That would have served the indigenous people well, yes. Unfortunately, it's too late for them. Not too late for us. People bring that up all the time, yet it merely illustrates the need for border security.
Seeing as I am a United States citizen, it could refer to the U.S. population or to the US, as an abbreviation for the country. Pretty much every part of the world has been taken over by someone else at some point in history, so I don't view the plight of the indigenous American people as being significantly different than those who have been displaced elsewhere. It's a terrible thing, but not one that you can go back and fix after the fact. My own ancestors were in Sweden when the American Indians were displaced and they were still in Sweden when there was slavery in the United States, so I don't feel a whole lot of personal responsibility.
Thank you for clearing that up. Wasn't trying to argue, just wasn't sure what you meant. It's nice to hear your ancestors didn't participate any either of those wrongs, but personally I don't think people should be held responsible for what their ancestors did anyway (unless they feel what the ancestors did was right). So, your family is relatively new to the United States?
Very much so. I barely speak the language. Somewhere along the line, my ancestors probably pillaged a village or two though.
It was. I was joking with you. My parents are from Sweden but I never actually learned to speak Swedish, since the feeling was that we were in the United States, so we should speak English. When my grandparents were over, I would hear them speaking Swedish in the dining room but as soon as one of us kids came out, everyone would switch to English. I referred to Swedish as gibberish, and learned only to say thank you and you're welcome in Swedish, in order to amuse the grandparents. I think a couple of my uncles learned to speak English in the army during World War 2.
@Babs Hunt I hope that you have not left us over this Babs - we will disagree from time to time, but that should not belittle our friendship on the forum. By 'our' I am speaking of all members
probably many of the women who have had abortions went on to have other babies. If she had kept the baby she had aborted, then she wouldn't have had the next one. So there would not be 60 million more babies.
I am preparing to be stoned to death after this statement : If every male whoever helped create the need or desire for an abortion was castrated or sterilized this would never have become an issue. Notice I said helped ?
None will win a debate on abortion rights by citing their god or their convictions as to right and wrong. Christians burned witches, tortured and murdered for draconian blasphemy laws and often still hate other religions even other Christian sects/divisions as false. That said I will add that until a man can birth a child he should be very cautious on abortion opinions. While there are those with differing opinions that are steadfast in their beliefs they shouldn't expect others to agree unconditionally nor should they consider themselves as the only ones knowing the truth. Rather peremptory one might think in such rigid debate. Those speaking of god are wholly dependent on their faith which is a very nebulous thing. There are and have been more gods than one can count...gone. Christians once in their ignorance thought other race(s) as animals. Christians are no more to be considered as 'the way' the answer or the definitive belief than any other. I'm certainly glad (any) religion isn't defining our principles,beliefs and doctrine or 'rights' would be dramatically restricted by anachronistic dogma. So speak to me of murder of cells unborn and claim as you will people, but remember you can voice an opinion but your judgement of other's convictions is can be seen as high handed and worth no more than the convictions of others and bringing a religious argument to the fray only serves those with faith. Religion(s) historically have and still have been shown to be quite barbaric. and I sure don't consider a faith based reason to be the best or only determination of right and wrong. Yet I understand why a religious person takes a stand which of course they have a right to do. Which will draw opinions contrary and supportive in whole or part. Of course this is just a man's position on a woman's domain. No offense intended, but if you take a stance you should expect opinions on the subject matter. It seems to me religion is the subject matter with abortion as the integral point of view.