Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Black day for Conrad | Main | Black Friday »

Friday, July 13, 2007

The consequences of choice

It's difficult to get excited about the fact that the latest report from Statistics Canada finds that just over 100,000 abortions were performed in this country in 2004. I know there is no one who cheers this figure, not pro-lifers of course, and not any pro-abortionist I know, because even those who refuse to accept the fact--that an abortion takes the life of an innocent unborn child--acknowledge that there is something painful, troubling and nullifying about abortion.

Nevertheless, the 100,000 abortions represents a decrease of 3,000 from the number performed the year previous, and that's somewhat heartening.

But it's hard to see the silver lining when the StatsCan report also finds, "Induced abortions continue to be most common among women in their 20s . . . On average, 25 women out of every 1,000 in their 20s obtained an induced abortion." That's 25 out of every 1,000 women over just one year. If my math is correct, this means that over the course of a decade, it's likely that 250 women in their 20s out of 1,000 -- or one quarter -- will have an abortion.

What a tragedy.   

Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 13, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e00992a94e8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The consequences of choice:

» Wait, I think I do see some silver! from ColbyCosh.com
My friend and colleague Terry ONeill fumbles with new Canadian abortion stats at the Shotgun: ...its hard to see the silver lining when the StatsCan report also finds, Induced abortions continue to be most common among women in the... [Read More]

Tracked on 2007-07-14 7:49:05 AM

Comments

Abortion, rather than being seen as the death of an innocent human being, at a time when it is the most helpless, and when its protection would be expected to be the very top priority of the mother, has become what it is today because it has been politicized.

Politicizing an issue creates spin, which can make evil look good, and good look evil.

Posted by: DCM | 2007-07-13 3:25:03 PM


I wish someone would go out and abort some mother polar bears and other endangered mammals - then claim that it's no big deal since the fetuses haven't been born yet.

Then watch the Leftoid cries of anguish as they mourn the unnecessary destruction of "life" on the planet.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 3:28:20 PM


Do you cry everytime a woman has her period because that egg COULD HAVE BECOME a person? A foetus is not a person. In the first trimester it has no central nervous system. It is not a being. The abortion of them is not tragic.

Posted by: Dr. J | 2007-07-13 3:34:25 PM


I liked you better when you were shooting baskets.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 3:36:04 PM


Terry O'Neil,

Your math is correct, if you go for straight multiplication, but from what I have gathered, some stupid women have many abortions, whereas others do not. And the stats also include those that are medical abortions, because the fetus died or was not viable. So, although the numbers are bad, I don't believe you can conclude that 250 women out of a 1,000.

You know, I am passionate about this subject, but I am not willing to say that there ought to be "no" abortions at all, as there are so many real reasons why a person should go ahead with an abortion.

The reason I do not feel is in any way legitimate, is that having a baby interpheres with the holidays--especially when she is married and fully capable of carrying the baby to full term.

I suppose people might jump on the issue of viability--but that, although up to interpretation, is a point of discussion, unless you go beyond the idea that all fetal matter should be kept in the womb until the body naturally expels it, real living women will die, their children will be without a mother, and their husband without a spouse and someone to mother their children. And as for the single woman, well, if she has to go through it, with no other options, then she can still have babies latter on. If there is any doubt as to whether she should not, and can carry to term, then she meeds to be supported with ample medical leave, and a palce to go have her baby, in peace, away from the evil judgements of others.

The evil judgements of others, I feel, is the main power driving women to abortion. If people do not address that, the numbers will stay as high as they are. It is about time people got off their high horses, and stopped persecuting young women, for having babies outside of marriage. I believe strongly in marriage, but condemn those who would cause a woman to go as far as to have the next generation torn out of their bodies, rather than face the music. Sure, abstenance is better than facing that, but let us be real here, the issue would not be on the table if society were better to these women in the first place.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-13 3:47:58 PM


Lady: I quite agree. If human society was perfect, there would be far fewer calls for abortion outside of the legitimate medical reasons.

For instance, if men could learn to keep it in their pants.

But taboos that used to exist, to keep men at least slightly more accountable than they are now, are mostly defunct. Now, swaggering foul talking brutes, with baggy pants and their hats on backwards talk about their bitches and their ho's, and sex, the means by which we procreate, has been spun way, way, far away, from what it was designed to be by God. With the attack on the family, and the moral failure of society in the twentieth century, there are no more taboos.

And, I don't put the blame for abortion on women. I place it on men.

Posted by: DCM | 2007-07-13 4:26:11 PM


Agreed - men are the biggest boosters of abortion. They get free sex from the loosest of sluts without the responsibility of supporting them & their progeny for at least 18 years.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 4:29:18 PM


The notion that an unborn child is not a "real living child" is ridiculous. Non-existent children do not swin in the womb, suck their thumbs, dream, kick the uterus and so forth.

It's not just about abortion numbers. It's about the fact that the unborn child is not acknowledged as an equal human being.

Most people, when they're not thinking of the abortion issue, treat their unborn children as real people and real members of the family. I know I do. The notion that we're all "playing pretend" when we do this is ridiculous. We're acknowledging a reality that is plainly evident to the eye and the logical consequence in our belief in the value of the individual.


Posted by: SUZANNE | 2007-07-13 4:36:16 PM


These numbers tell me that 35 years of state sponsored sex education and awareness promotion have done nothing to make any drastic change in the number of children dying. Perhaps it is time to study programs in the states that have seen their number plumet to almost 1/3 what they used to be. Handing out condoms does little to protect young people from STDs and pregnancy. Encouraging and promoting respect for each other does that. Just a little positive feedback and kids will realize they really don't have to "do it"

A balanced level playing field for the kid's sake will see the numbers of dead babies and broken women decline in our land.

Posted by: YHS | 2007-07-13 4:37:20 PM


Your math is not correct. Do you really think that 25% of all women aged 30 and older in Canada have had an abortion? becasue that is where this math takes you. And that conclusion is clearly wrong.

Your math is wrong because the universe of women in their 20's changes by 10% every year. It is not the same group each year for ten years. But because this population is constantly in flux, your math won't work out.

Posted by: peter | 2007-07-13 4:55:57 PM


YHS.

State sponsored sex education. What a frightening concept. As if the "state" was some thing that one would expect to have even the tiniest modicum of wisdom about the deep things of the human condition [shudder]

Posted by: DCM | 2007-07-13 5:07:45 PM


Why not, DCM? We've abrogated our right to self-defense to the state, as well as our rights for medical care to this same Big Brother. This is the result of Nanny Statism.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 5:41:43 PM


Abortion is always wrong, even in the case of rape or incest. The only justifiable abortions are those performed to save the woman's life.

Having said that, 100,000 abortions per year are good for our society. The type of woman who would have an abortion shouldn't be allowed to bring their offspring into our society anyway. Our prisons are full enough.

Yes I'm an immoral bastard (I'm saying it so you don't have to).

Posted by: JP | 2007-07-13 5:48:34 PM


At one time abortionists were pariahs now they are hailed as "practitioners" of "choice." There is no law on abortion in Canada and the innocent child in the womb can be murdered right up to the moment of birth. When the child oops I mean fetus is murdered the act is called a "termination" in the media. When the child is wanted and the pregnant woman is in a car accident the media will say she lost her "unborn child" due to the accident. Hypocrisy is the forte of the so-called "investigative media" on the abortion issue. Here is an article I wrote some time ago on the "Hidden Victims" of abortion.

The Hidden Victims
By Stephen Gray

“Things that cannot stand sunlight are not healthful” Harry Emerson Fosdick

An atrocity today that cannot stand the light and is not ‘healthful’ to the victims who are killed by it; is abortion. Anyone daring to show the bloody abused and slaughtered bodies of unborn babies killed by abortion or “choice” - as its proponents call it - are attacked and vilified for showing the truth. We live in a society that pretends “choice” is wonderful and that there are no victims. There are two victims in this atrocity; the mother who is told that what is inside her is “tissue” and is “disposable” and the child who is the victim of “disposable choice.” Disguised as “choice” this “procedure” eliminates over 100,000 human lives a year in Canada. There is a wealth of information available on the humanity of the unborn baby, who can be seen on ultra sound, and is operated on to correct any health problems when the child is “wanted.” When not “wanted” the lie is continually perpetrated that the child is only “potential life.” And that “choice” is good.

The big lie of “choice” is spread by most of the media, and hailed by most politicians as a “right” to be protected, especially at election time. “Choice” is an election slogan, as witness our democratically challenged prime minister trumpeting it in the last election. Yet, “choice” kills. This “choice” propaganda is worthy of Josef Goebbels himself. He surely would have approved of these peddlers of propaganda. Tell the big lie often enough and it attains credibility. Yet, for a lie to remain as a “truth” the lie has to continue to be disseminated. This is why the media will not show the carved up and headless bodies of babies killed by abortion. They have already committed themselves as supporters of “choice” and so one lie begets another. There are no victims in abortion according to the powers that be. Therefore there is no evidence to be shown. Or to paraphrase an old saying lives deemed unworthy of living are called “choice.”

Yet some choices are bad. When somebody chose to kill bald eagles recently, the media gave this story big coverage and even showed the carved up carcases of the eagles. Questions were asked as to who was committing these atrocities and it was stated the police were investigating. The message was: Killing eagles is unacceptable and rightly so. But, in our local slaughterhouses, called abortion clinics, killing babies is acceptable. These places are described as promoting “healthcare choices.” When the language is perverted then anything is possible and permissible. After all “choice” is not horrific is it?

Most people are horrified when they see pictures on TV of baby seals being clubbed to death and the ice flows running red with their blood. Warnings are issued on TV before showing the pictures and we are told the images are gruesome. Imagine if these same TV cameras took us inside the local abortuary where babies are slaughtered, suctioned out, poisoned by a saline solution or in some cases born alive and left to die. The people would then be able to see these grisly medical butchers at work performing “choice” for the nation. Then the truth and the light would be shed on this abominable choice, and the babies killed and mutilated by abortion would no longer be the hidden victims.

Note: To see the truth about abortion go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org
Stephen Gray
July 29, 2005.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo


Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-07-13 5:48:40 PM


And let's not forget about multiple pregnancies where the doctor often suggests the murderous practice of "reducing" the number of children involved.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 6:12:49 PM


As well as late-term abortions, which are often not counted because the baby, being more than 20 weeks old, is counted as a "stillbirth" not an abortion.

There are several hundred of those every year in Canada.

Posted by: SUZANNE | 2007-07-13 6:25:06 PM


Abortion is the nadir of a continuum of all aberrant actions attacking the natural human family.

It would seem that promiscuity and unfaithfulness and divorce and child neglect-abuse are all lesser-included or connected deviant behaviours surrounding or leading to Abortion.

All of this evil is considered a triumph of "women's rights" by the Leftists.

There seems to have been a bit of controversey on this point above, but I put the BLAME for all of this on women.

If a young lady conducts herself as a lady, she not only preserves and enhances her own prospects for happiness, but she absolutely causes (multitudes of) young men to conduct themselves properly in their own lives, hoping to win her.

Simple virtue is true source of self esteem for girls and women.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-07-13 8:40:54 PM


Dr J: "Do you cry everytime a woman has her period because that egg COULD HAVE BECOME a person? A foetus is not a person."

You were never an egg. And you were never a sperm. But you were a fetus. If I killed this fetus, I would have killed you. And, if I could reach back in time, I suspect that you would object to me doing so.

Posted by: Richard Ball | 2007-07-13 9:17:09 PM


I remember a Native American "princess" on Johnny Carson in the '70's. He asked her her views on abortion. She replied:

"I think each baby should be allowed to grow to 21 - then make the decision for himself or herself if he or she wants to continue living."

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-13 9:22:43 PM


The thoughts I have about abortion are will be
stronger this week when my grandaughter comes to
my home so we can celebrated her 27th birthday.

When my son and his girlfriend told me
she was pregnant and what should they do, I told
them it was grow up time for them and what was to
happen to the baby was their responsibility.

The Dr. offered a abortion and they had not
decided regarding his offer.

I realized that no one ever thinks much about
the grandparents of the young girls who have
abortions. My heart hurt at the thought of the
loss, but I kept quiet.

They ended up having my dear granddaughter and
this week as I say, we celebrate that day.

No-one will ever tell me that a child aborted,
is just a handful of cells. When I look at
Leah I see a person, a person in her own right,
a person who will matter in the world and in time
will bring me a great grandchild. A person who has
brought joy and laughter wherever she goes.

I know some woman see no other choice and do what
they must and I cannot judge them as I was fortunate to be in a position to have mine. It must be the hardest decision to make in a woman's life and I can understand the need, but feel sad
about the whole situation. For everyone in the
situation, it is heartbreaking.

Posted by: carole | 2007-07-13 11:43:20 PM


carole -

If 27 years ago, and on up through to today, Abortion had been rightly recognized in the laws of Canada as premeditated murder, nothing would have changed in your story except for the part where your son and his girlfriend brought to your awareness the fact that they considered murdering your granddaughter as part of the "normal" practices of the culture where you raised him.

If we made the laws of Canada and America reflect that which we all know to be true, that Abortion is premeditated murder, everything that would change in our culture would change for the better.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-07-14 8:33:17 AM


Behind every abortion advocate lurks a latent or committed eugenicist....abortion abitoirs are just one depopulating tool in the progressivist's population control toolbox.....we note that the medical elite and their closed societies are also being employed by progressivist eugenics advocates.

Next up is state mandated euthanasia when an individual's revenue potential to the brave new global state is done.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-07-14 9:11:42 AM


Politicians of ALL political stripes talk about "human rights. Yet, the majority of them are for "freedom of choice" on abortion. It is a wonder they don't choke on their own hypocrisy. They are either ignorant of the humanity of the child in the womb or do not care about this atrocity being perpetrated in a so-called "caring" society.
See the atrocity most politicians support at: http://www.AbortionNo.org

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-07-14 10:40:52 AM


"The case is considered to have important implications for the rights of single parents to make decisions about their families and relationships"

Sounds more like the rights single parents DON'T have because the Government is getting involved in their personal lives and telling them what they must do.

Then again, it's the Supreme Court - stacked with Lieberal toadies - an unelected body that affects the everyday decisions individuals should make for themselves. Marx would be so proud!

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-14 9:13:35 PM


"Louisiana: Governor Signs Abortion Law"


Louisiana became the first state to outlaw the late-term procedure it calls partial-birth abortion, when Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco signed legislation allowing doctors to be prosecuted for performing it. The new law allows the procedure in only one situation: when failure to perform it would endanger the pregnant woman’s life. Ms. Blanco, a Democrat, signed two bills that create criminal penalties for doctors who perform the surgery: fines of $1,000 to $10,000, and jail terms of one to 10 years. The statute is parallel to the federal ban that President Bush signed into law in 2003 and that was upheld by the Supreme Court in April.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 8:39:02 AM


"except" to protect the woman's life, as determined by the doctor who would be imprisoned for up to ten years for performing the murder, if he "determined" otherwise.

This is the profound and fundamental lie which underlies the entire NON-Catholic view of Abortion, through which 30 or 40 million Abortions have been committed in America.

The Republican Party showed itself to be completely fraudulent and false during its recent stint as majority "power" in every house of governmental authority in America. Consequently, their Pro-Life Party Platform plank "with certain exceptions" is as termite infested and rotten as their other "commitments" and "beliefs" like reducing the size and cost of government or upholding the existing Rule of Law (against say, ILLEGAL alien immigrants).

The baby is absolutely equal to the mother, except for the fact that the mother's actions caused the baby to exist.

If somebody "has to die" at the last minute before birth, it would be the one who was responsible for the situation in the first place, wouldn't it? And once such logic was codified into law, the number of mother's dying in such circumstances would become zero, but without it, the number of Abortions performed will drop by zero.

And this line of logic takes absolutely no account of the completely valid religious-philosophical arguments for preserving the life of the baby in preference to that of the mother (only Islamic sensibilities or Atheist or homosexual ideas will be part of any future legislation in this era of Democrat Party political majority control).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-07-15 9:34:30 AM


Once you allow the death of humans at the start of the cycle, it follows that it becomes permissible to do the same at the end of the cycle - and just to save money!

To wit:

"Cdns. being denied implantable defibrillators"

Fewer than a third of Canadians who survive a heart attack arrest are getting a potentially life-saving device to keep them from having another heart-stopping event, according to new research published this month in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Implantable defibrillators are considered an important tool for those who have sustained heart damage after cardiac arrest. That's because survivors are at high risk of having another attack within a few years.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070713/defibrillators_070713/20070715?hub=Canada


Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 9:46:43 AM


Colby Cosh has now reacted to my initial posting with a blog that includes a gentle slap on my wrist for some inaccurate mathematical assumptions. http://www.colbycosh.com/mt/2007/07/wait_i_think_i_do_see_some_sil.html
Otherwise, I'm glad to have engaged him on this important subject, and am happy that he recognized and appreciated the tone I attempted to convey.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2007-07-15 9:59:35 AM


Colby Cosh states in his blog:"But does anyone else ever wish there were just one flavour of Christian faith that expended more energy bemoaning “tragic” divorce rates, whose true social and medical effects are much worse than those of abortion?)"
Really Mr. Cosh! Nobody is killed by the "social and medical effects" of "divorce rates." Therefore Mr. Cosh's comparison is idiotic. As a journalist he should know that abortion kills a human life.
Check out http://AbortionNo.org

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-07-15 12:09:55 PM


We don't need to worry about losing 100,000 Canadian babies every year, there are ten Muslims waiting to immigrate here for every dead baby aborted by a silly woman. Population growth will continue in exact proportion to our loss of freedoms and culture.

Neat eh?

Posted by: Yanni | 2007-07-15 12:52:02 PM


Gray, who is Stephanie Gray? I she part of the reason for posting your link several times?

Are you the same Gray who couldn't find enough support for his ideas within a union's membership to carry a policy argument, so decided to attack unions as undemocratic?

Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-15 2:02:45 PM


Unions are the new Mafia. Thugs - one and all.

Right to work states in the US show the greatest growth in employment, whereas Michigan is down in the doldrums, thanks to the UAW.

Toyota is now number 1. Who'd have thought that would ever happen a decade ago.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 2:10:50 PM


Now, OBC, is that you don't have answers to my questions or are you just having a bad hair day?

Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-15 2:15:07 PM


Right on, OBC!
Here in Ontario the CAW have priced themselves out of a job while Toyota and Honda are expanding! Reason? NO Union! I have a son-in-law that is involved in the auto industry and he tells me that putting any of the Big Three on your resume as a reference when applying to the above-mentioned manufacturers is akin to a death sentence. They simply don't want anyone who has previously been involved in a union to be on the shop floor.

Posted by: atric | 2007-07-15 2:22:27 PM


atric wrote: Here in Ontario the CAW have priced themselves out of a job while Toyota and Honda are expanding! Reason? NO Union

Real reason. Toyota and Honda make better cars.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-15 2:29:20 PM


SAPN,
"Real reason. Toyota and Honda make better cars."

In your expert opinion, would that be due to better engineers and designers, better component sources, or perhaps the assembly workforce?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-15 2:33:13 PM


Of course it's the assembly workforce! That's why my Toyotas never have to return to the shop except for the usual service, such as oil changes & tire rotations.

Whereas my GM, Chrysler & Ford vehicles were regular visitors within one year of purchase - even if there was no charge because of the warranty.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 2:41:05 PM


"Strong himself has five children"

Spoken like a true socialist/communist. Laws for thee but not for me.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 2:50:41 PM


Yes SAP, they DO make better cars. And one of the main reasons why they do is because everybody
is involved in the process of manufacture. The employees are treated like a part of the process, as indeed they are. No union jerks to sabotage the process. Great wages, great benefits and most of all, respect and acknowlegement of their contribution to the success of the enterprise!
Try and find that in a Leftoid# union shop.
Sure, engineering has a lot to do with it but don't try to tell me that the domestic engineers of the Big 3 have not got the brains to do the same.
Union Shop=Mediocracy=Overpriced product=Pissed-off Consumers=Job Losses=Economic Problems.

(#-Leftoid-Courtesy of OBC- All rights reserved.)

Posted by: atric | 2007-07-15 3:57:27 PM


Atric, did you know it was a Criminal Code offence to deny a person a job because of a union background? It you have specific information you should contact the OPP or RCMP.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-15 4:03:53 PM


Union Shop=Mediocracy=Overpriced product=Pissed-off Consumers=Job Losses=Economic Problems.

In Europe BMW, M-B, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. are all made by workers in a union. If they can make cars of that quality why can't the American car companies?

I'm not pro-union but the US car makers problems are a lot deeper than just having unions.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-15 4:30:03 PM


"#-Leftoid-Courtesy of OBC- All rights reserved.)"

Duly noted! LOL!

I wonder if it's also a crime to refuse someone a job because they do not want to join a union.

(Actually, I don't wonder at all. I know the answer - which is why unions are like the Mafia.)

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 4:49:33 PM


karol karolak, whatever was your family situation?
Most bizarre story. A new mother in a maternity ward given strong medication like morphine and left alone to breast feed, gimme a break here, something doesn't add up.
If true, some suing should have gone on and you should be rich.
I think your having us on here gal.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-15 5:40:08 PM


SAPN,
"In Europe BMW, M-B, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. are all made by workers in a union. If they can make cars of that quality why can't the American car companies?"

I noticed the companies you list all target a different target market. $$$

Tell us what you think the American companies problems are.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-15 6:08:11 PM


h2o273kk9 wrote:I noticed the companies you list all target a different target market. $$$

I guess you didn't notice "etc" Etc includes Opel and VW.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-15 6:11:42 PM


SAPN,
"I guess you didn't notice "etc" Etc includes Opel and VW."

I guess you didn't notice

"Tell us what you think the American companies problems are."

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-15 7:32:06 PM


I'm in the "industry" do here goes; why are Big 3 cars so often [email protected]? Well, it's down most often to the bean counters. Their engineers are just as good as our engineers, it's just that the components, parts, etc, are watered down when the buyers add cheapness to the part in order to meet a cost target. When you have a machined ball bearing surface that is allowed many tens of thou of tolerance more than the Honda or Toyota part your "new" part on your Big 3 car is the equivalent of one that has 4, 5, even 6 years of wear on it compared to the better Japanese part. When such wide tolerances are allowed the maker of the part doesn't have to check the quality as often, doesn't have to scrap "bad" parts as often, doesn't have to maintain quality control equipment as much and thus is able to provide it cheaper.

Basically, your new big 3 car is not really new at all in many ways, compared to the Japanese/ German car, more like 4 years old when considering the nasty wide tolerancing. That and their build quality can be atrocious. I work with suppliers that provide parts to Japanese companies and to Big 3, I've seen this in action. Too bad really, I really would like to keep my money at home, here in Canada, but not at the expense of a decent set of wheels.

Also, just so you all know, Japanese car companies are also unionized IN JAPAN, yes, your Japanese built Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda are ALL UNION BUILT. Of course Japanese unions, like German unions, are not the same as our thuggish ones, the governments in those countries actually have some controls placed on them. Some of the only non-union Toyota/ Honda factories in the world are here in North America!

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-07-15 8:51:13 PM


Geez, this started out as a post on abortion and now it's about cars! That's about as off track as it gets.

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-07-15 8:53:19 PM


We are talking about the abortion of the car manufacturing industry - thanks to the abortionists, otherwise known as union thugs.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-15 8:54:38 PM


Hoser wrote: I'm in the "industry" do here goes; why are Big 3 cars so often [email protected]? Well, it's down most often to the bean counters

very good post

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-15 9:03:03 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.