現在 私が暮らしている街です

神話の國  城下町 松江


須佐之男命の子孫として 此の地に降り立ってから一年が過ぎようとしています


宍道湖で釣り三昧 巨大な湖の主「スズキ」を釣り上げて 2週間分の食料としたり

金髪の彼女とカラオケに行ったり  介護の仕事に熱中したり

一体此処で 何をしているのだろう?

貯蓄も投資で無くなった  食べるものも殆どない

仕事は三日で破綻して 一か月間寝たきりの生活を強制された

自殺もした  でも五体満足に生きている現実



しかし 如何してもその答えが解らない

これ以上 私にどうしろと言うのだろう


それはきっと 考える事では無くて 行動により感じ取ることだと思う

だから それでも未だ働く

何度倒れても 前を向く

ハローワークからの紹介状を眺めながら 履歴書を書く

あれ? 私は今 何歳なんだろう?

過去から現代まで そして未来へと続く遺伝子が ざわざわと騒ぎ出した

風 蘭

This is a banner. Please click!



cartierlovejesduas Scott, I’m not sure why “abortion foe” is less acceptable a term in your eyes than “anti-abortionist.” I’m no linguist but as far as I can tell they mean the same thing. To use your slavery analogy, someone who is “anti-slavery” would have no problem being called a “slavery foe” I don’t think. As for your suggestion that we use the term pro- and anti-abortionist, it’s not hard to see why that is a less than perfect strategy. That’s because being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion. There are many people who, because of circumstance, belief system or some other reason, would not have an abortion themselves, but believe women should not be prohibited from doing so. What’s more, believing something serves a legitimate purpose is not the same as being “pro” that thing. I am a gun owner, but I would hardly describe myself as “pro gun”. On the contrary, I hope I never have to use it for what it is intended for. But I would fight for my right to do so if extreme circumstances ever warranted it. I am certainly not “pro smoking” just because I don’t think cigarettes should be outlawed. So, why should I have to call myself “pro abortion” just because I think women should be able to choose to have one? It’s simple semantics. But you’ve made me think, Scott. From now on I will no longer use the term “abortion foe” because that’s too vague. What you really are is a “choice foe” — but since you don’t like the word “foe” I will call you “anti-choice” on the issue of abortion. That is the most accurate term I think. When it comes to abortion, I am pro-choice and you are anti-choice. Satisfied? As for my piece being “fact barren”, the one fact you choose to challenge I preface by stating it is impossible to know for sure. However I stand by the estimate of more than a thousand. Of course I could have been sloppy and just adopted the common stat used by the pro-choice crowd that the number is 5000 to 10,000 a year, but everyone pretty much agrees that’s a gross exaggeration. But I wouldn’t be so quick to poo-poo the WHO stats. Anyway, Let’s do some math shall we? According to published stats, in 1975, two years after Roe, there were about one million abortions in the US. Let’s say Roe led to a quadrupling of abortions — i.e. that four times as many women got an abortion legally in 1975 than illegally in 1972 (I think that’s a bold assumption, but it gives us a nice round number). That would mean pre-Roe there were 250,000 illegal abortions a year. If just half of one percent of all those women died as a result, the number of deaths would 1,250 a year. In any case the exact number of deaths isn’t the point. It was lots, okay? CM
pasha cartier usato copia

2017/08/25 (Fri) 00:24 | pasha cartier usato copia #EBUSheBA | URL | 編集 | 返信

えにしをつむぐ今昔物語 | もう一つの OneNote

2017/08/11 (Fri) 17:01 | 86-760-8992 9459 #EBUSheBA | URL | 編集 | 返信

To jspvpgbormさん

Comment ('' ▽ `) Thank you ☆
Oh, I'm happy with the quick check.

Please fully enjoy my blog ~ ☆ 彡

2017/07/29 (Sat) 06:09 | 風 蘭 #ynHGGUUM | URL | 編集 | 返信

えにしをつむぐ今昔物語 | もう一つの OneNote
<a href="">ajspvpgborm</a>

2017/07/29 (Sat) 04:11 | jspvpgborm #EBUSheBA | URL | 編集 | 返信

Post Comment