tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post2806789444592300003..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: You haven't seen me unreasonable yet. [Jay]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-27752507586982677912007-03-14T04:04:00.000-07:002007-03-14T04:04:00.000-07:00Lydia,Thanks for your contribution.Lydia,<BR/>Thanks for your contribution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-42040828331885370512007-03-14T03:53:00.000-07:002007-03-14T03:53:00.000-07:00I agree with you Jay. Thanks for great informatio...I agree with you Jay. Thanks for great information!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-86865244519716451462007-03-13T11:32:00.000-07:002007-03-13T11:32:00.000-07:00It's worth pointing out, too, that Rudy is very so...It's worth pointing out, too, that Rudy is very soft on immigration. This is a terrorism-related issue. Don't get me wrong--so is G.W. Bush. But the point is, at least Bush is supposedly pro-life. I don't know where all this "tough on terrorism" stuff is coming with Rudy. Maybe just that he's in favor of the war in Iraq? But it ain't the same thing. I wouldn't expect to be significantly more safe with an R.G. as president, if more safe at all, than with a Democrat in the White House. Not that this touches the more in-principle questions, but I think some conservatives are being taken for a ride on this one. Let's here Rudy speak up against the flying imams' nonsense and take a tough stand against CAIR, and maybe I'll believe he's going to make us safer against terrorism.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-67069849700837151632007-03-13T10:55:00.000-07:002007-03-13T10:55:00.000-07:00Kyl,I have two responses to this type of conversat...Kyl,<BR/><BR/>I have two responses to this type of conversation. The first is the big dog argument in the pro-life position. Ask your friend, “What is the unborn?” If they are innocent human beings then I can say for certain that on average 1.3 million Americans are killed every year by legal surgical abortions. Terrorism does not come close to that number. So I am not immediately convinced that international terrorism is automatically a weightier moral issue than abortion by virtue of being more frightening to those of us who have had the privilege of being born. Just because we have become accustomed to the moral offense of abortion, it does not necessarily hold that abortion is less morally offensive. <BR/><BR/>The second response is this, what politician is pro-terrorism? I know that there are a great many politicians that are pro-abort, but when was the last time you had a serious Republican or Democratic Presidential candidate campaign on the platform that terrorists are not so bad? <BR/><BR/>Why do I have to choose between security and the unborn anyway? They may try to make the argument that a candidate is so good at fighting terrorism that we would lose by not having him or her in office, but why should we believe that claim without strong evidence? International terrorism is a very complicated issue that can not be stopped because a single individual holds an office in the United States. We can not simply make terrorism illegal and save the lives of millions of people as we can with abortion. We can not decide as a nation that terrorism is wrong and see it go away. All serious politicians in the United States are going to take an anti-terrorism position, and they all have very little track record for us to determine how they will fight the war on terror. Being the mayor of a city that was attacked by terrorists seems a weak qualification to be the most effective anti-terrorist candidate. That he reduced violent crime with strong policies is still not convincing. The problem of terrorism will not be handled by more police officers on the streets and tougher enforcement. Why should I accept that RG or anyone else is SO TOUGH on terrorism that I should overlook the fact that the unborn are not human beings in their minds? Why should it not matter that a candidate thinks we are free to kill the unborn whenever killing them appears easier or more personally beneficial than allowing them to live? Why can’t we demand someone who feels strongly about protecting all life? It is not like this is a quest for a unicorn or something. <BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>JayJay Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11298001988620531769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-446135626585728892007-03-13T00:27:00.000-07:002007-03-13T00:27:00.000-07:00Two days ago I was talking to a social conservativ...Two days ago I was talking to a social conservative customer at my job. The customer says that elective abortion should not be allowed. However, he said that he would vote for someone like Rudy G because Rudy G is supposedly strong on terrorism. He put it like this: (a hypothetical) Rudy G is (unfortunately) an elective abortion advocate but he is strong on terrorism. If Rudy G’s opponent is weak on terrorism, we should vote for Rudy G even though Rudy’s opponent holds that elective abortion should not be allowed. The customer essentially implies that we should put the terrorism issue first when we are trying to figure out who to vote for. How would you answer the customer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-63181534708705542072007-03-09T11:23:00.000-08:002007-03-09T11:23:00.000-08:00Great post Jay!Great post Jay!Serge (Rich Poupard)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06648112986475922045noreply@blogger.com