"It was just over a year ago that Obama officials were insisting that bombing and attacking Assad was a moral and strategic imperative. Instead, Obama is now bombing Assad’s enemies while politely informing his regime of its targets in advance. It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters is that it be at war, always and forever."

This excerpt came from an article written by Glenn Greewald and it appeared on ICH today.

Not everyone swallows U.S. propaganda. There are some thinkers in the world still though, sadly, few in number!

I agree with the right to life as a first principle, and if the mother's life is at genuine risk!
Then the mother's much more important life is the one we need to spare.
Moreover, a woman can't be made to carry to full term, when the conception was not accompanied by her informed consent! As would be the case in rape, date rape and incest!
And then there is the issue of tissue rejection in the womb and subsequent toxemia, which can and does kill both mother and baby!
Then there are the cases of contraception failure, and a schoolgirls entire life ruined, by an entirely unplanned pregnancy!
Yes they should refrain, but that particular horse has already bolted.
These poor women in particular, don't need to then be also harassed by a absolutist nut job, claiming a right to free speech.
Patently, the right to privacy trumps the right of so called free speech.
If I were running any of the clinics, I would take out an AVO order against you, and advise all my clientele, to do exactly the same!
If you were a mind reader and had xray vision, you might be able to make a case for trying to prevent a very small percentage of women from using, what is for them, an essential service!
Perhaps you should go away, earn a medical degree, and then come on back, with your witless opinions.
Which no doubt do much more harm than good, when applied by a patent control freak!
These women also have rights; one of which is to allow their conscience to be their guide, not witless fools, parading up and down outside a private medical facility!
Perhaps you could make out a case for a referendum, and have it decided by that.
And given the majority of voters are also women, guess what chances of success that might have!?
In the final analysis, if it were men who had to carry the babies, and then pass something the size of a indoor bowls ball, we just wouldn't be having this conversation.
Rhrosty.

It's not ISIS I fear, but my government ! The following words, from 'UNION AMONG THE COLONIES ' written in 1854 by John West resound more loudly today, than they did when West wrote them, & I quote :

" Badly as power has been used by the mere servants of the the Crown, it has been infinitely less oppressive than would be the slavish violence of mere servants of the people. Under the existing system of government, royalty preserves so large a share in our assemblies, & a control so perfect over the collection & distribution of revenue, that faction at present cannot wield its authority, or unsheath its sword.

Those who are dazzled by the idea of unrestricted and responsible government in little colonies have seen only one side of the medal. They have not yet seen family compacts in their full bloom; they have not yet beheld an Attorney General, armed with the power of the majority, hunting its enemies into the meshes of the law; they have not yet witnessed nepotism with greedy hand & jealous eye, seizing the public as a spoil. All this they would assuredly behold in a small community in which no voice should be heard to speak beyond its own borders.

American history is full of examples to warn & admonish us; for notwithstanding the public & private virtue concentrated there, its annals are full of both turbulence & oppression. Those in who were not in the ascendant were prostrate." Unquote.

Who now 'represents' us, we the Australian Citizens? And who exactly is George Brandis being controlled by ?

One should not be arrested for standing in the street and lying.

Yet the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is full of lies. To begin with, take this stupid idea of "the right to life":

My life is God-given. It was never a result of some parliamentarians and bureaucrats, nor even the United-Nations, declaring, "Let's grant Yuyutsu a life, along with a title (birth-certificate) to acknowledge that from now on this life, conferred by us, is to be protected".

What God has given, is wrong to take away, but that has nothing to do with my non-existent "right" - instead, it has everything to do with respecting and loving God.

It is so sad to see religious people cling to secular authority: they have lost their way!

"Abortion is not an act that requires unique protection. People in good conscience should be allowed to peacefully express their views about it in all public places (what does "universal" mean?), just as they should be allowed to do so about any other matter. The Tasmanian law must be repealed."

Indeed!

The Tasmanian abortion law is extremely discriminatory. It grants no rights whatsoever to the most innocent of victims, the unborn.

It decriminalises the killing of unborn babies, yet criminalises opposition to such killing -- hardly the hallmark of a civilised society

Of course one can mount a good conscience argument, for not stilling a already beating human heart.
But that's not what we are talking about here, is it?
Unless on irrefutable life and death medical grounds!
And therefore, almost as sensible as parading the streets, protesting against wart removal, another equally relevant, living human tissue removal issue!
If any of the (ignorant leading the blind) detractors were genuine, they would be out there, and with action and their own money, beavering away, at the mortality rate of women giving birth, in less developed countries!
A mortality rate, which far and away kills millions more fully developed babies, and their mothers, than all the abortion clinics the length and breadth of this country.
Reality and relevance!
Rhrosty.