Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: South Dakota Abortion Ban 63

Journal by pudge

South Dakota is trying to ban all abortions, except those necessary to save the life of the mother.

I agree with the policy itself, but it's the wrong way to go about it. The country is not ready for it.

It's the same basic thing as what gay marriage activists did, trying to force gay marriage on the country. As a result, the cause of gay marriage was set back: we now have many more states with Constitutional amendments against gay marriage, and those won't be overturned any time soon.

If this South Dakota bill is made a law, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court (Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens voted for the decision in Casey, and Breyer and Ginsburg certainly would have). And when that happens, it will only help to solidify court-legalized abortion as a "super-duper precedent" for years to come.

Of course, the difference between what gay marriage activists did, and this, is that South Dakota is doing it properly: through legislation, not extralegal court decisions or executive acts.

But it doesn't change the fact that the law of the land right now is abortion on demand, and that this law is well-supported by the courts, and the people. And this frontal assault on the court (and, as the Supreme Court sees it, the Constitution itself) and the will of the people of the United States will fail, and will be counterproductive. I wish it were not so, but it is.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Dakota Abortion Ban More

South Dakota Abortion Ban

Comments Filter:
  • I suspect we don't agree on particulars of Roe v Wade but I completely agree with you on this.
    • Of course, Roe is really beside the point, which is the scary part. Casey is really the operating law of the land here. A friend of mine said, "Kennedy thinks Roe is poorly decided law, so maybe he can be a fifth vote for overturning Roe." Maybe, but so what? He won't vote to overturn Casey, and Casey even more firmly established the right to an abortion than Roe did. Roe is almost entirely symbolic at this point.

      And frankly, I doubt that Alito and Roberts both would vote to overturn Roe or Casey. The
      • And frankly, I doubt that Alito and Roberts both would vote to overturn Roe or Casey. They are both careful conservative justices, which means they have a strong respect for precedent. There's really no way of knowing how they would vote on this issue when the country is so divided.

        Exactly. I suspect many of those who oppose abortion might find themselves rather supprised with Roberts' or Alito's voing patterns when abortion cases come before the court. For that matter I can see even Scalia and Thomas votin
        • For that matter a lot of people on both sides of the abortion debate seem to have a rather mistaken view of what will likely happen if the court overturns Casey. It is unlikely the court would simply declare abortion unconsitutional but would rather say "we're punting this back to the state legislatures and Congress".

          I think the left and middle doesn't understand that very well, but I think the right does. That's precisely what most of them want, at this stage, because they know some state legislatures (li
        • Oops, hit Submit too early.

          As an aside I wonder by what basis Congress has the authority to regulate abortion? (I'm thinking the "partial birth abortion ban" here but this would apply equally to any attempts to outlaw abortion at the Federal level if Casey and Roe were overturned)

          Do you mean Congress as opposed to state legislatures? When it comes to human rights, Congress has been given some latitude to make laws. I personally think -- as opposed to many of my pro-life brethren -- that abortion is proper
          • Understood.

            However, what are some other similarly regulated Federal laws that give precedence for abortion to be Federally regulated?
            • However, what are some other similarly regulated Federal laws that give precedence for abortion to be Federally regulated?

              The Civil Rights Acts.
              • Too broad.

                What rights does something incapble of survival outside the womb have?

                20 weeks? Maybe... 8 Weeks... No.

                You might as well cite Murder Laws for a reason abortion should be illegal.

                The fact is, I am (sort of) Pro-Choice. In some ways I see where Freakonomics was going with Roe v Wade lowered the crime rate. Truth be told abortion is the last in a line of bad decsions. It is not, however, a Civil Right. Not to have and not to be protected by.
                • What rights does something incapble of survival outside the womb have?

                  20 weeks? Maybe... 8 Weeks... No.

                  Says you. I entirely disagree. Did you know there are detectable brain waves in the sixth week of pregnancy? Or do you simply not care? What, precisely, is different about the 8-week baby in the womb, and the 20-week baby in the womb? Or are you just picking weeks at random, thinking it "sounds" reasonable without really having any clue?

                  And FWIW, I hope you realize that you are setting up the complete
                  • Interesting twists you placed on my ideas. But OK, that's how debate works and I guess we're debating.

                    Brain waves happen in roaches too. I am Pro-Choice on killing them.

                    Less snarky, however, is at the moment you'd have a really hard time keeping an 8 week old baby (there, see I didn't use fetus) alive outside the womb. This is key! The child is completely dependant on the "host". Now as I pointed out at 20 weeks even I, cold heartless bastard that I am, start having MAJOR reservations about abortion.

                    As
                    • Brain waves happen in roaches too. I am Pro-Choice on killing them.

                      A roach is not a human being. An 8-week old baby in the womb is, by every possible biological definition.

                      at the moment you'd have a really hard time keeping an 8 week old baby ... alive outside the womb. This is key!

                      No, it's not. In fact, it is absolutely irrelevant. Did you not read in the last post where I exposed this notion as philosophically bankrupt? You are defining humanity by whether or not we have the technological ability to k
                    • at the moment you'd have a really hard time keeping an 8 week old baby ... alive outside the womb. This is key!

                      No, it's not. In fact, it is absolutely irrelevant. Did you not read in the last post where I exposed this notion as philosophically bankrupt? You are defining humanity by whether or not we have the technological ability to keep that life going. That's horrific.

                      You exposed nothing. When we have the technology available to keep a 1 week old baby alive then we need to readdress the law.

                      The general
                    • You exposed nothing. When we have the technology available to keep a 1 week old baby alive then we need to readdress the law.

                      So you're saying whether or not the child is a human is determined by our technology. That is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.

                      The general theme here is you believe life begins at conception, and you may very well be right, and I contend until the baby can function on its own (sans feeding and love yadda yadda) the abortion should be legal.

                      So you're saying we should a
                    • Oh, and one more thing: you really need to make up your mind where you think life begins. It's making the rest of your arguments make you look foolish. If the child in the womb is a live human being, deserving of any recognition as such, then abortion of that child -- except to save the mother, or to end an *inevitable* (not merely likely) death -- is wrong, period.

                      You are trying to straddle the fence. Sometimes abortion is just wrong, but hey, if they might go through pain, then it's OK. No, it's not.
                    • If the child in the womb is a live human being, deserving of any recognition as such, then abortion of that child -- except to save the mother, or to end an *inevitable* (not merely likely) death -- is wrong, period.

                      As long as we have this in common the rest of this conversation is just a conversation. And so we begin...

                      I am sure you've read hundreds of more disgusting things than my assertation that technology must be used to decide when life is life so let's go from there:

                      Look, you and I are never going
                    • Well, that's not the only thing that people have to make up their minds on. I think that everyone, even rabid liberals, agree that life begins at conception. If they don't, they really need very badly to take a biology class.

                      The question is "when does personhood begin?"

                      Heck, even the Augustine professed that we cannot tell when the soul enters the body, and suggested that it occurred at 40 days after conception (80 for girls! ha!). Now, he also suggested that anything that endangered a pregnancy (fr
                    • I am sure you've read hundreds of more disgusting things than my assertation that technology must be used to decide when life is life

                      I honestly have not. This viewpoint says that the worth of human life, the very definition of humanity, relies on us: our choices, our decisions, our views. This viewpoint has led to Holocaust, slavery, and every other significant human-caused atrocity in the history of the world, except for war.

                      Look, you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this topic because despite
                    • The Tadpole/Frog conversation is what you'd like. You'd like me to state that it's not human until X weeks. The fact of the matter is I have no idea. My line is viablilty. It's that simple and that convoluted.

                      If the day comes when we can technologically keep a 3 minute baby alive I'm with you. No abortion ever.

                      And you misinterpret me... I don't propose that we should never kill anything. I propose that we humans are no less important than say a shark. On land, we're top of the food chain. In the sea
                    • The Tadpole/Frog conversation is what you'd like.

                      No.

                      You'd like me to state that it's not human until X weeks.

                      No. I'd like you to state a *justification* for saying it is not deserving of human rights at 8 weeks. You've not done so except to say "viability" which is philosophically bankrupt nonsense.

                      The fact of the matter is I have no idea. My line is viablilty. It's that simple and that convoluted.

                      It's also evil. There is literally no rational justification for using viability as the marker for humanity,

                    • Your view appears to be that we have no inherent worth as human beings. That there's nothing inherently wrong with taxation without representation, slavery, or the Holocaust. That's what you're telling me, that these are all only right or wrong only depending on how we decide to view it at the time.
                      you know I really respect you. I think you're quite intelligent. I basically agree with you on many of your (know to /.) points. However, can you bleeping read?

                      Let me make this abundantly clear:

                      Humans have as
                    • can you bleeping read?

                      Yep. Which is why I wrote what I did.

                      Slavery is CLEARLY something other humans find just fine.

                      Right.

                      A large part of the planet's humans don't only think the Holocaust was a grand idea, they'd like more of it.

                      Yep.

                      SO OF COURSE things are only wrong if we VIEW THEM THAT WAY.

                      You asked me if I can read. Let me ask you: can you think? The fact that someone thinks there's nothing wrong with it does not mean that there is nothing wrong with it.

                      At least, not in this country. Not in America.
                    • Abortion even in your view has merit. It needs to exist for some circumstances.

                      Only in the same sense killing an innocent child playing in the street has merit: if it is necessary to save others.

                      Womens health

                      If you mean "psychological health" or "birth trauma" as many pro-choice people do, then absolutely not. This is why the pro-choice left keeps talking about "the health of the mother": they plan to use that as a way to subvert any law that allows for it as an exception. Weight gain is bad for my knees;
                    • there is clearly a right and wrong... the question is where and when and who is making the rules.

                      the crux of our difference is you believe that civil rights starts a nano second after a sperm breaks an egg and think it starts somewhere around the time a baby has all the biological functions necessary to be "alive" out of the womb. (yes I read all the respirator, can't feed itself, comments - you know what I mean.)

                      These are rather disparate POVs. I suspect we'll never come to terms with them. I hope, sinc
                    • The general theme here is you believe life begins at conception, and you may very well be right, and I contend until the baby can function on its own (sans feeding and love yadda yadda) the abortion should be legal.

                      Wow. That MAY be the most wrong thing I've ever heard of. And I have students who think the derivative of x is 0.

                      So what you're saying is that a baby has to survive WITHOUT feeding? Which babies are THOSE?

                      But let's assume that you just don't know how to use the word "sans." Let's as
                    • *sigh*

                      This is getting tired.

                      I have made it abundantly clear that I think late term abortions are, in fact, murder. I think I (rather arbitrarily for this discussion) set my limit somewhere around 8 weeks.

                      Now you go ahead and make up any number of dumb things I said there since you're just NOT going to read what I write. Sans or no sans.

                      When a baby is able to function on its own it begins to have the rights assigned to it in its Country/State/Town whatver.

                      This is not that complicated.

                      An 8 week old baby can
                    • there is clearly a right and wrong ... the question is where and when and who is making the rules.

                      But according to you, what is wrong depends on who is making the rules. According to the founding documents of the United States, there are thing that are inherently wrong: those things that violate are unalienable rights.

                      the crux of our difference is you believe that civil rights starts a nano second after a sperm breaks an egg and think it starts somewhere around the time a baby has all the biological functi
                    • I have made it abundantly clear that I think late term abortions are, in fact, murder.

                      But -- and you have made this even more clear -- only because we are able to save the baby's life should they be born at that time. If we were not able to do so, then you said that baby does not have any human rights at all and it is OK to kill it.

                      When a baby is able to function on its own it begins to have the rights assigned to it in its Country/State/Town whatver.

                      No baby is able to function on its own.

                      An 8 week old bab
                    • I *have* read all of it (and had before I posted any of mine), and I agree it's getting tired, but only because you keep contradicting yourself. First you say 8 weeks, then you say it's when the baby can "function on its own." If you'd make up your mind, there'd be less to pick on. As it is, since both ends of your argument are faulty, you actually get twice the objection. Then, when either part of the argument is challenged, you get prissy. However, I do notice that you still haven't explained, althou
                    • So not only do you think that humans have some "thing" that makes them better than everything else, you believe that Americans by virtue of our Founding Fathers are better than all other humans because we have unalienable rights.

                      Fine.

                      So again, because you are having a hard time reading and because you think that things will never change:

                      I absolutely believe in unalienable rights - I just disagree when you get them
                      I worry about people in power who chip away at those rights through legislation and who may one
                    • I have already clearly explained my feelings work on a sliding scale.

                      Look, you and pudge think Civil Rights begins at inception. I don't. It's simply not much more complicated than that.

                      I'm not getting pissy. I'm tired of hearing I support the fucking Holocaust and don't want to give ventilator tubes to children because I disagree with you two. If you're so goddamned concerned about Civil Rights how about the rights of a living, functioning United States citizen - or are pregnant women vessels for your
                    • I have already clearly explained my feelings work on a sliding scale.

                      I wouldn't care if your feelings worked on a sliding scale; the problem is that your *logic* is working on a sliding scale.


                      I'm not getting pissy.

                      Which I never said, and you think *I'm* the one who can't read!


                      ...because I disagree with you two.

                      It's NOT because you disagree with me. It's because it's what you say! If you don't mean "function on its own" then you shouldn't say "function on its own." I'm NOT saying "you a
                    • pissy/prissy what have you.

                      Am I arguing with the same person? I just made note of your Nickname. Are you Chris Nandor/Pudge?

                      That would be rather annoying.
                    • Yes, that would be annoying.
                    • So not only do you think that humans have some "thing" that makes them better than everything else

                      As our Framers did, as almost all Americans do, and as the law of the land assumes. Yes.

                      you believe that Americans by virtue of our Founding Fathers are better than all other humans because we have unalienable rights.

                      No. I've said, over and over again, the opposite. You are the one who says rights come from other people. The Declaration of Independence says the opposite: that *all people have unalienable ri
                    • Look, you and pudge think Civil Rights begins at inception. I don't. It's simply not much more complicated than that.

                      Well, except for the fact that this difference, if it exists, has nothing to do with the real point of the discussion.

                      I've not once stated or implied in this discussion that civil rights begin at inception. I've stated only that they do begin at some point, and that this point is not up to man to define. THAT is the difference: you think it IS up to man to decide.

                      I'm tired of hearing I supp
                    • But I have been saying that for quite sometime...

                      Until a baby is viable outside the womb it's doesn't get rights. This doesn't mean I extend this lack of rights to allow partial birth abortions or late term abortions. After I submitted 20-24 weeks I realized this was far too far along for me to be comfortable.

                      Upthread you mention that it is not man's right to decide this. Who's is it then? If it is God's maybe he could have had someone write it down for us all to see. If one is to believe the Christian
                    • Until a baby is viable outside the womb it's doesn't get rights.

                      Right, you said that. But it is nonsense, because as I have said, it defines rights according to the willingness and ability of other humans. That is not what unalienable rights are.

                      Upthread you mention that it is not man's right to decide this.

                      Rights are not decided. They are.

                      Read the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man, which discusses this in depth.
                  • This isn't meant to pick on your point of view, but I am wondering what would you do in the following scenario?

                    You are visiting a friend in a lab that specializes in invetro fertilization when the building catches on fire. Your friend has an epileptic fit and passes out, and you now have the choice of saving either him or a freezer full of a few hundred fertilized eggs. However, you know that you will only be able to save either your friend or the eggs in the freezer, so which do you choose to save?

                    • I refuse to participate in such values clarification exercises [sockheaven.net].

                      And I am not just saying that. I got a D on an assignment in high school social studies, over 15 years ago, for refusing to answer just such a question (well, my answer is that I would not answer, with my reasons for not doing so). Later, in college, I annoyed my ethics professor (at a Christian college) with the same sort of thing. A paraphrase of our discussion:

                      me: Why should I try to figure it out beforehand?
                      him: Because you should think a

                    • Yeah, same thing happened with me when I was in 9th grade in high school, freshmen English. Ultimately, my typical response is that *I* am the real-life McGyver, and there IS no such thing as the no-win situation. Maybe I explained it better (assuming you had the same assignment during the same year in school), though, since I think we had the same freshmen English teacher and I got an A ;>

                      So ditto - I haven't answered a values-clarification question in over 20 years, and I'm not about to start
                    • First I wanted to say thanks, I was totally unaware of the issues surrounding values-clarification; I can't say I totally agree, but there are issues worth considering and I will certainly be reading more about it :-)

                      If I understand both of your positions (nandorman and pudge) you are both saying that killing another person is always wrong (Thou shalt not kill does seem pretty clear to me). Am I correct in this assumption, or are there exceptions (i.e. the death penalty, self defence, etc)? Again I am not t

                    • If I understand both of your positions (nandorman and pudge) you are both saying that killing another person is always wrong (Thou shalt not kill does seem pretty clear to me).

                      Well, that almost gets it. Better to say that killing is always an indication of a broken world.

                      As for "thou shalt not kill," that's not really what Leviticus says. The better translation is "you will not murder." In fact, in following passages in Leviticus it outlines under what circumstances self-defense killing is acceptab
                    • As for "thou shalt not kill," that's not really what Leviticus says. The better translation is "you will not murder."

                      Interesting, can you tell me where you read the other translation? "You will not murder" would seem to be a better fit, though I have never heard of it being translated that way before.

                    • you are both saying that killing another person is always wrong (Thou shalt not kill does seem pretty clear to me). Am I correct in this assumption, or are there exceptions (i.e. the death penalty, self defence, etc)?

                      nandorman got the one part about killing, but I'll add this has nothing really to do with killing. Same thing would apply (although to a lesser degree) to any "pick the lesser of two evils" scenario: would you steal someone else's last loaf of bread to feed your family?
                    • "Thou shalt not kill" is the KJV translation (hence why "kill" is often most thought of), which is decent, but there are much better ones out there. The best one, probably, in a word-for-word sense, is the NASB (probably the best thought-for-thought translation is the NIV). Both of those use the word "murder" there and not kill. So does Young's Literal translation, the New King James Version, the English Version (which is what the Catholics use) and most others.

                      The key here is that the Hebrew word use
                • What rights does something incapble of survival outside the womb have?

                  20 weeks? Maybe... 8 Weeks... No.

                  This argument has never made sense, and it's why Roe is such a ridiculous ruling. Making the decision based on technology is a travesty not only of philosophy and human rights, but also of just plain logic. At the time, a baby in the third trimester could survive without assistance outside the womb (which is cited in the ruling as the reason for the "third trimester" rule), but now it's around 22-2
                  • Listen - you figure out a way to make people adopt outside their race and YES there are a lot of babies available. You narrow the choice down to a blonde haired blue eyed girl and you sure do have a waiting period.

                    Upthread you'll note my mentioning this is not a perfect world.
                    • No, you've got it exactly wrong. There is no such thing as an unwanted infant of ANY race here in America. It's true that in *some* states it is the STATE that makes it difficult for a couple of one race to adopt a child of a different race. But there is a huge waiting list for babies of every imaginable race, deformity, gender, problem, &c.
                    • No I don't. Having been around enough NYS Adoption agencies to know what the game is here I assure you everything but perfect white babies are in abundant supply.
                    • Then NY must be one of those idiot states that makes it hard. But regardless, I still doubt that it's true. For instance, *I* also have personal experience with close friends of ours trying to adopt an infant. After trying in 14 different states and discovering that no babies of any race would be available to them for at least 5 years, they decided to adopt a pair of older kids, reasoning that those are the least desirable and so would be the greater service. They still had a bunch of hoops to jump thro
          • Do you mean Congress as opposed to state legislatures? When it comes to human rights, Congress has been given some latitude to make laws. I personally think -- as opposed to many of my pro-life brethren -- that abortion is properly a federal issue because of its basis in what it means to be human, and what the government's role is in protecting that life, as per the Declaration of Independence, the Fourteenth Amendment, and so on. I have no problem with abortion being almost entirely federally regulated, at
            • Well I was thinking more along the lines the court recently used to uphold Oregon's assisted suicide law.

              Right. But that's beside the point here, for me anyway.

              I guess that is yet another difference I would have from most in the pro-life camp. I see regulating abortion as regulating a medical proceedure wheras you (and others) see it as a civil rights issue.

              I don't see that as "yet another difference," I see it as the only material difference: it is the only reason why abortion is a significant issue. We
              • So it's one thing to say, "it is not a human because it has no brain waves," or "it is not a human because it doesn't have a certain type of brain wave," or "it is not a human because I believe it does not get a soul until 30th week," and so on. But to say "it is not a human because we are unwilling or unable to treat it like a human" is, to me, just about one of the most horrible things anyone can say.

                Well I do think there is some point between conception and birth where there is a transition from 'not bab
                • While I would prefer any abortions that do happen occur during the 'not baby' stage I recognise the need to allow them afterwards. Primarily to avoid the horrors involved with back alley abortions or attempts by the mother to induce miscarrage.

                  Yup, that's why we should legalize all drugs, too. That way, we can avoid the horrors of people getting their hands on drugs made too covertly and cheaply and laced with too much drano. And why we should allow unlimited immigration, to avoid the horrors of 350 p
                • Well I do think there is some point between conception and birth where there is a transition from 'not baby' to 'baby' but I don't quite know exactly where to draw that line.

                  Right. That is by far the most common position of Americans. Even many in the pro-life camp agree with that. Then the question is just where that line IS. But ellem is saying there is no line, that it depends only what we wish or are at the time capable of. And that's damned scary to me.

                  While I would prefer any abortions that do ha
              • Many on the pro-choice side think, however, that this will only mean we won't need a law against abortion, that it can still be legal, because it will be so rare. Those people are wrong. The issue will not go away as long as any abortions (except those that are medically necessary, of course) are performed.

                Proabably true. But I've always thought that in an issue where both sides make a lot of disingenuous arguments, the single biggest lie is from the pro-choicers who claim they want abortion to be save,

                • The same people typically are against any restrictions including things like requiring counseling of other options or spousal (paternal!) notification or even parental concent for minors.

                  Alright, first off, this heavily depends on who you are dealing with. Avoiding parental consent is understandable, parents tend to do crazy messed up things in these situations (odd arguing for parental rights over children in cases of abortion though...).

                  No one who is pro-choice WANTS there to be abortions, just like (hop

                  • Alright, first off, this heavily depends on who you are dealing with.

                    No, it never does.

                    Avoiding parental consent is understandable

                    No, it is not.

                    parents tend to do crazy messed up things in these situations

                    So what? Where is it written that parents only get to make rules that you approve of?

                    (odd arguing for parental rights over children in cases of abortion though...).

                    How is this odd? Parents get to tell their children what to do, unless it is illegal. Don't like it? Tough. You don't get a vote: you're t
                    • Parental Consent:

                      So the parent gets to choose if the child's life is potentially ruined, potentially leading to an early death

                      W/O Parental Consent:

                      The parent chooses if the child's life is ended early.

                      (note dual use of word "parent")

                      Oh, and let us not even cover the situations such as that of my GF, who is she was found pregnant, would literally be beaten near to death. Or her sister in law, who WOULD have been literally killed if she had ever even found to have had sex. As it was, she was beaten severely
                    • So the parent gets to choose if the child's life is potentially ruined, potentially leading to an early death

                      Call it what you want. The parent makes the decision for their child.

                      Oh, and let us not even cover the situations such as that of my GF, who is she was found pregnant, would literally be beaten near to death. Or her sister in law, who WOULD have been literally killed if she had ever even found to have had sex.

                      That you think this is an argument against my point of view is odd. Read back at what I wr
                  • Avoiding parental consent is understandable, parents tend to do crazy messed up things in these situations (odd arguing for parental rights over children in cases of abortion though...).

                    As opposed to teenagers who always behave rationally! That's just plain comical. And there's another huge bit of disingenuousness--those that make the argument that it is just a medical procedure but are against parental consent. Sorrry but medical procedures, be it major surgery or getting a wart removed, hell even tat

                    • I find one word you use incredibly interesting. It's the f-word as in father. Now granted I'm not familiar with all the abortion cases, but other than Casey's spousal consent (which was overturned as an "undue burden") there's never any mention of any rights whatsoever for fathers. Which happens to be yet another problem I have with the current abortion laws (setting aside my belief that an unborn baby is a human life worth of civil liberties)--that a woman can abort an unborn child without even telling the

                    • Which is why current laws are stupid. The father has NO say in the matter - and yet he is always held responsible for support? So let's get this straight: two people act together to conceive a child. One has the legal responsibility to give away HIS rights of liberty and property to this child should it live while the other does NOT have to give away HER right of liberty. If we're going to have abortion be legal, then fathers should not be forced to pay child support if they make some declaration about

Slashdot Top Deals

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein

Close