tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post3337659916083172110..comments2023-10-08T05:44:25.657-06:00Comments on Dakota Voice: Arkansas Adoption Measure About Children, Not AdultsDakota Voicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01386070103210525597noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-50445781061862733242008-08-27T21:11:00.000-06:002008-08-27T21:11:00.000-06:00No, Anonymous, I make it up.Yes, I get it "fairly....No, Anonymous, I make it up.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I get it "fairly." It wouldn't matter whether the the information came from Focus on the Family or the Human Rights Campaign or anywhere in between, as long as it was accurate and verifiable.<BR/><BR/>But to knock over objection #8 (out of what I am sure is a box-set of 4,398 objections or more) to accepting reality, my sources include references such Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-20878174707761661262008-08-27T21:03:00.000-06:002008-08-27T21:03:00.000-06:00Could you please answer the questions in my last p...Could you please answer the questions in my last paragraph? I'm interested to know whether you get your information fairly, from both sides of the issue, or if you only seek out information that suits your cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-41087167822659633842008-08-27T20:49:00.000-06:002008-08-27T20:49:00.000-06:00Anonymous 6:21, you made my point with the example...Anonymous 6:21, you made my point with the example of the Chinese population control. In case you hadn't noticed, they are a communist police state where people have no real freedom beyond what the despots in charge give them.<BR/><BR/>And I stated earlier that is what you would have to have in order to have any hope of implementing your outrageous "what if." <BR/><BR/>If we get to the stage Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-76716592148780855122008-08-27T18:21:00.000-06:002008-08-27T18:21:00.000-06:00I wouldn't be so sure, Bob. It may be impossible ...I wouldn't be so sure, Bob. It may be impossible to implement full population control NOW, but that doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Look at China's one-child policy. Most of the country's billion citizens support it and, its motives, ethical considerations, and drawbacks aside, the policy is very real. If a country the size of China can manage it, think of what America, the most Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-21918179715946635092008-08-27T17:42:00.000-06:002008-08-27T17:42:00.000-06:00If the liberty existed in the first place, it is o...If the liberty existed in the first place, it is one that should not have been there.<BR/><BR/>We place reasonable restrictions on liberty in the interest of human welfare all the time--and this is certainly a case where it would be proper.<BR/><BR/>For the reasons I mentioned and more, homosexual couples and other unmarried couples are not a good place to situate children, especially children Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-36198145467019536582008-08-27T17:37:00.000-06:002008-08-27T17:37:00.000-06:00How is prohibiting unmarried couples from adopting...How is prohibiting unmarried couples from adopting NOT a sacrifice of liberty?<BR/><BR/>You're right that it would require an extreme amount of technology and surveillance to enforce a law prohibiting unmarried couples from having babies. And that's my point. Is this Arkansas law not a step in that direction? How do you know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-39042153472556136962008-08-27T17:24:00.000-06:002008-08-27T17:24:00.000-06:00As I pointed out in a previous post, prohibiting u...As I pointed out in a previous post, prohibiting unmarried couples from having babies is impractical. It would require a police state beyond our technical or manpower resources to carry out, not to mention the sacrifice of liberty. <BR/> <BR/>It is reasonable and practical, however, to prevent those children already in existence from being placed in inadequate homes. <BR/> <BR/>And such a Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-23995864942666112422008-08-27T14:33:00.000-06:002008-08-27T14:33:00.000-06:00"As OneNewsNow points out (and as I pointed out pr..."As OneNewsNow points out (and as I pointed out previously), this bill would bar all unmarried couples from adopting."<BR/><BR/>What's next? A bill prohibiting all unmarried couples from having babies? A bill requiring all children of unmarried couples to be removed from their homes and raised by married couples? I thought Republicans wanted LESS government involvement, not more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com