Lindsay Lohan Helps Sarah Palin by Denouncing Her

If Sarah Palin ever needed an endorsement, she just received it--in the form of condemnation from Lindsay Lohan.

"Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock? Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?"

This is rich on so many levels. She has no clue as to whether premarital or homosexual sex is a sin. She can't fathom how someone who understands the most basic moral values isn't necessarily a hater or a narrow-minded reactionist.

Apparently Lindsay's world view revolves around sex and sex-related issues. Personally, I find it hard to fathom how someone can retain their humanity without any solid moral code to rely on.

Anyway, thanks Lindsay. You've probably just helped a few voters cross over to the McCain-Palin side.

Is Socialized Medicine Without Morals?

The economic and political pitfalls of socialized medicine have been examined at great length for decades. But what about the moral implications? In an increasingly secular country, will government-run healthcare erode accepted moral standards in the medical community? That appears to be the case.

In Great Britain, for instance, the General Medical Council has adopted new guidelines that forbid doctors from telling the parents of minors as young as 13 about their sexual activity, birth control and even impending abortions.

This goes far beyond the issue of children's rights to make their own decisions. It amounts to state-sponsored dispatching of families' right to adopt moral and ethical standards according to their own beliefs.

Conclusion: Socialized medicine is another contributor to the disintegration of the nuclear family--the building block of civilization.

Roe v. Wade - Interesting Facts

Logically, the amount of experiences and data supporting the overturn of Roe v. Wade is so overwhelming that it defies logic that anyone can support that monumental act of judicial abuse. This article just adds yet more weight to the side of procreative restraint.

...Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in premarital sex.
• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

The basic assertion here is that Roe v. Wade helped eliminate responsibility and inhibitions toward premarital sex. This led to folks producing a LOT more illegitimate babies--even taking into account those who chose to have their children aborted. And we know that single-parent homes, in aggregate, lead to such a host of social woes that it's safe to assume that Roe v. Wade can be blamed for much of what is wrong today--crime, poverty, illiteracy and worse.

This goes way beyond life versus choice. The evidence is clear that society is harmed by the liberalization of abortion.