The Real Wizard 25.02.2006 00:12 |
link "Opponents of the bill tried unsuccessfully Feb. 9 to add an amendment making an exception for rape and incest." Three cheers for republican compassion. Welcome to the USA in 2006. One more reason why I am proud to live in Canada. |
jcrawford79 25.02.2006 00:16 |
I hate to sound like a hippie, but this is why I am so annoyed by the "Christian Right." Always interfering in everyone else's business. Roe vs. Wade will be overhauled next. Damn conservatives..... |
Maz 25.02.2006 01:23 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: "Opponents of the bill tried unsuccessfully Feb. 9 to add an amendment making an exception for rape and incest." Three cheers for republican compassion. Welcome to the USA in 2006. One more reason why I am proud to live in Canada.Does this really have to do with a lack of compassion? Or is it more legally wrangling since the bill is meant to end up at the Supreme Court anyways? |
Mr.Jingles 25.02.2006 07:04 |
I am certainly not surprised, but I am scared this law would spread to the rest of the country. The worst thing that could happen is that it becomes a federal law. |
deleted user 25.02.2006 08:58 |
the abortion thing is like a religous belief of when the soul enters the body. This is stupid many people might try to abort the baby themselves or go out of state. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.02.2006 09:04 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Three cheers for republican compassion. Welcome to the USA in 2006. One more reason why I am proud to live in Canada.Can I come live with you? I love my country, I do. But the past few years here have been a complete and utter embarrassment. |
Mr.Jingles 25.02.2006 09:31 |
I'm against the idea of partial birth abortion. I've researched some articles on the subject, and apparently it's something close to murdurering someone that can already be described as a mostly developed human being. Personally I think that abortions could only be performed 3 months after conception. |
Forever88 25.02.2006 11:56 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:me too, i think americas all down hill from here.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Three cheers for republican compassion. Welcome to the USA in 2006. One more reason why I am proud to live in Canada.Can I come live with you? I love my country, I do. But the past few years here have been a complete and utter embarrassment. |
The Real Wizard 25.02.2006 18:27 |
Zeni wrote: Does this really have to do with a lack of compassion? Or is it more legally wrangling since the bill is meant to end up at the Supreme Court anyways?Yes, it's a lack of compassion for people who are left with a difficult choice, perhaps after being raped. I can't believe we're in the 21st century, and the Christian right still has such a loud voice. Ravenetta wrote:Haha, let's hope so!Mr.Jingles wrote: Personally I think that abortions could only be performed 3 months after conception.you mean during the first 3 months? |
Music Man 25.02.2006 19:03 |
Like, say, mostly anyone I've ever discussed this topic with, I think that abortion should be reserved for victims of rape and incest. Period. And the abortion should be completed as soon as humanly possible. It's a very simple concept that most people can agree on. I'm kind of tired of teenage girls and other irresponsible people using abortion as "birth control: take 2." In this way, I am against the Roe v. Wade decision, and find it in much need of modification. However, I do lean in favor of Pro-choice over Pro-life - if I absolutely had to pick one. But the fact is, we don't have to pick one. There is a middle road out there. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.02.2006 19:11 |
Music Man wrote: I'm kind of tired of teenage girls and other irresponsible people using abortion as "birth control: take 2." In this way, I am against the Roe v. Wade decision, and find it in much need of modification.Roe v. Wade is actually about privacy. What goes on between a patient and a doctor is supposed to stay between that patient and that doctor. It's not exactly a permission slip to abort on demand, but acknowledges abortion the same way as any another medical procedure. |
Music Man 25.02.2006 20:38 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:It's not exactly a permission slip to abort on demand, however it is just as effective as one.Music Man wrote: I'm kind of tired of teenage girls and other irresponsible people using abortion as "birth control: take 2." In this way, I am against the Roe v. Wade decision, and find it in much need of modification.Roe v. Wade is actually about privacy. What goes on between a patient and a doctor is supposed to stay between that patient and that doctor. It's not exactly a permission slip to abort on demand, but acknowledges abortion the same way as any another medical procedure. |
Music Man 25.02.2006 20:52 |
The Roe decision completely disallows state legislatures from limiting abortions in the first trimester, and can only restrict abortions in the second trimester that pertain to maternal health. This is pretty much as close to a permission slip as you can get. "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." In my opinion, rape, incest, or the endangerment of the life of the mother are the only valid reasons to obtain an abortion. The first two are protected under the fact that the victim had no choice in the conception of the child, and the last one is protected under the fact that the value of the mother's life outweighs the potential, uncertain life of the aborted child. Other than those, I challenge anyone to find a valid excuse for abortion. Might I also note, that it is imperative to the rights of all women everywhere that they MUST BE PROTECTED under these cases at all possible times. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.02.2006 20:53 |
Music Man wrote: It's not exactly a permission slip to abort on demand, however it is just as effective as one.I guess bottom line is, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then decisions about privacy/abortion will be given to the states. Red states will have one law, and blue states will have another. That will add hardships to many and thrills to many others. It's sad that the country is so divided, but that seems to be the reality of it, doesn't it? |
Music Man 25.02.2006 20:57 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I agree that Roe v. Wade should not be flat out overturned. But I think it is important that it should be modified through another decision. As of now, it's pretty much forcing ALL the states to be blue states.Music Man wrote: It's not exactly a permission slip to abort on demand, however it is just as effective as one.I guess bottom line is, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then decisions about privacy/abortion will be given to the states. Red states will have one law, and blue states will have another. That will add hardships to many and thrills to many others. It's sad that the country is so divided, but that seems to be the reality of it, doesn't it? Although I must admit that every now and then I consider the repercussions of this middle of the road idea. While it is in every way correct, it will undoubtedly create many unwanted side effects. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.02.2006 21:02 |
Music Man wrote: Other than those, I challenge anyone to find a valid excuse for abortion.But who would decide what's 'valid'? You? Me? A stranger in a long black robe? Or the woman and her doctor? I hear what you're saying about using abortion as birth control, and I agree. I'm sure many people agree. But then, how many of us shake our heads at pregnant teens or unwed mothers with step-ladder kids in tow? Damned either way it seems. This will always be a hot-button issue with the two sides battling to the end. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.02.2006 21:03 |
Our messages are overlapping. :-) |
DavidRFuller 25.02.2006 21:07 |
theres a SOUTH Dakota now? |
Music Man 25.02.2006 21:14 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Ah, valid point. I suppose one thing it should do is teach people to use effective contraception or just keep it in their pants until they can actually handle the responsibility.Music Man wrote: Other than those, I challenge anyone to find a valid excuse for abortion.But who would decide what's 'valid'? You? Me? A stranger in a long black robe? Or the woman and her doctor? I hear what you're saying about using abortion as birth control, and I agree. I'm sure many people agree. But then, how many of us shake our heads at pregnant teens or unwed mothers with step-ladder kids in tow? Damned either way it seems. This will always be a hot-button issue with the two sides battling to the end. Ha, or they should institute a three strikes and you're out law. After your third abortion you can't have anymore. That's cute. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.02.2006 22:19 |
Music Man wrote: Ha, or they should institute a three strikes and you're out law. After your third abortion you can't have anymore. That's cute.Love this. :-) |
iron eagle 25.02.2006 22:47 |
as an adopted child; one that could have easily been aborted in a back alley illegal abortion house on the streets of boston-- i see abortion very differently i suppose then most its something that tears at me every time i hear it discussed, politicalized and talked about-- i see both sides, really i do--- its a terrible and difficult choice for some--and a walk in the park for others nothing though takes away the fact i could have ended up in a plastic bag in a trash can i am grateful to my unknown birth mother that she decided on life for me... richard thanks you where ever you are....... |
Lisser 25.02.2006 23:02 |
I too, have my own views and opinions on this issue. However, I do not want a government entity making decisions about what I can do with my body. I want to choose for myself bc I am ultimately the one that has to live with the choice that is made no matter if I made the decision or if it was made for me. I am not sure whether or not I am pro-life or not, but I am sure that I am pro-choice. I think each woman should be able to decide for herself given the circumstances, what would be the best decision for her, yes HER. I know this may sound selfish and most will say "what about the unborn baby?" It is a valid arguement, but this is how I feel. I do not want anyone else to make a decision like this for me. I want to be able to consult with a physician I trust, and go from there. BUT...I do NOT agree with using abortion as a means of birth control. I do agree with certain circumstances why a woman would choose abortion. For example, I have a friend that can not have children bc of the severity of her diabetes. Her Dr. says a pregnancy would put too much strain on her kidneys and shut them down. Now, if she were to get pregnant by accident, yes this happens....I would be in favor of her getting an abortion. I could go on and on...I just think it should be a personal choice, not a government choice. |
pma 26.02.2006 02:38 |
I'm totally anti-adoption and pro-abandoning... If some right-wingers riding the "Christian"-horse actually think that abortion to victims of incest or rape are considered a greater sin than those crimes committed against the pregnated females... And they'd expect the women to carry through and give birth to a child of a person who committed one of the most inhumane acts on them? Tells me all about their so-called morals to me. Twisted... twisted... and once again twisted. |
YourValentine 26.02.2006 05:47 |
In all the discussions about abortion and unborn life one important point is always omitted: There is no human life outside the body of the mother during pregnancy. The unborn child is a part of the mother's body and she is the only one who should have a say about if there should be an abortion or not. The myth of the "secondary birth control" is just propaganda, it happens only very rarely. Most women are decent human beings who are very responsible about their pregnancy and if they are in a state of need or distress they just have to have the right to decide themselves. It's not the right of the society to force them to carry on an unwanted pregnancy. For me abortion would never be an option but I insist that it's only the pregnant woman who can decide. The idea that human life begins with the conceptiion is not really in the heads of the anti abortionists when it comes to a natural miscarriage for example. If a woman loses her baby at three months into the pregancy the fetus is thrown into the trash can along with other "biological waste" - no priest will bury it or baptize it. The whole discussion about abortion is just so incredibly hypocritical. There is not the slightest compassion for a woman who loses a child in miscarriage but on the other hand women are supposed to ask permission for an abortion. A society who still drafts young people to become soldiers or a society who even has the death penalty should not act like they have a moral right to establish an anti-abortion law. |
john bodega 26.02.2006 06:45 |
People who abort babies because they have a (fixable) cleft pallet, or because it would ruin their figure - those people should be shot. People who just didn't mean to have a baby, but have the means to take care of it, should be made to have it as a lesson in responsibility. People who have been raped, or might die during childbirth, should be allowed to abort the baby ASAP. Aside from that; laws on abortion don't mean shit. People have been having abortions since they invented the coathanger, they will always get them if they really want them. These laws say more about the state of mind of the governing body than they ever will about the people affected by them. Do I have to spell it out? Ok - religion should be entirely separated from state. These Christian nutbags have had their way with the gay community, and now they're going to screw everyone else over too. |
john bodega 26.02.2006 06:52 |
"I want to choose for myself bc I am ultimately the one that has to live with the choice that is made no matter if I made the decision or if it was made for me." Too true, if it's basically just a few cells growing inside you then the choice will only affect you. I can't abide the idea of a 'late' abortion though. When it gets like that, it's no longer something that affects only one person, it affects both (I am deliberately ignoring the husband because men like myself don't have any business in this). But I still believe that once it gets to a certain point, and the thing is laughing inside the womb, then I think you've really got to think less Abortion and more Adoption. "There is not the slightest compassion for a woman who loses a child in miscarriage" Yeah there is. That's a generalisation and a half. "Most women are decent human beings who are very responsible about their pregnancy" I'd be willing to agree, but with what, 3 billion women and 3 billion men, how are you possibly going to back that up? I'd agree that there's a lot of women who are decent and responsible, but you can bet there'd be scads of them that aren't. "A society who still drafts young people to become soldiers or a society who even has the death penalty should not act like they have a moral right to establish an anti-abortion law." Now this I can agree with, though I might say 'government' instead of 'society'. America isn't the only country with a government that's completely out of touch. |
YourValentine 26.02.2006 07:02 |
"People who abort babies because they have a (fixable) cleft pallet, or because it would ruin their figure - those people should be shot. People who just didn't mean to have a baby, but have the means to take care of it, should be made to have it as a lesson in responsibility. People who have been raped, or might die during childbirth, should be allowed to abort the baby ASAP." Why do you say "people"? It's WOMEN. Men don't get pregnant as a result of rape and men don't need to take the responsibility. It's the woman who is left alone and does not see a way out who usually gets an abortion. And it's NOT the alternative : rape victim or shallow yuppie bothered about the figure, that's just over simplifying the issue: there are numerous reasons why women consider an abortion and the society is of not much help. It's so cheap to point at the woman and call her whatever names when you yourself cannot even get into the situation. As long as women don't get a job because they have small children and as long as a rich society does not help to pay for the education of poor children, as long as there are children who have no warm meal per day, no health care, no proper schooling in a rich society, this society does not have the right to legally forbid abortion and nobody has the moral legitimation to judge a woman who chooses an abortion in a distressing situation. |
The Real Wizard 26.02.2006 10:26 |
"The bill passed by a vote of 47-22 and now goes to the state Senate" I wonder how many of those 47 were women... Great discussion happening here. So many intelligent people making very worthwhile points. |
john bodega 26.02.2006 10:47 |
"Why do you say "people"?" Women are human beings aren't they? Why freakin' treat them like something else? That's sexism isn't it??? 'that's just over simplifying the issue" I don't see how. You either have someone who's got a good reason for doing it (for health reasons or situations where the kid got created due to rape) or you have someone who was just plain irresponsible, in which case I could give a rats about their 'choice'. And I think it's a totally valid point about the cleft pallet. That has happened before, and it's a crime to be that fucking flippant with abortion because it's an easily fixed problem. "It's so cheap to point at the woman and call her whatever names when you yourself cannot even get into the situation." Don't look at me for name calling. I never throw names around unless someone earns them. It's the height of malignant narcisissm to say I can't have an opinion on something. I say go for it, it's your right to choose - abort the little buggers, but for SHITS SAKE only do it if you have to, if there's a really valid reason for it. Besides, I would never force my opinion on anyone, I would never force a woman to abort/not abort, and I most certainly would never freakin' be so pigheaded as to abuse my power as a politician (where I one) to actually ban the procedure altogether. "Great discussion happening here. So many intelligent people making very worthwhile points." Yes. |
Lisser 26.02.2006 11:12 |
YV said: It's so cheap to point at the woman and call her whatever names when you yourself cannot even get into the situation. As long as women don't get a job because they have small children and as long as a rich society does not help to pay for the education of poor children, as long as there are children who have no warm meal per day, no health care, no proper schooling in a rich society, this society does not have the right to legally forbid abortion and nobody has the moral legitimation to judge a woman who chooses an abortion in a distressing situation. I agree whole-heartedly with these statements. |
Music Man 26.02.2006 12:59 |
But another thing to keep in mind, a panicky, pregnant woman (or girl, which may be the case) may not be in the best state of mind to decide the fate of the potential life within her. |
Lisser 26.02.2006 16:43 |
Music Man wrote: But another thing to keep in mind, a panicky, pregnant woman (or girl, which may be the case) may not be in the best state of mind to decide the fate of the potential life within her.That is why she should consult with her trusted physican. |
Music Man 26.02.2006 16:59 |
Lisser wrote:But ultimately she would have the power to get the abortion or not. An informed panicky, pregnant girl can be just as bad a judge as an ignorant panicky, pregnant girl.Music Man wrote: But another thing to keep in mind, a panicky, pregnant woman (or girl, which may be the case) may not be in the best state of mind to decide the fate of the potential life within her.That is why she should consult with her trusted physican. |
Lisser 26.02.2006 18:12 |
It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing. |
Mr.Jingles 26.02.2006 18:30 |
Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.Hi, I'd like an abortion and some biggie size fries with a coke. |
Music Man 26.02.2006 19:38 |
Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.I would figure that being counseled by a nurse or social worker is about as useful as being counseled by your friends when you have fallen in love. No matter what they say, you're still going to do whatever you have your mind set on doing. This is a scenario that most people can relate to, male and female, as very few people (particularly teens) consider abortion even slightly relevant to them. Mr.Jingles wrote:We only have Pepsi at this clinic, is that all right?Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.Hi, I'd like an abortion and some biggie size fries with a coke. |
Lisser 26.02.2006 22:27 |
Music Man wrote:I would have to disagree with being counseled by a nurse or a social worker as being useless, if that is what you are trying to say. Since I am a social worker, I am a bit biased but I am aware that I can not make a differnce in everyone's lives that I come in to contact with. But if I can help just one person in my career, then it is worth it to me. If the counseling that goes on in abortion clinics helps just one girl make the right choice for her and her future, then to me, it is doing what it's supposed to do.Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.I would figure that being counseled by a nurse or social worker is about as useful as being counseled by your friends when you have fallen in love. No matter what they say, you're still going to do whatever you have your mind set on doing. This is a scenario that most people can relate to, male and female, as very few people (particularly teens) consider abortion even slightly relevant to them.Mr.Jingles wrote:We only have Pepsi at this clinic, is that all right?Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.Hi, I'd like an abortion and some biggie size fries with a coke. |
user name 26.02.2006 23:34 |
Lisser wrote:I am in no way saying that social workers are useless. Their help is invaluable in today's society. I do, however, deny the efficacy (not to say that they are ineffective - just not effective enough) of social workers in this situation. I am just saying that they will not ALWAYS convince a pregnant girl or woman to make the right decision. It is my belief that, more times than not, they won't. I meant that if a group of friends can't convince you that you are making a mistake in your love life, then there's a slim chance that you'll be convinced by a stranger, despite the stranger's training and experience.Music Man wrote:I would have to disagree with being counseled by a nurse or a social worker as being useless, if that is what you are trying to say. Since I am a social worker, I am a bit biased but I am aware that I can not make a differnce in everyone's lives that I come in to contact with. But if I can help just one person in my career, then it is worth it to me. If the counseling that goes on in abortion clinics helps just one girl make the right choice for her and her future, then to me, it is doing what it's supposed to do.Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.I would figure that being counseled by a nurse or social worker is about as useful as being counseled by your friends when you have fallen in love. No matter what they say, you're still going to do whatever you have your mind set on doing. This is a scenario that most people can relate to, male and female, as very few people (particularly teens) consider abortion even slightly relevant to them.Mr.Jingles wrote:We only have Pepsi at this clinic, is that all right?Lisser wrote: It is my understanding that before you go for an abortion, you are "counseled" by a nurse or social worker at the abortion clinic. It's not a drive thru type thing.Hi, I'd like an abortion and some biggie size fries with a coke. If we create more restrictions around abortion, then we can assure that abortion rights are not being abused. Perhaps the enforcement or creation of these restrictions are absurdly unrealistic, but they would exist in the best of all possible worlds. |
Lisser 27.02.2006 09:26 |
Meh, more restrictions means more government intervention. For me that means someone else telling me what I can and can't do with my body and having an effect on my future. Of course we both know, each situation has to be taken on a case by case basis. You can't fit every girl in to one scenario. We both know this. I just think that the "counseling" session beforehand definitely does not do any harm. It will and should ultimately be the decision of the girl to have the abortion or not. If later she regrets her decision, she'll learn from her mistake...let's hope. |
Erin 27.02.2006 09:46 |
I would say I'm pro-choice but still hate the thought of abortion. It's something I don't think I could ever do but members of my family have. I don't judge them for their choices, but I don't necessarily agree with their decisions. I believe there are definitely extreme cases where abortion is a valid option...like incest. Certainly if a woman was going to do it, I feel the earlier in the pregnancy the better. |
magicalfreddiemercury 27.02.2006 10:12 |
Lisser wrote: Meh, more restrictions means more government intervention. For me that means someone else telling me what I can and can't do with my body and having an effect on my future. Of course we both know, each situation has to be taken on a case by case basis. You can't fit every girl in to one scenario. We both know this. I just think that the "couseling" session beforehand definitely does not do any harm. It will and should ultimately be the decision of the girl to have the abortion or not. If later she regrets her decision, she'll learn from her mistake...let's hope.Well said. I couldn't agree more. And when you said 'you can't fit every girl into one scenario', that made me think of these laws. They're not intended to be flexible - to consider each situation individually. They're intended to remove all options by criminalizing abortion. |
magicalfreddiemercury 27.02.2006 12:49 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote: If you abort you are KILLING a child.And here is where the contention lies - when is it a 'child'? At the moment of conception? At the start of the second trimester? Or when it stops feeding off its host and can survive on its own? |
Lisser 27.02.2006 12:53 |
A child has a fair chance at living on it's own (out of it's mother's womb) starting at 25 weeks. Anything before this, a fetus is said to have a very small chance of survival. Even if born at 25 weeks, the child would be hooked up to several different machines for months and months and may still die. |
magicalfreddiemercury 27.02.2006 13:30 |
<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote: exactly. and who decides this? I happen to be for abortion and against it at the same time..oh dear I'm so confusedScience decides. It sounds like you're for women having a choice but unsure of the choice YOU would make for yourself. That's fine. That's what pro-choice is. It's not pro-abortion, just pro------CHOICE. |
Micrówave 27.02.2006 14:15 |
Time to gas up the Back Alley abortion van, grab the pliers & wrench, and get a new pair of rubber gloves. |
YourValentine 27.02.2006 14:30 |
I agree with you, Linda. Abortion would not be an option for me, either. But you must have the chance to get a legal abortion as a woman or a very important part of your right of self determination is taken from you. It does not mean you should have one. |
user name 27.02.2006 20:02 |
Lisser wrote: Meh, more restrictions means more government intervention. For me that means someone else telling me what I can and can't do with my body and having an effect on my future. Of course we both know, each situation has to be taken on a case by case basis. You can't fit every girl in to one scenario. We both know this. I just think that the "counseling" session beforehand definitely does not do any harm. It will and should ultimately be the decision of the girl to have the abortion or not. If later she regrets her decision, she'll learn from her mistake...let's hope.This is probably my main reason for being pro-choice. If the line is so thin, where there is no clear right or wrong, and both sides arguing equally valid points, then the path of least governmental resistance is the best. While I tend not to take sides in politics, I have to say that I am a fan of minimalist government. |
user name 28.02.2006 20:51 |
Ravenetta wrote: im pro-choice, escpecially in this day and age. i really do think that it shouldnt be used as birth control, but only used for rape victims and if the child is SEVERELY defected to a point where theres no viable life, or the mother could die (im sry but if i hear about mothres dying for their babies i dont think theyre martyrs because chances are their baby wont life either...but thats just me). i think iave said everything.I don't see why this exact argument doesn't work if it came from a guy. I mean, nothing in it seems specific to women, nor out of the realm of a guy's understanding. Rape and endangerment of the life of the mother - we can all agree that those are valid reasons for abortion. Many people (I would say most) would also agree that birth control is not a valid reason for abortion. This is pretty much the main issue, arguable by men and women - it does, in one way or another, affect all of us. Now, I think that restrictions would be the way to go in principle, but in practice, I am pro-choice. First of all, restrictions would lead to many non-professionally done or unlicensed abortions - or even self-abortions. This is extremely dangerous. Second of all, it would be difficult to codify these restrictions, as like many have said before, each case is unique. We can't bring every instance of abortion before some type of arbiter and try it. It's totally impractical. Finally, like I mentioned earlier, the path of least governmental resistance is the route we should always take. Government is inherently impractical and burdensome, wasteful and inefficient. It should be called upon only when it is agreed that it is absolutely necessary. I think we can all agree that there is hardly any agreement on this issue. |