My Reply: If you're trying to convince me that there is no link between vaccines and autism, I understand and appreciate your efforts. I have not done enough research for me to draw my OWN definitive conclusion either way. ( That said, I have done enough research to know that I cannot trust vaccine manufacturers or the government...) 

If you're trying to convince me that people should NOT be allowed to say what they believe (and present whatever evidence supports their claims) then I disagree. I don't believe that ONE group should ever be permitted to "decide" what evidence is presented and what evidence isn't. 

Most people "draw their conclusions" based only on what they hear in the mainstream media. Well, what happens when somebody else is controlling the information that comes to them through that channel? ...somebody who is protecting "profits" instead of "people?" Here are a couple relevant links (short videos) that I posted yesterday. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ckeqIoZz9c

Regarding Obama, I'm sad to say that I've seen all I need to see. If Ron Paul got in and immediately broke his campaign promises, I'd say the same thing about him. 

It all starts with our monetary system. ...it's a fraud. Until it is fixed, the financial elite will continue to be the "power behind the thrown." And they will never put somebody on "the thrown" who challenges them or their agenda for this country. 

If somebody manages to get there on their own (say a "Ron Paul" or other grass-roots candidate) they will do everything they can to ostracize, demonize and weaken that person. If that doesn't work, well, my guess is they could easily wind up like MLK, JFK or RFK. 
 

• She wrote: I didn't look at the links because I see it's a fox news thing and I don't watch the news because the media only reports what will get the ratings.
  
  If you get sick do you go to a doctor? What if he prescribes you something, will you not take it? 
  
  I didn't look to see if you have any kids. But lets say that you do, do you take them for regular check ups with a doctor?
  
  Sure drug companies want to make money, they use that money to do research to find new drugs to work better, to improve the drugs they already have, to continually follow up on medications out there and make sure they are FDA approved, recalls are done when drug shows severe side effects. 
  
  It takes on average 10 years before a drug can be made available for the public, 10 years in which it costs the companies a lot of money, for 3 years or better, it stays as a brand name ONLY so they can get some of that money back, after that it can become a generic drug and is much cheaper. 
  
  Because of you mistrust in government and drug companies you are ignoring science. 
  
  If Ron Paul ever became president, the same thing would happen, he'd make promises, that he might really want to go through with, and yet would still come up short. Seeing as how people had doubts we'd have a black president, I can't say we'd never have a Ron Paul, I just think it's very unlikely.

My Reply: <<"I didn't look at the links because I see it's a fox news thing and I don't watch the news because the media only reports what will get the ratings.">>

Well, I appreciate your honesty. That said, it has nothing to do with "Fox reporting a story that will get ratings." Actually, it's the opposite.

It covers how Fox KILLED a story about bovine growth hormone (and the danger it poses) because one of Fox's sponsors (the maker of the drug) didn't want the story aired. 

<<Because of you mistrust in government and drug companies you are ignoring science.>>

I'm not "ignoring science." I have specifically stated that I haven't researched the "science" enough to say, one way or the other, what I believe the truth is. 

However, I have ALSO tried to make clear that the "link" or "lack thereof" is NOT the main issue for me. REGARDLESS of who is right or wrong: 

" it boils down to whether or not you think people should be allowed to hear all information and decide for themselves." 

Do you think she should NOT be allowed to speak her mind and present whatever evidence she has (weak or strong) in defense of her position? Is that what you're saying? 

If you say "she should not be allowed to speak" then I disagree with you. If you say "she can speak, but I think she is wrong" then we really have nothing to argue about. 

Regarding Ron Paul, he has stayed true for decades. Even when it was clear that he was not going to win the presidency and he was under pressure to "endorse McCain" for "the good of his party" he, thankfully, refused. 

That reinforces my opinion of him (that he is loyal to the founding principles and to his word rather than to "party" and "political gain") but of course there is no way to know without seeing him "in the White House."
 

• She Wrote: <<"If you say "she should not be allowed to speak" then I disagree with you. If you say "she can speak, but I think she is wrong" then we really have nothing to argue about.">>
  
  We have nothing to argue about because you agree she is wrong or because you feel she is right and you're just agreeing to disagree? I think she has the right to speak, I'm all for freedom of speech, what is scary is how so many are believing her and not looking at what has been proven wrong.
  
  You never answered if you would take prescription medication.
  
  I did look into bovine and do remembering hearing something about it awhile ago. It appears that many have stepped up to protest and things are working in the right direction to make changes. 
  
  I dislike the media because I don't feel like trying to figure out what is bullshit and what is not, if it's important enough for me to know, I will eventually find out and find actual facts.
  
  I think the way you and I differ is that I want to see the good, look for the good and you're trying to find all the bad. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, if change is to happen someones got to find what needs to be changed. 
  
  I prefer doing what I can to make things good now, around me, with the people I know and my community.
  
  If someone wants me to protest, sign a petition, etc..and I believe it's a worthy cause, I will do it but just like with charities, there is only so much I can do.
  
  As far as people being allowed to decide for themselves, I agree they should and yet.....there are far too many people that would make HUGE mistakes if they were allowed to do what they wanted. Praying for a sick child rather than getting them medical help, is the first example that pops into my head. I'm all for having a religious belief if a person wants to, I disagree with it, when it hurts someone.

My Reply: <<"We have nothing to argue about because you agree she is wrong or because you feel she is right and you're just agreeing to disagree?">>

We have nothing to argue about because I cannot say "she is right" or "she is wrong." I haven't done anywhere near enough research to say "for sure" how I feel about the claims. I am only talking about what I feel is the larger issue: A person's right to say what they believe and present evidence in support of that belief. 

<<You never answered if you would take prescription medication.>>

I avoid ingesting drugs / chemicals in general.(I eat organic food, no aspartame, no fluoride in the water, I've had multiple surgeries but only took a fraction of the pain meds after, etc.) That said, if I had an infection or something and I needed some antibiotics, I'd take them. 

If the government / media told me that there was a "flu pandemic" that required I immediately take some vaccine, there is at least a 90% chance that I would NOT. 

"<<I think the way you and I differ is that I want to see the good, look for the good and you're trying to find all the bad. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, if change is to happen someones got to find what needs to be changed.">>

Well, you "want to see the good" but obviously you "see the bad" too or else you wouldn't be doing things to try to help out. ...that is basically what I see as 'the good." (Resisting what is wrong...doing what you can to help make things right.)
 

• She wrote (in part) You said you applaud Jenny and yet don't know if she's right or wrong? I'm a little confused.
  
  I agree 100% with you on taking a vaccine if there is a flu pandemic. 1976 showed us it's not a wise decision to create a vaccine too quickly without properly testing it first before dishing it out to millions of people. That said MMR's have been tested and proven to do more good than bad.
  
  If you're not drinking fluoride in your water, you really should make sure you're getting fluoride in another way, it's important for your teeth. I work in a pharmacy and in China they don't have fluoride in there water, people traveling there for several months, get prescriptions filled for fluoride.
  
  You saying you do take medications, means you don't totally distrust drug companies. It all goes back to what has been shown in history of things that work. Cocaine may work to relieve pain but eventually we discovered it does more harm than good and made it illegal to use. To not do that would have left it up to the people to decide for themselves and well.... not all people are smart enough/care enough to not cause themselves harm and some just more prone towards addictions. Those addictions hurt our society, as does drinking and yet that's legal. (I am conflicted in this regard)
  
  I'm not saying I believe the government should control every aspect of our lives, it pisses me off that companies can fire a person if they smoke cigs or increase what they pay for insurance. I don't see smoking as being much different than eating too much McDonalds and being obese, obesity causes A LOT of health conditions as well and in fact more health costs than smokers on average. But do I think the government should tell us what we can eat? NO and so I will continue to pay towards my health insurance even knowing it's increasing in part because of the health costs going up from people EATING TOO MUCH.
  
  As long as what a person is doing or believes in doesn't harm anyone else but themselves than I think the government should leave it alone. Not getting vaccines, putting your kids in school, paying your taxes et...does hurt others, it hurts our society and YES I am just as pissed as the next guy with paying taxes, I work hard for my money and just like everyone else I don't want my hard earned money going to some loser who is getting government help because they refuse to work.
  
  That said, I've been on the side where I needed some help, but unlike some I did go to school, got a job and eventually managed on my own but for about 2 years, I did need some help because I was in a bad situation, so although I dislike the welfare system and know it has a ton of flaws, there are those exceptions where it's actually doing some good.
  
  Have you ever been on any forums? I started about 8 years ago (wow time flies) and I've learned so much, I don't agree with everything but it sure is interesting at times, I've been on several...

My Reply: I applaud the fact that she is speaking her mind (despite being attacked.) I applaud the fact that she is making people THINK (for themselves) about what they put into their bodies and the bodies of their children. I applaud the fact that this, by extension, will make it harder for vaccine manufacturers to "lobby" mandatory vaccination laws into existence. 

"<<If you're not drinking fluoride in your water, you really should make sure you're getting fluoride in another way">>

Well, I could go on and on about that. Suffice to say, I"ve used a natural teeth-cleaning solution for years now and it does a much better job of keeping the plauque off my teeth than toothpaste did. Regarding the general arguments "for" fluoride, here is a pretty mild article against its use, with a good summary being: 

"The most widely cited study into the benefits of water fluoridation was conducted in New Zealand between 1954 and 1970, and it is used by fluoridation advocates to this day. But the study failed to meet the most basic criteria for scientific objectivity, not least because the decline in tooth decay that the community in question experienced was also seen in other non-fluoridated communities in the region. The then Mayor of Auckland, Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, described the so-called Hastings Experiment as a "swindle"."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/healthy-living/is-fluoride-safe-780948.html 

This short video shows that the ADA (Finally) admitted that fluoride could be dangerous for infants. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yblka13FfCA

<<"...not all people are smart enough/care enough to not cause themselves harm and some just more prone towards addictions. Those addictions hurt our society, as does drinking and yet that's legal. (I am conflicted in this regard)">>

People should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they're not violating the rights of others. The "hurts society" argument can be used against anything...I think it could be more effectively used against the "war on drugs" itself. 

For me, it should be a simple issue of: If somebody violates another's rights, they should be held accountable. But don't assume ALL of those who do drugs WILL violate another's rights and, because of that assumption, punish them in advance. I'm against that just as I'd be against the worst case "drunk" being held up as a justification for why YOU should not be allowed to drink. 

http://www.leap.cc is a good source for info "against the war on drugs" from a law enforcement perspective. 

<<"YES I am just as pissed as the next guy with paying taxes, I work hard for my money and just like everyone else I don't want my hard earned money going to some loser who is getting government help because they refuse to work.">>

I assume you're referring to Federal Income Tax. Although "The loser who refuses to work" is an irritant, he is the least of our problems regarding "what the money is going to." 

Federal Income Tax (something this country did not have until 1913) was put in place by RICH elites. It is yet another way for them (acting through the federal government) to control us. 

One example: The Federal Government takes money from the individual states, then it holds that funding over the states' heads with strings attached. The more the state NEEDS the money, the more likely they will comply with whatever mandates are attached to the so-called "federal funding." 

I AM glad you were able to get some help...we have to ask though: "Is this the only, let alone the BEST, system for providing such help? What are all the "costs?" (Not just financial, but in corruption, real crime, loss of state and individual rights, etc.) It's a very big topic. 

Regarding time on forums: 

Back in say 2003-2005 I spent a LOT of time at one site (SuzukiHayabusa.org) It's a motorcycle forum, but they had a "whatever is on your mind" section. Again, I spent TONS of time there talking mostly about politics. After a while, I decided it made more sense for me to put the time into research, writing and then posting at my site. (If you're going to spend 20 or 30 hours fleshing something out, it's no good to just have it buried and forgotten in a 25-page thread.) 

That's not to say I don't think they're useful. I like to poke around and read them sometimes...but if I'm going to post something that challenges the "active members' ideas," I know I have to prepare for days or even weeks to tie it all up. I have so much that I've got to do here, I'm worried about getting sucked into that again. 
 

• She Wrote: I knew fluoride could be dangerous for infants, that's why they have special tooth paste for kids and why you have to make sure they don't get a hold of adult tooth paste. I hadn't heard anything about it in the water but....your study is outdated, there have been studies in China, several in fact and what they are trying to show is that too much fluoride affects IQ? hmm interesting, I'll have to research that a bit more.

In any case, because of the research done in China, scientist here are also looking into it. One study I saw had other factors that came into play that could have been the reason for a decline in IQ. The thing with IQ, is even though there have been TONS of studies about it, there are soooooo many factors to consider, it's very difficult to pin point exactly why certain people have lower IQ's than others. Why is it in parts of Italy, one side has higher IQ's than the other?? (heard that at a conference, how weird is that?) they don't know why, it was said because the smart Italians went to the US hahah it was a joke. You could debate for years about IQ and why some have higher IQ's than others, it does get rather annoying because there is no end to what can be said. 

I agree about chat boards, they can suck the life away from you, I go in waves, sometimes I post a lot, other times, I have no idea what's going on, still I have learned a lot and mostly to "think" about everything and not just believe, as I was taught by my parents, you don't question "God" eeekkkk well yeah I do now :)

I can't applaud Jenny when she's make a ton of money off of her claim, how do you know if she's just doing it for the money or doing it because she really wants to make a difference? The thing with celebrities is people listen, they don't think, they just listen and follow. Sally Fields said Boniva was great, people believed her and guess what? Boniva isn't all that great, really nasty side effects in more than a few people. 

I do wonder, if Sally Fields really takes Boniva, if she does and she has the same nasty side effects, would she speak out against it? There might be some clause that says she can't for a certain amount of time or she'll be sued? I wouldn't know, would you?

I applaud people like Eve Tetaz, she's not making any money but she voicing her opinion and standing up for what she believes. Not saying I agree or disagree with her, like you said it doesn't matter, she's having her voice heard but she has no $$ motivating her to do so. I applaud people with the guts to do that and even say "take me to jail, I stand firm in my opinion" what would Jenny do if jail were looming over her head??? Hire a ton of expensive lawyers to defend her, would she go to jail for her beliefs against vaccines?? We will never know but it is an interesting question, thing is again, she'd probably make a ton of money off of it or write a damn book, soo again,it's much harder for me to applaud when there is greed for money involved.

Matthew Shepherd's family, I applaud them, they have a cause, they are fighting, they are organized, and they are not becoming millionaires in the process nor are they hurting anyone with their influence. 

Many times things are added to the law books because of normal, every day people, not just because government wants to control our lives. Amanda's law, pushed by parents, Safe Haven law, Amber alerts, just to name a few. There is also one for fire works I believe in the name of a child that was killed during a fireworks show. I've even known speed limit signs to be added or removed based on public opinion.

Damn here I go rambling again, I was going to add more about government not being the only thing trying to control our lives but the public in general. Bike helmets being one that springs to mind, if it were up to some people, they'd make it a law that you have to wear one if you ride your bike, just like now it's a law to "click it or ticket" if I don't want to wear a seat belt, that should be my choice, I do however agree with putting children in car seats.

Basically when you look at government, you have to also look at just people, people push government to make decisions, if you feel strongly enough against something the government is doing, strive to make a change. My one suggestion would be, pick one thing and go full speed ahead, make your voice heard, like Eve Tetaz, maybe even end up in jail, if you believe strongly enough in your cause, jail will only bring you more notice and have your voiced heard louder.

My Reply: <<"too much fluoride affects IQ?">>

That is what I meant when I said the piece was a "mild article against its use." 

The article I sent you points out that the study used to justify its use is, as you put it, "outdated" and was flawed. It mentions many of the problems associated with its use, but it does not mention the worst of them which is there is evidence that they KNOW it "chemically lobotomizes" people. 

This is the reason I began avoiding fluoride. (I have read in many places, but have not confirmed, that it was first "widely used" by Hitler and Stalin to keep their concentration camp victims sedated and compliant.) 

...it provides some disturbing perspective to the much-touted recommendation: "Be sure to drink your 8 glasses of (fluoridated) water per day!" 

<<"You could debate for years about IQ">>

Yep, and in the end it probably isn't the "smartest" way to spend one's time. :-)

I decided years ago that IQ isn't nearly as important as it's made out to be. (Evidenced by the fact that it's never difficult to find two people with comparably "high IQ's" on opposite sides of the same issue.)

IQ seems to measure only one narrow band of "intelligence." That band (from what I can tell) is not enough to accurately predict whether a person will "conclude accurately" (determine what is true, what isn't true) in the real world. 

<<"I can't applaud Jenny when she's make a ton of money off of her claim, how do you know if she's just doing it for the money or doing it because she really wants to make a difference?">>

There are a few things here. It will take some time that I don't have right now. I'll try to get back tonight or tomorrow. 
 

• She wrote: <<"Yep, and in the end it probably isn't the "smartest" way to spend one's time. :-)">>
  
  HAHA Yep!
  
  Ironically my husband does research with IQ. At times there are some pretty interesting things he comes up with. His latest and yet not published is about IQ and religion, on a state level. 
  
  <<"that it was first "widely used" by Hitler and Stalin to keep their concentration camp victims sedated and compliant.)">>
  
  That's what I found as well, I would have to guess it was large amounts, not what is in our water. I wouldn't take drink your 8 glasses as the government way to make us complaisant, getting dehydrated can really mess you up but I don't necessarily think you have to drink water, just fluids in general.

 

 

My Reply:  <<"Many times things are added to the law books because of normal, every day people, not just because government wants to control our lives.">>

Agreed...that is really the point of trying to keep government "limited." (It doesn't matter what some fanatical group or powerful lobby wants, if the government doesn't have the power, it can't force their wishes on everyone else.) 

I know we could go "round and round" over the Jenny issue, but I definitely wanted to put some stuff out there. 

<<"I can't applaud Jenny when she's make a ton of money off of her claim, how do you know if she's just doing it for the money">>

Ok, so I've got a few thoughts on this:

1. Let's say a person is trying to find the "cure" for cancer. How do we know if he is doing it because he wants to ease suffering or he simply wants to make a lot of money? In the end, does it make a difference? If he uncovers information or produces a product that will end or massively reduce the rates of cancer then we all benefit regardless. 

Ok, but what if he is intentionally LYING about his "cure?" This is probably more in line with what you're saying. ...That the person KNOWS what they're preaching is bullshit, but they don't care because they can sell it to people who WANT to believe it and make lots of money doing so. 

This is obviously a crime...at the very least, it is fraud. The problem is, how do we KNOW whether a person or organization is "lying" or truly believes in what they're "selling" to the public? To put that another way, is there ANYONE we could not accuse of lying? Can I not accuse the vaccine industry of lying / hyping threats to make billions in extra sales? 

So, we come back to the need for a free exchange of information so people can make their own choices. It is not a perfect system, but it is less dangerous than the alternative. (One group deciding what can or can't be presented.) 

Needless to say, if evidence surfaces that a person or organization WAS clearly lying (perhaps a document surfaces that admits they knew what they were saying was untrue; something like: "screw these idiots, they'll eat it up all day long, we'll laugh all the way to the bank") then those involved must be convicted for their crime. 

2. Punishing moral markets: I've been meaning to write an article on this for a long time. ...addressing the fact that we've been conditioned to "look down on" people who earn money by doing "good work." 

The odd part of this conditioning is it only seems to apply to those attempting work outside of the established / accepted channels. So, for instance, a paramedic or nurse works to "help people" but they're not expected to do their work for nothing. A brain surgeon "saves lives" (very important work) but makes many millions per year doing so. How do we decide who should be labeled and demonized as only "trying to make a buck" and who shouldn't? 

What if it is a little bit of both? For instance, a woman might be able to choose "earning a living" as manager of a chain of fast-food restaurants or as a nurse...she chooses "nurse" because she wants to both "earn a living" AND contribute to the well being of society, VS simply "earn a living" and contribute to obesity. 

3. "Money" translates into access to resources and that translates into more power to affect change. (Whether "good" or "bad.") So, generally speaking, the less money an individual or organization has to work with, the less it can get done. 

I know some of these people are already considered "rich," but they're not that rich. Even Oprah Winfrey could blow through ALL her money "advertising a cause" she felt deeply about in less than a week. If there is no money coming in to replace that outlay, she'll be in a much weaker position. 

On the other side, if she uses some of her money / access to resources to create products (or charity campaigns) that bring more money "in" than goes "out," she can continue and expand her efforts indefinitely. 

I'm certainly NOT doing what I do because it "pays well" (this work has done nothing but consume money and other resources over the past 6 years.) That said, I wouldn't feel guilty to have it start "paying the bills" some day. ...matter of fact, it would feel real nice to both "do good" and get paid for the work. 

 

• She Wrote: The first thing that popped into my mind after reading that is, "Church" no one can really prove if there is a God or not, but you'll have very strong opinions on both sides. The church can do some good (like your examples) it also makes a TON of money and has done some very bad things.
  
  Jenny probably really believes what she is doing as being a good thing, Hitler thought was he was doing was a good thing to. Jenny isn't breaking any laws that I am aware of but convincing parents to not vaccinate is already showing to be a problem by whooping cough and other diseases coming back.
  
  Eventually history will show us what will happen when millions do not vaccinate their children, I would rather be wrong in my thinking and have it show nothing but I believe, it's going to show that children/adults are going to start dying from the same things they died from 50+ years ago and at an increased rate. Maybe not as much in the US because we have laws that say you have to get vaccinated before going into school but in other countries....time will tell
  
  I would rather collect data that can give us a pretty good insight to what will happen, rather than actually doing it and then finding out when the risk is so great. 

 

 

• She Wrote: Lets play a game... and not like the one in Saw, although I thought the movie was genius :) the first one anyway
  
  Here is the idea, we could go around and around about government, laws, IQ, Jenny.......and still go round and round
  
  S0...here's what I was thinking. We take turns picking a topic, abortion, capital punishment, fluoride etc..whatever. We both have 3 turns to make our argument about how we think it should be handled, anything goes as long as it's a possibility and for most things I do think anything is possible.
  
  One rule, you can't use court cases to support your reasoning. 
  
  If we were the government, could make everyone do what we say, what would we do? We don't have to go into how we'd punish those who do not, just what we would do to change the world.
  
  I'll pick the topic, you say how you'd handle it, if I agree, you win, if I don't, I say what I'd do, if you agree, I win, if we go back and forth for 3 turns each and neither agree with the other, it's a draw.
  
  Abortion
  
  What would you do?
  
  "Let the games begin" :)

My Reply: I like the idea of exchanging perspectives. (I feel a little weird about making it a "win / lose" thing though :-)

Ok, regarding Abortion: 
Personally, I'm very much against it. 

Making abortion illegal: 
I'm against that too. (That said, unless the mother's life is at risk, I think there should be firm limits on how "far along" a pregnancy can be....) 

This is off the top of my head. I have never given a lot of thought to the issue so I'm ready for your thoughts. 
 

• She wrote (in part) We don't have to do a win or lose thing then, I just thought it would make it more interesting.
  
  I'm pro-choice. As a female, it's my body and I feel I should have the right to do with my body as I wish. If I don't want to carry a baby inside of me for 9 months, I shouldn't have to.
  
  To make it illegal would only cause women to find other ways of ending an unwanted pregnancy, which in turn could cause deaths, as it did before they finally made it legal. It makes NO sense to me AT ALL, to chance a young girl having an illegal abortion and possibly dying. I would much rather my daughter end a pregnancy than to end her life, that goes for any female. That female has already touched peoples lives, that fetus has touched no ones.
  
  That said, I agree there should be a cut off time and there is. I believe it's 3 months? Any abortion done later than that, should only be done to save the mother. 
  
  I'm torn between how much right the father should have because I do feel it's unfair that a man might want to keep his child and yet he has no choice in the matter. And yet it would get complicated with who pays for child support and the woman having to bear the burden of pregnancy.
  
  I also don't think it's necessarily fair that a woman has the choice to keep the child and then force the father who may not have wanted a child, to pay child support. When a pregnancy happens from a one night stand, I think if the woman wants to keep the child, the man does not, and the couple is NOT nor have they ever been an actual couple, ,the woman should have the right to keep the baby but also do it knowing she will be supporting that child on her own. Both are equally to blame for not using proper protection. It gets more complicated if the two are a couple and have been together for awhile.
  
  I also think, woman who have too many abortions should be made to have their tubes tied, there should be a limit to how many you can have. In fact (and I'll have to look it up but I don't have time now) there was a time when women who were drug addicted would be offered the opportunity to have their tubes tied after having an abortion, I believe they were paid to do it, which caused all the problems. People felt it was wrong to bribe the women with money so they could just go buy more drugs and no longer be able to have babies. But my thoughts are, if you're going to fuck up your life with drugs, you shouldn't be having babies that will be equally fucked up.
  
  Another thing people don't consider are women who are raped. I wouldn't want some rapists baby growing inside of me, not to mention how the child would feel when they found out, if they did. 
  
  I was happy to have the choice but on a personal level, I never would have had an abortion unless I was raped. It's not a concern now for me because I had a hysterectomy over a year ago.

My Reply: I think we're pretty much on the same page with this issue. 

As I said, I'm against abortion (personally) so I'm even more against the idea of women using it as birth control. ...not sure I'd go with the "force them to tie their tubes" though. (There are a lot of woman who are really fucked up when they're young but might, if they're lucky, grow up someday and "get it together." ...a girl who first "got pregnant" at 13 could easily get knocked up a few times before she was even 17.) 

It would be nice if somebody invented a procedure that was easy to undo. High-risk girls could be paid to undergo the procedure and, if they wanted children at a later date, they would have to return the money and pay to have the procedure undone. ...I'd be more comfortable with something like that.
 

• She Wrote: It's very possible to undo tubes being tied, they've been doing it for years, in fact, getting your tubes tied doesn't mean they won't untie on their own. I worked with a lady, that not only got them tied, but also had them cut and burned because she DID NOT want anymore kids. Got remarried and her hubby wanted his own child. Well guess what? Medical science is amazing, she now has a son that I believe is about a year old now. Getting them tied is not the end.
  
  I agree women can be messed up and then straighten up their lives but? seeing babies addicted to crack, is horrible and so unfair to the child, babies die or have life long problems because of their moms doing drugs while preg and in most cases, the mom doesn't even keep the kid. It's a sad situation where more needs to be done.
  
  The main question on abortion though is, do you feel it should remain legal? Putting aside drug addicted moms. Do you feel the government has a right to tell woman NO they can not do what they want with their bodies and make it a crime to have an abortion?
  
  And it's your turn to ask a question.

My Reply: I would not support making abortion illegal. 

Question: Do you think the government should lie to us for "our own good?" 
 

• She Wrote: That's a mighty broad question, to answer I would need something more specific. I think in some aspects the government tell us too much because what we know, others will know as well. Example: military stuff, if our defense is weak in a certain area...it not only scares people but lets terrorists know where to get us. But I don't think you were referring to the military.

My Reply: Regarding "terrorists knowing where to get us," I always found it interesting that during the greatest period of fear mongering following 9/11, the borders were left wide open. (And they're still open.)

Seems kind of odd doesn't it? ...the "threat" is so "huge" that we've got to have the "Patriot Act" and the "John Warner Defense Act" and "Homeland Security" and wars of aggression and warrantless wiretapping and torture and (etc. etc.) but the border, over which millions have illegally entered this country since 9/11, isn't part of "securing the homeland against terrorism." 

OK, something specific: Should the government, if it has decided it wants to attack a country, intentionally LIE to the people to gain support for attacking that country? 

So for instance, let's say we're talking about Cuba. The people we call "government" want to attack Cuba, but the Cuban government hasn't done anything to provide moral or legal justification for the attack. (The American people will not support it.) 

...so "the government" lies to the people to manufacture consent. ("Cuba attacked one of our ships" or "the terrorist attacks were sponsored by Cuba" etc.) Are you for or against?
 

• She Wrote: I'm always against War, there are no winners when it comes to War, people die, Americans die, innocent people in the country we attack die. 
  
  This question all seems to be leaning towards 9/11 and Bush lying to get us to go to War, we now know he lied but at the time Americans wanted revenge for what happened, I wanted revenge I admit, I was angry and wanted someone to pay. Lying to us about it, was wrong.
  
  Do I think something needed to be done about terrorism, OF COURSE, do I think it's bad to have our military over in Bagdad (sp?), Iseral (sp? I can't think how to spell those damn counties right now) Iran, Iraq etc..not necessarily but I don't think we need as many as we have over there. I think to have us there to monitor more closely what's going on, isn't a horrible idea but I think trying to train them to control their own lands isn't working out so well and we should probably just let them run their own country to the ground if they want.
  
  They've been fighting for centuries and will continue to fight with each other, over religious beliefs, there's nothing we're going to be able to do, that will stop that. 
  
  still I feel it's in everyone's best interest to try and maintain peace around the world as much as possible and never to allow any ONE country to try and take over another, we and the rest of the world, need to make sure that doesn't happen EVER. 
  
  There is NO reason that we should EVER see what happened in WWII happen again, there is too much information available to us to not be able to know what another country is trying and I would certainly hope all counties, would be more than willing to do what is necessary to prevent it.
  
  All of that said, I think the US gets too involved in other countries problems, but I don't fully understand it all so it's hard to for me to say what I think should be done or point out what is wrong with it all. I just seems like we have enough of our problems right now and we need to work on that but it also seems to me that what happens to the US affects the rest of the world and we have out hand into too many things to just yank it out.
  
  My answer is, yes I'm against the government lying to go to War, but think at times it might be necessary to use our strengths to counter attacks or defend our land (not necessarily declaring war) but I don't fully understand it all (probably like most Americans) to know if what we're doing is the right thing or not, I just hope history has taught our military a few things and they do the right thing.
  
  OH and as for the pirates out there, I do think we need to do something about them, but NOT just the US, it's not just our ships being attacked and I have no sympathy for the pirate that was shot from capturing the captain
  
  So let me hear your opinion and then I'll pick the next topic unless I totally disagree.