Pro lifers are pro war

I can't argue with one's views of morality. It's a complex subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

I think if we can afford to be moral, we will. Take the vegetarians view that it is immoral to eat meat. They can afford that view because there are plenty of vegetables available. Take away their vegetables in a drought and they would lose their moral view about eating meat, or at least ignore their views.

The same with infanticide. In a famine, or overpopulation, the desire for survival means the weak will die. Morals be dammed.

In the opposite view, if the population declines to a dangerous level for the group's survival, abortions will decline, and the birth rate will increase.

Morals are always changing. Slavery and human sacrifice used to be moral. Burning atheists at the stake used to be moral.

Some libertarians view an unplanned pregnancy as an invasion of one's body. Libertarians believe we own our bodies and no one has the right to invade them.

The pro choice people do have a conflict in promoting the right to kill a fetus and trying to save the lives of adults. But, the Christians who are passionate about saving a fetus are just as passionate about taking the lives of adults in war, when Christianity is supposed to be anti war. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance143.html

Charles Tolleson

P.S. Tim Russert seemed like a guy I would like to hang out with. He was a professional journalist, not a head of state, so why all the media coverage? Maybe the media should have their FCC license revoked for not be fair and unbalanced. I guess each journalist, like cops and other professions, like to overvalue themselves.