Free Republic

I've been lurking this past year, but have to come out and say that I am ADAMANTLY opposed to Prop 69.

There is NO REASON why the government should extract a DNA sample from those arrested for felonies. IF the individual is convicted, then by all means, grab their DNA. But you are INNOCENT until proven guilty, and taking your DNA is plain wrong.

This is one closer step to tracking all people through their DNA. Hey, they give us a social security number when you're born, why not just take a little sample of your blood and attach that to your government file? Sure, if you commit a crime 20 years down the road they'll match you up, great! But at what price?

This is the first step to mandating DNA for a whole range of things we are currently required to provide our fingerprints for. A drivers' license. Cashing large checks--even at your own bank. Many jobs require a fingerprint before hiring.

The government has no right to maintain a DNA file on innocent people, but Prop. 69 will lead us there.

And whoever said that it's okay IF the government returns it when you're acquitted, all I can say is--yeah, sure. They'll have already run it through the database to see if you're guilty of any other crimes, so it's already in the system.

I am all for helping innocent people get out of prison. I am not for government tracking of DNA.

IMO
Allison

Desperate measures for a desperate campaign

Bump, ROFLOL

Geri is truly a saintly person who has devoted her life to sidewalk counseling. She has saved many, many babies with the help of God. She emailed me this morning and told me there has been an outpouring of support, prayers, and people more than willing to adopt a special child.

I am humbled by Freepers. Keep this baby and its mom in your prayers.

Ping

I actually think this is a silly debate. Historically, the Church takes a long, long time to declare something as a miracle. Just like most saints take years and years to be canonized, each miracle must stand the test of time.

While I agree with sinkspur that the Eucharist in and of itself is a miracle that we are all blessed to partake in, we also have many miracles, including the famous Host with blood vessels, which has incredibly stood the test of time.

Like 2000 years ago, some need miracles to believe and some don't. I'm not saying that anyone here needs to see a miracle to believe in the Real Presence, but why should we be debating this or arguing or claiming that the Church or others are suppressing these miracles? We believe.

There are those who will, from within and from without, try and test our faith. But if we believe, our faith won't waver, even if every miracle isn't recognized by the Church.

God bless.

They might have regrets, but we can't force them to want or love children.

I do think society needs to support families more. It's like the reverse of the 50s, where singlehood and childless couples are celebrated, and those with more than 2 kids are looked down on.

But it is true, there is an undercurrent in society of hostility toward large families. It's even worse when a couple eschews "birth control".

We practice NFP. Only our first *wasn't planned* (by us!). And, we conceived our first while using birth control (before we came back to the Church). Hmmmmm.

I am happy with four kids. I would be happy with five or six. I'm not "planning" on having more right now, but I would be happy. Really, what's the difference between four and five? The biggest change was between one and two, IMO

It's not just evangelical Christians. I am Catholic and I know many Catholic parents who homeschool. My kids go to a non-denominational Christian school (primarily because there was no Catholic school in our area when my oldest was ready to start) and I have been very, very pleased with the quality of the education, the Christ-centered philosophy, and the dedication of the teachers and parents.

I have thought about homeschooling, but I'm pleased with the school and as long as we can afford it, we'll send our kids to private school. If we can't afford it, I'll homeschool. Public school is not an option.

I do think homeschool and Christian schools will greatly help our society in the long run; it will be these kids who will ultimately change the world because they answer to a higher power.

I'm coming in late to this thread, and I've skimmed some of the comments and am very disappointed by many people.

I am a mother of four. I have always wanted children, I love them, and I feel that my life would be incomplete without them.

I know a woman who's a few years older than me who never wanted children. I've known her for more than 15 years and she didn't want children then, and now--even though she's married--she doesn't want children. You know what? I'm glad. She's awful with kids, has no patience, and is far more interested in traveling and partying than raising a family. Fine. That's her choice.

I don't think anyone on this list advocates "forcing" women to have children who don't want to. (this is far different than abortion, mind you; once the child is conceived, murdering that child for the sake of convenience--which is what all abortions are--is evil and wrong). But if a woman decides never to get pregnant and doesn't want kids, let her.

HOWEVER, that being said, there is a MAJOR societal problem. People with large families are often laughed at and ridiculed. I read the post about the family expecting their eighth child and the people who snickered and laughed behind their back.

When I was pregnant with my fourth, the woman I mentioned above who doesn't want kids, went to a good friend of mine and said, "Did you know (gophack) is pregnant again? That's number four." It was said in a very condescending tone with an eye roll.

People who choose to have large families should be praised and helped, not made fun of and ridiculed. I get comments like, "Well, it was your choice to have four kids, you shouldn't complain" and similar things. I never complain about my kids. I never complain about being tired, not having time for myself, not having money for vacations, or not being able to go out every weekend. Most of the time I don't care about those things. But when I come in ten minutes late because it's Halloween and I had to get my kids in their costumes for school and it took longer than I expected, I am frowned upon.

It's a two-way street. But there is definitely an antagonism toward large families that needs to end.

BTW, perjury is a federal offense, notwithstanding anything Bill Clinton may have gotten away with. She could (and would) be fined and thrown in prison if her story was proved false. All anyone has to do is prove one statement false and the whole thing would be thrown out.

I wish she had kept copies of the charts that had been erased. That would be quite interesting. But few people think about that in the course of their job.

But why would she lie? What's in it for her?

Her statements are consistent with other statements by family and other doctors.

MS has been caught in numerous lies and compromising situations. He has a lot to answer for--and hasn't.

I don't know if we'll ever know the truth. I would definitely like someone to collaberate this. But I believe it.

By the center's count, Christianity remains the world's largest faith, claiming just under 2 billion adherents in 34,000 denominations. Islam ranks second, with 1.19 billion followers, and Hinduism third, with 804 million.

The center estimates there are 762 million atheists or nonreligious people.

They should have noted that of the 2 billion Christians in the world, Catholics make up 1 billion of them.

Aside from that, I ask: why does America cater our laws to the atheists and "non-religious" who are in such a minority? For every three Christians there is one non-religious.

You'd think by voting powers alone, we would be able to control our country.

sigh. I think many Christians simply don't vote, or vote separate from their religion. I know many Catholics who would rather "tax the rich" than protect the unborn.

The pro-death attorney is all over the news making it sound like it's Jeb Bush and Terri's parents who are hurting Terri, when all along for 13 years the husband has been denying her therapy that could very well have enabled her to recover.

God bless Jeb Bush and the courageous lawmakers who voted to feed the poor woman. What an inhumane way to sentence someone to die -- death by starvation. We are kinder to our pets than we are to our people.

Pray. Pray hard. Pray to Jesus, ask the Blessed Mother to intercede for Terri's life. Ask St. Teresa, Terri's namesake, to pray for her. God has performed greater miracles than saving a starving woman. Perhaps He wants her in heaven, and that is His right. Perhaps He has given us this test to see what we will do. Whatever the reason, whatever His goal, all we can do, as His humble servants, is to stand up for the right to life, for the poor and weak, the young and old, the born and unborn.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just happened to click on your post to put in my two cents!

Thank you Governor Bush!

gophack in California

Yeah! We may be only able to save 3-5% of the aborted babies, but that's 130,000-220,000 babies that won't be tortured to death.

Thanks be to God!

No one should judge someone's quality of life. It's not up to us to judge. She is not brain dead. She is able to breath on her own. She simply can not feed herself or communicate. Much like a newborn and many severely handicapped people--handicapped people who DO think and feel.

This whole case angers and saddens me. God bless Terri.

I read this somewhere. Maybe WorldNetDaily or someplace like that.

What really irks me are the people who say, "Well, really, they should take out the feeding tube. What about her quality of life? That's no way to live."

Is it up to us to judge someone's quality of life? I am a writer. I would be devastated if I lost my arms. I'd much rather lose my legs because then I could still type. But a runner would be the exact opposite of me.

We are not allowed to judge someone's quality of life. Children living in the slums have a miserable quality of life -- are they better off dead? People with Downs Syndrome have a difficult time adjusting to "normal" society and are often cared for by their parents until they die -- are they better off dead? Stephen Hawkins has a debilitated disease and can't move or do anything for himself. He certainly can't feed himself. Is he better off dead? Would society be better off if he was dead?

I get so angry with the selfishness of others. It is not Terri's quality of life anyone cares about. It's their own perception of what they themselves would want for themselves should they find themselves in the same position.

There is a document people can get to prevent doctors from treating you. I think it's a "do not resusitate" order, a legal document, that is quick and easy to fill out. After my grandfather died, my grandmother got one. I don't really have an opinion on this, I'm torn. But clearly, Terri didn't have one and was resusitated. How do we know she doesn't think and feel just like all of us -- but simply can't communicate her thoughts and feelings?

It's not up to us to decide whether someone's quality of life is valuable.

I read this article with interest. What struck me was the comment about Mother Teresa opposing the empowerment of women and something about compulsory reproduction.

To me "compulsory reproduction" means that a woman is forced to have sex and give birth to children and has no choice in the matter. But, I think what the author meant was that Mother Teresa supports Church teaching on contraception and abortion.

The Left always equate Church teaching with the oppression of women BECAUSE we do not believe that contraception is okay and that abortion is an acceptable method of birth control. As if women are ONLY empowered when they have the legal right to kill their unborn babies.

Empowerment is through using our God-given talent to better ourselves, our families, and the world. Empowerment is not the right to use our strength against the weak. How in the world could it be empowering to a woman to be able to use her strength of "choice" to kill a growing human being who has no voice, simply because that human being is too small and too weak to defend itself?

This lies the crux of the opposition to Mother Teresa. That someone "so good" by helping the poor and hungry (a standard liberal/Left issue) could be "so bad" on so-called "women's rights". Therefore, they can't see her good works because they are blinded by their own self-hate and hypocrasy.

Mother Teresa, pray for us.