sex spouse/partner of, an employee to whom they provide health care insurance benefits.

After South Carolina passed its amendment, a man named G. Clayton from South Carolina moved with his male partner to Massachusetts where they were legally married under Massachusetts' law.  Two years later they returned to South Carolina.  A year later, G. Clayton requested that his new employer cover his spouse under the health care insurance policy that his employer provided him.  His employer refused.

G Clayton's employer claimed it did not have to provide such benefits to G. Clayton's spouse because his marriage was not entered into according to the same standard that South Carolina requires for people married in South Carolina, and because the law of South Carolina only requires companies to extend health insurance benefits to those partners in marriages licensed by the State of South Carolina, or by States that have the same standard for marriage, but not to those parties to unions licensed by States with a different standard for licensing said union.

G. Clayton sued the State of South Carolina, arguing that South Carolina failed to give full-faith credit to his marriage, and that it denied him and his spouse equal protection of the laws, guaranteed them by the 14th Amendment, because its laws permits an employer to unreasonably discriminate against him and his spouse.

G. Clayton lost this lower court cases, and is now appealing to the US Supreme

The Arguments For South Carolina:

In regards to same-sex marriages and civil unions licensed by another State, the full-faith and credit clause of the US Constitution at best only requires that South Carolina recognize that a legal union exists between those parties who are a part of them.  It does not however, require that South Carolina treat these same-sex marriages and civil unions the same as they are treated in the States where they were licensed, or as the type of marriage that is licensed by South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina recognizes the same-sex marriages and civil unions granted by other States as legal unions, but it does not extend to the parties to these unions the same privileges and immunities that it provides to opposite-sex marriages, and the State of South Carolina contends that this is not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment for following reasons:

First, a same-sex marriage and an opposite-sex marriage are inherently different, and the people of South Carolina reserve the right to encourage the stability and continuity of bonds that they deem to be essential for proper procreation, and child rearing, and not those bonds that they deem to be improper for said tasks.  The U.S. Constitution does not deny a State the power to encourage, with privileges and immunities, certain types of unions that can benefit the people, nor does it require a State to encourage all types of unions if it chooses to encourage one or a few types.  For example, some businesses (like manufacturers) are provided tax breaks while others are not simply because the State determined one to be more beneficial than the other.  It would be wrong to force South Carolina to extend the same privileges and immunities to same-sex unions as it provides opposite-sex marriages for the same reason that it would be wrong to force South Carolina to extend the same privileges and immunities to a doctor as it does to lawyers.  The practice of law and medicine are both professions for which States license and then assign privileges and immunities to encourage them.  However, it is unreasonable to assert that just because they are both licensed professions, they should both have the same privileges and immunities (i.e. A doctor should be able to practice law, and visa-versa).  It is unreasonable because they are inherently different professions.  One profession requires a standard of knowledge and skill deemed worthy and essential by the people of South Carolina for the proper care of the sick and injured, while the other does not.

Second, because same-sex couples wishing to be married do not meet the same standard that South Carolina requires for couples to be married in South Carolina (i.e. Only those unions between one man and one woman, who are unrelated, and have reached the age of maturity will be licensed by the state), South Carolina can lawfully deny them a South Carolina marriage license, and the privileges and immunities there-in.  South Carolina also contends that if a State does not license a particular privilege that is offered by another State, in this case a same-sex marriage or a civil union, then it does not have to grant, a person(s) holding a license for such a union (obtained from another State), the same privileges and immunities this person(s) may be entitled to in the State where his or her license was obtained.  A State like Michigan for instance, may offers certain people who have met its particular standard, the privilege to practice law by granting them a licenses to do so within its jurisdiction, but U.S. law does not require Michigan to offer this same privilege to a person from another State who fails to meet Michigan's particular standard (i.e. a law degree & knowledge of Michigan law), nor does the existing law demand that Michigan extend the privilege of practicing law to a person holding a license to practice law granted by another State, because that State may not require the same particular standard ( i.e. knowledge of Michigan law) for that privilege.  So if South Carolina only grants marriage licenses to persons who are single, are of a certain age, not related, and are of the opposite sex, then it does not have to offer the same marriage privileges and immunities to the persons holding a marriage license from another State that was granted under a different set of standard (i.e. bigamy).  So when a State like Massachusetts's grants marriage licenses under different standard (i.e. to people of the same-sex) than does South Carolina, South Carolina is not then legally obligated to grant these unions the same benefits.  To disagree would be to acknowledge that a lawyer or doctor licensed in one State can practice his or her craft in any other State without having to meet or the criteria set by these other States for such a privilege.  This is currently not the law, and so South Carolina is not acting illegally in this case.

Third, the State may offer privileges, but they cannot generally force a person to take them.  This choice is up to the individual.  However, if a person chooses to reject the privilege, he or she also must accept the opportunity costs associated with his/her choice (i.e. loss of benefits that would have accompanied the offered privilege).  In these cases, the State is not obligated by law to reimburse the person for this loss with some other privilege, opportunity, or arrangement.  For example, the State may provide for public education services to all persons who choose to take advantage of this privilege, but when some people choose a private education, the State is not obligated to reimburse these people for the costs of their private education.   In the case of G. Clayton, he and his spouse chose to be united in a same-sex marriage rather than an opposite-sex marriage that the people of South Carolina have chosen to encourages with certain benefits, thus he and his spouse must bear the costs of their decision, which for them includes purchasing additional health care insurance.

Lastly, in South Carolina, all persons regardless of their sexual orientation, are granted the privilege of marrying someone of the opposite sex, and may freely choose to do so or not to do so under the law.  Since G. Clayton and his spouse were not denied this same privilege, they were not denied equal protection of the laws.  

In general, some might still argue (falsely) that Homosexuals are being denied the equal protection of the laws in South Carolina because the law there allows a heterosexual person the right to marry the person he or she loves, while at the same time it prohibits a homosexual person from marrying who he or she loves.  This would be good argument if the laws of South Carolina in fact allowed a heterosexual person to marry the person he or she loves, but this is clearly not the case.  In South Carolina, two heterosexual persons who are in love with each other are not entitled to marry, if one or both is under age, or if one is the other person's parent, sibling, or first cousin.  In addition, a heterosexual person is not allowed to marry a dog, a fish, or even a pony regardless of whether they are in love.  Nor can a heterosexual person marry someone if he or she is already married, even if they all love each other.  Historically, marriage has had little to do with love.  The contemporary phenomenon of marrying for love is a luxury that most people in the past, could rarely afford, and even today, marriage is often entered into more out of convenience than out of love.  Marriage laws were and are designed to promote moral as well as healthy sexual behavior, and to encourage the stability and continuity of bonds that are essential for proper procreation and child rearing, and not as some sort of give-away for lovers.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:07pm on Feb. 17, 2005 Riddle #3

By dvdmsr

Riddle #3

Who exists, but is rarely seen?

Who is alive, but is not yet born?

Who is a human being but has no rights?

Who can be killed without just cause?

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »