Re: i <3 your icon.thatgirlyOctober 4 2008, 23:15:48 UTC
I have a hard time believing she's anyone's candidate. I mean, I'd love to see a woman in the White house who wasn't there because she "married well" but not one who is so flagrantly against what are generally considered to be "women's" issues. (D, who is looking over my shoulder as I type this added "and science, and common sense, and not being a twat") I get the anti-abortion thing, it's a view a huge number of people have, and it comes down to a religious issue for the most part, and while I don't agree with the sentiment, I can still respect those people who do. But abstinence only education?!? Really? Come on people, wake up and smell the sweaty teenage sex. The best part is that it didn't work in her own household, but of course we can't talk about that because that would be sexist and wrong! And the rape kit thing is just disgusting. (Although after doing quite a bit of research on the subject in the last, oh, ten minutes or so, I know less about it than I once did. If I'm going to be fair and balanced about it, I don't think I can really blame her without more evidence, which nobody has been able to turn up, and you know the liberal media has tried their best)
Re: i <3 your icon.desiree_1980October 6 2008, 23:17:05 UTC
I'm all for letting people make up their own minds to be against abortion, but I really think they should realize it's a decision to be against it, just like it's a decision to be ok with it.
Abstinence only education would never work IMO. Unless we had a bunch of eunuchs.
Reply
Abstinence only education would never work IMO. Unless we had a bunch of eunuchs.
Heh.
Reply
Leave a comment