Essays: Roe v Wade Was Political Expediency

Essays: Roe v Wade Was Political Expediency

A Story by Dave "Doc" Rogers
"

This one is sure to cause some opinions. I only hope that people actually read what I wrote rather than their interpretations.

"

Essays: Roe v Wade Was Political Expediency

 

 

A famous and landmark case that came to the bench of the United States Supreme Court was decided out of political expediency rather than constitutionality or due process of law. Simply put, Roe v Wade was political expediency.

 

Now, before you label me and this essay, please hear me out!

 

            For those not familiar with the case, Jane Roe was represented in a case that started in Dallas Texas and traveled to the US Supreme Court. At the time of the initial filing, Ms. Roe purported that her unwanted pregnancy was the product of rape; a point she later recanted. Doe v Bolton was a similar case started in Georgia; the actual plaintiff later tried to have the case reheard to be over turned. That did not happen. Both were initially heard by the USSC at the same time with similar rulings.

            Initially, both arguments were against the abortion laws of the states of Georgia and Texas. The political twistings converted the cases into cases arguing women’s rights and rights to privacy. These were “hot button” issues in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. Actually, they are still “hot button” issues for the political processes of the major political parties. To really understand why these two court cases were commandeered into women’s rights and privacy rights issues, you have to get a good understanding as to what lead up to those decisions.

           

First, it was… some argue well it still is… a male centric world.

           

            From the time there were more than two people on the planet, there have been arguments as to the position of the human female in society. And, there are several differing historical views on this very subject. Therefore, the Rogers’ Slant.

            There are 6.5+ billion people on the planet we call home and Earth. There are 6.5+ billion opinions, too. Historians have argued their cases over the millennia. Historians, mostly males, have recorded history and events from their perspectives and from the perspectives of their benefactors: kings, princes, papals, et cetera… notably, mostly males, again. So, it should not come as a shock to anyone that history has been mostly written from the perspective of mostly males. That’s a little one sided, don’t you think? In all of these views, and there are many, only one stands out in argument for equality for women with men, the female human having equality with the male human. Believe it or not, that would be the Judeo-Christian Bible. Yeah, I know… go ahead and sigh.

            The problem is not the writings in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The problem lies in the execution of what is written in the Judeo-Christian Bible. But, before I get into that, let us look elsewhere.

            Atheists, agnostics, gnostics, evolutionists, and religionists have one thing in common. It still required that there be an ideal human male and an ideal human female to create / procreate / propagate the human genus-species known as homo sapiens… humans as we know us today. Let us not get into the arguments of proto-humans or pig jawed human constructs passing as legitimate archeological-anthropological research. With that commonality of there being a human male and a human female, our ancient ancestors, we have the advent of “modern” humanity. Right? Right. We can therefore assume… it’s math… if this, then that… We can therefore assume there was commonality or compatibility of species; they could have sex, produce offspring, the offspring would be viable, the offspring would be duplicates of but slightly different than the two source gene pools. Now, if there is a commonality of species, would it not also follow that there would be some rudimentary forms of communication? Without which, man A would never get to first base with woman A, wot?

            Man A and woman A are compatible. They speak a common language. They share common experiences. They share in the roles of survival of their kind. They are pretty much equal. Except in one area. Man in recorded history has had the tendency to be taller and stronger than woman in recorded history; fossil records, grave records, written records, et cetera. Knowing what I know of humans, from life and from study, there is this “gang” or “pack” mentality that occurs when there are more than one in a group. I come from a large family. I lived it. I have observed it in other environments as well. It happens in such regularity that one must accept it as a given. The Alphas will be in charge. The Betas will be second to the Alphas. The Gammas and so on. It depends on the structure of the society. In early history, it is the male that wins out for the humans due to size and strength. Observe, this is not so in all animal/insect cultures. Get enough males of like mind and you have control of all of the weaker humans: women, children, and weaker adult males. The stronger males begin to dominate their society. The physically weaker in the society take subservient roles.

            The dominant males that have any sense realize that the females have typically equal mental capacities, some even better mental capacities than the males. The smartest of the males tend to place or allow there to be (sometimes no choice in the matter) a Beta female. Then there are the Alpha males that forget there are females of equal or better mental capacity and they fall victim to the smart / more capable female. Some Beta females have found it to be more successful to allow the Alpha males the false impression that he is in control only to later find that he has been the Beta male to an Alpha female all along. This is funny to me. Vainly puffed up self-ideals that have that bubble burst always seem funny to me. I don’t know why. It just does. But, for the most part, the female human takes a subservient role to the male human due to size, strength, and pack.

            So, how do you control someone is not quite as strong as you and has all the same mental capabilities? You keep them uneducated. And, that is what male dominated societies began to do. The educational opportunity for most human females over the human history has been limited mainly to domestic upkeep. There have been societies that garnered greater respect for the human female. And, in those societies, the human female excelled. Some have even become the Alpha human over great societies. This act alone should have discredited any notion that a human female was incapable of advanced thought. That was real propaganda at one point. The male dominated society sold everyone on the idea that the female human was a lesser being. “Christian” Europe even used the Judeo-Christian Bible to purport such lunacy stating that “women as the weaker vessel.”

            This ideology and forced societal norms are carried through into near modern times by the Europeans. Those ideologies and societal norms are carried in their doctrines as Europe colonizes the world. Unfortunately for the human males, human males want to take their pack mentality to the entire world, or at least neighboring countries or continents. The weaker or hoped-to-be-weaker other societies fought back. Therefore… war. And, who went… mostly the males. This left the females back at the homestead to do everything the male used to do except he went of to war. Too many Beta females were forced by the politics of societal Alpha males to become Alpha females of their homesteads. Their Alpha male never returned from war. And still, the mostly male dominated society did not recognize positively the abilities of these homestead Alpha females. No, instead, they found ways to suppress them, to “relieve them of their burden of being head of the house.”

            Now we come to the 20th Century. It is the age of enlightenment. Susan B Anthony and others successfully drive the voting males left in the US to vote for women’s suffrage or the right to vote. Suffrage looks like “sufferage” which kind of leads to “suffering” the women the right to vote. It is not surprising to me that one of the things women in the USA did with their vote. They got rid of alcohol, which made their men spend money where they should not or kept them from home or whatever the reason. Women discovered they had power and could wield it. That is until the guys came back from war, the ones who did. Once the US was populated with all the Alpha males again, the packs reformed. Then, there was World War II. That changed everything in the US for women.

            As millions of men signed up to fight the Nazi-Fascist-Imperial menace taking over Europe, Africa, and Asia, millions of women took over their jobs to produce all of the goods those men could not from the battle fields around the globe. Women slowly discovered they were not the lesser species. Women and the 4F men discovered they could supply the world with whatever they needed if they just worked hard and worked together. Fancy that!

            Eventually, the effects of short sighted (some completely insane) political societal Alpha males became apparent. Economics and readily available resources are required and required in sufficient supply to defeat an enemy. Oddly enough, it was the generals and admirals of the losing sides that tried to point that out to the other Alpha males in their societies. This seemed to have no effect and dutifully, theses military Alpha males followed their courses to bitter ends. The women, on the other hand, flourished in the few countries that were not directly effected by the warring. By directly effected I mean, the bombs were not blowing up their neighborhoods. The women became educated in all the things the men used to do and did them well. Well enough that it was very difficult for a strong majority of these women to go back to the life they once had prior to the war. Not all women, mind you. Some women detested the idea of having to do “men’s work.”

            The war was over. The men came home. The men wanted the baseball / apple pie / Mom / the girl they left behind dream they held while they went to war. Some found it. Most did not. That world, that dream, no longer existed. What they did find was a country full of women who knew they were capable, had proved it, and now wanted to prove it still after the war. The war of the sexes in the USA commenced. Some men lost their jobs to women who were more capable. Some women could not get hired, because they were women. Which is odd. They just did those jobs. “But, it was wartime, son. Everyone did what they ‘had’ to do.” That did not hold water with some of the men who came back and it did not hold water with many of the women who knew better.

            The war was over. Ike was President. Prosperity was everywhere for the US. The world was the US market since it was the only country with true industrial capacity post war. TV shows covered the airwaves showing the idyllic life of the US citizen. The scars of war were mostly set aside or hidden. An up and coming voice for workers and democracy was sounding out of Massachusetts. Working women and their “right” to vote was acknowledged, more accepted, and they were in the work force or in colleges by larger and larger numbers. It is 1959 and a two-term Senator from Massachusetts announces his candidacy for President of the United States. Vice President Nixon is looked upon as the old regime, which he was. Senator Kennedy spoke of hope and possibility, a war hero too! The election went to the Democrats. Women and young adults voted in droves. At inauguration, Mr. Kennedy speaks of hope, possibility, a compelling future. Mr. King and others begin to speak of hope and compelling futures. Political theorists and philosophers speak of wonderful possibilities. Communism and Fascism are defeat-able foes. Man can go to space! Man in space! A US man in space! Then…

 

The day everyone old enough to know remembered the day hope was lost in the US. President Kennedy was shot by a lone assassin on November 22, 1963.

 

            To say that President Kennedy’s assassination did not effect the mind of women is the US would be very short sighted. They had just gone through World War II and all of the losses there. They began to rebuild hope during the years of prosperity under the Eisenhower administration. They had sure promises of hope and legacy in the form of this young brilliant politician named Kennedy. Then, all of that hope vanished for a generation. Followed by the deaths of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin L King Jr. The society in the US did not know which way was up. Riots, sit ins, political assassinations, Viet Nam, school prayer, military drafts, draft dodging in fear or protest, dropping out, drugs, organized crime, syndicates, equal rights, whites only, colored only, busing, you can’t sit there Miss Parks, Central High School, University of Alabama, women’s libbers, bra burnings, draft card burnings, Watergate… the list goes on.

            So, in 1973 two cases involving the rights of women to choose, there was no choice for the jurists. 7 to 2 they decided the laws of Georgia and Texas were unconstitutional. It was the politically expedient thing to do. Maybe, by deciding this way, the USSC would quiet down some of these extremely vocal minorities by stating their opinions that it was the woman’s right to choice and privacy with her own body. It did not work. The Right-to-Lifers kicked in.

           

Second, there is the Judeo-Christian Bible.

 

You may or may not follow the tenets of the Judeo-Christian Bible. I wish it that you did, but that is not something I can force on anyone. However, it is part of my argument, so I am going there.

God (The I Am, In Whom All Powers Exist… it is what His name means in Hebrew) created Man (Ish / the male) and Woman (Ishah / the female) in His own likeness and image. God observed Man looking after everything. Man noted there was not one after his own kind. God created from Man’s rib (DNA/RNA… people, in the marrow of bone, good source for stem cells; there is science behind this now) a suitable help-meet or help-mate. In other words, here was a female to his male that would be with him to help him meet the task that God had given the Man. If God had the science and forethought to place all the atoms and sub-atomics in their proper places to allow life to exist on Earth and the stars and Moon, He would not have been so shorted sighted as to create a lesser being than the task at hand for the Man. Now, would He? So, she was equal to the job that was given to the Man. God called the Man Adam. Adam called the woman Eve. They were partners, equals. That was the pattern that was set. That was the pattern that was to be followed. Then, the “pack” and Alpha/Beta thing started happening. Cain kills Abel. Lamech, grandson of Cain, marries two wives. Pattern broken. Well, not kept. It pretty much degenerates as you go from there.

            According to the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is supposed to be a pairing of one Man and one Woman, and they are supposed to be equal partners. Every variation to that set pattern has created problems. Those problems will not be delineated here. Suffice it to say, women were designed and were supposed to be equal partners with the men. History has shown whenever men have varied from that pattern there is trouble.

 

Third, no one really likes the idea of the cessation of human life

 

This is a most controversial point. I know that. But, most people on this planet recognize that the cessation of human life is a bad thing. That is why there were so many state-run limitations or rules to allow for abortion. Medically, it is the removal of human tissue that left unhindered would have produced another exo-uterine human. Morally, it is accepted by most that pregnancy equates human life in-utero. Eight to nine months later, there is a baby human. Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs, it is a life, a child, a gift from God.

There is not enough paper in the world or time to type it to cover all of the arguments pro or con to the sanctity of life questions brought about by legalized abortion. That the USSC really did not have the authority to make the ruling they did is also in question. Specifically, the two dissenting jurists on both cases argued the unconstitutionality of the USSC to make its ruling. As an advent of their majority ruling, many millions around the US have not been born. And, there are arguments on the quality of life, quality and type of persons these embryos might have been. Simple statistical analysis could be applied to the volume of recorded abortions to show by percentages what kinds of people would have been brought forth. But, the politicians of the day were not thinking of millions of abortions, thousands of businesses to support the demand, the hundreds of thousands of hours of counseling of post-abortion women, the act of abortion as convenience birth control, the assassinations, the bombings, the arrests for acts of civil disobedience, the additional costs in security, police forces, attorneys, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

No, it is my opinion that the USSC in 1973 thought mostly on how to shut up the women of their day by caving in to their “politically vocal” might. It was what men did to “nagging” women to get them to leave them alone, if only for a little while. They failed.

 

What should have happened?

 

The politicians should have listened to their own speeches. The politicians and the jurists should have reread the US Constitution and all its articles and amendments. The people of the US should have reread their US Constitution and the documents of our founders and leaders. The people should have remembered Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address “… a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton rulings by the USSC did not go far enough. And, they could not from the USSC. Essentially, the USSC legislated from the bench. They should have declined to hear these cases.

 

From Justices White and Rehnquist’s opinion of Roe v Wade:

 

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

 

What should have happened is uproar in both Houses of Congress at the uproar of the people of the United States over such vital and key issues of the “right to privacy” and equality to any US citizen. But, that did not happen then. It was then a “good ole boys” club of the elite few who knew far better than their citizenry what was best for them. It was a trading of the British aristocracy of the 1700’s for the American aristocracy since 1776. And, we are at fault.

Roe v Wade / Doe v Bolton are wrong. They should have been thrown out. They were political expediency of the times. Now, in 2007, the original intents of the arguments are lost. The National Organization of Women actively campaigns to maintain Roe v Wade; not because they are really so much pro-abortion; but because they are pro-women’s rights. To lose Roe v Wade, in the minds of a lot of women activists, would be to lose their rights as equal citizens in the US. The impact would be felt around the world. And, I agree with them on that point. If Roe v Wade is recanted without serious legislation in the Houses of Congress followed by a Presidential signature, then women’s rights and equality in the USA would degrade to pre-1960’s conditions.

I grew up in a house full of women; a mom and three sisters. I grew up around some very strong women with really good minds and very vocal opinions. I did not always appreciate their opinions, especially if I was on the receiving end of one of their “man hate” speeches. I could not convince them I was not my dad’s generation or my uncles. Ehhh. I grew up in the 1960’s, school through the 1970’s, and heard / saw nearly all of the arguments. I can appreciate a strong willed, vocal woman. My mom and her sisters spoiled me against a docile, quiet, soft spoken woman. I really cannot abide a woman who is not willing to clearly, logically, intelligently speak her mind. The blond-haired bimbo stereotype hurts my brain. And, I have met them in real life.

I have worked with many outstanding women while I was in the US Navy. I recall a discussion with one petty officer. She was one stripe lower in rank, but that did not matter for this discussion. I am not sure how the conversation was steered in this direction, but I answered honestly and abruptly. This was in the 1980’s and whatever changes happened in the real world did not reach the military for at least a decade or two later. So, there was still a lot of questions regarding a woman’s place in the military. I posed the question: What is the difference between you and me? She just looked at me. I answered, I am taller and stronger. That’s it.

We were in the same technical school. We shared the same rating. We shared the same education. I was taller and physically stronger. Those were the only two things I could see, was willing to accept that made us different. If she and I worked in the same shop, I would have expected her to meet or exceed my output. In that regard, I am old school blue-collar. It is all about getting the job done. That is what mattered most. If she could do that, I had no problems with her. I did give her one caveat. She was really into aerobics. She had better endurance that I did. So, she could more than likely out distance me in a run.

 

Is there a solution?

 

Yes and no.

 

Yes. It is called realistic legislation with realistic enforcement.

 

No. The politicians that could effect change are more than likely more interested in remaining in office. Which means, they will follow the dictates of those that yell the loudest and write the biggest checks. And, guys like me will not be given credence because I say Roe v Wade / Doe v Bolton should be over turned. Since I hold to that, I am “labeled” one of “them” and therefore persona non grata.

 

So, in closing this, nothing will happen because I said my piece. I sit easier because the burr under my saddle is gone.  I have tossed the pebble into the pond and watch the ripples go where they go. Where those ripples go, I do not know. Where will they reflect, I do not know. Will they reflect? I hope so.

 

© 2008 Dave "Doc" Rogers


Author's Note

Dave "Doc" Rogers
Critique writing form not content.

My Review

Would you like to review this Story?
Login | Register




Reviews

This was very interesting.. very informative and well written.
On the topic of abortion, after having a child i have a different opinion.. i do beleive a woman has the right to choose but i would stipulate and i consider myself a liberal .. but i would say abortion only in an emergency such as the mothers life was in danger, incest and rape.. as for birth control, no .. this would not work though as many would use rape or incest as the reason for abortion..
Before i had a child i would have said differently.. i thought of abortion for a second.. then adoption , ultimately i chose to keep the child myself.. i am so glad i did.. what a beautiful child and such a joy to me and so many others.. this is a touchy subject. I only have my opinion.. i would and do respect others opinions as is their right.
I enjoyed the part of JFK, MLK and Robert Kennedy ( don't know his middle name) ..
An interesting and informative read.. but i already said that.. well done.

Chloe
xoxo

Posted 12 Years Ago


1 of 1 people found this review constructive.

Well!! Where do I start? This rant covers many facts backed up by theory. People are out of control and governments like it that way! Men and women are mostly equal in mentality, but physically the difference is huge. If women stayed at home and took care of their families and men went to work to play their "role" in taking care of their families, this world of ours would be pleasant...as it once was...well certainly more pleasant! I believe that abortion is the single most vile act we are legally allowed to perform. Women who abort their babies have no moral fibre and it is my experience that those who have abortions are plagued with guilt until the day they die! There is no excuse that makes any sense to me.
This piece contains much truth...and truth is all I'm prepared to deal with.
Men and women are different!!!! They think differently and behave differently. Women who are heavily into equality need to start using the mens room...wearing pants just doesn't cut it for me, go the whole hog ladies...er...whatever you want to call yourselves. A chivalrous man is a joy to behold, one who cherishes women for their femininity and nurturing ability, Mr Mums should get a grip on reality, no real man is happy staying home and changing diapers!
I don't even want to get started on the woes of homosexuality! I have come to realise that I can't change anything...that is up to the ultimate judge. To those of you who say I am standing in judgement...I am allowed to be prudent and discerning to protect my children from the above mentioned problems and those other menaces to society...pedophiles...What a mess we are in. If we all don't become more righteous and aware, we are a doomed species!!!!

Posted 12 Years Ago


2 of 3 people found this review constructive.

I believe that it has to be the woman's decision what she should do with her own body. There is much in this essay that I strongly disagree with.

Posted 12 Years Ago


1 of 2 people found this review constructive.

Stepping VERY carefully into the room - I do not believe the founding fathers would have found abortion to be legal as a method of birth control at least (perhaps they would have seen it as a legal option if there were medical issues) - based on the Christian ethic at the time. And it was freedom of religion - not the freedom FROM religion that we seem to support now. If you look at places like DC the Christian influence is every where - right down to the "in God we trust" on our money. This subject is bound to get multiple and varied responses.
I do applaud this approach. It is one I had never considered and it does have a certain validity. I also LOVE the fact that you mentioned "help meet" I was a member of a strong denominational church for 15 years and the 'women are secondary' mentality pervaded everything. I am in a different church now - men are considered the 'spiritual head' as Christ is head of the church - we are the bride - and treated like - well - a bride. Definitely partners. If Christianity as a whole went back to the basic Biblical principles - this jockeying for control would abate or at least be minimized and perhaps those women who bristle about 'losing rights' would reconsider. Abortion is a hot button and a serious decision. A permanent decision and therefore one needs to consider carefully. so many sides to it. While I would not want to be handed a death sentence if there were an underlying medical issue concerning a pregnancy - I also believe that women need to take control of their bodies - abortion should not be used as a form of "birth control." There are much better, smarter, safer options. Again. Its only my opinion and while I would debate - I don't villify.
Kudos to you for broaching such an incendiary subject with eloquence. Lots of information here - while you seem passionate, I did not feel this was a rant.

Posted 12 Years Ago


2 of 2 people found this review constructive.

it would be crystal clear to the founding fathers that abortion should be legal. it is only in the last 100-120 years that we have allowed by starting down the slippery slope of "social safety", that we have le tthe goverment become our god. telling us what we can and cannot do within and to ourselves. the reason the constitution was made to be ammended, is one of the beautiful things about it, but forces have perverted our mindest, and watered down freedom. there is also the issue of freedom of religion. the law cannot dictate what one can do based on what they percieve as right from their religious perspective (on a federal level). states, counties and towns can dictate this (or could before the fed became overpowering) you also are singing the bull to sleep when you state judeo-christians think women are equal. this is patently not practiced. and you forgot about lilith. the first partner of adam, that was killed off because she wanted equality, in a allogorical terms of sexual position.... that right there tells you the slant
lilith wanted to be on top occasionally (or was it constanly) maybe as a reference to controlling her fertility? women do hold the power in this world, that is why power fixated men are against birth control, abortion, or promiscuity. they are jealous of the woman's natural right and ability to create life. the sickness of the wars of ideolgy within this counrty and throughout the world very well could be the end of the human race, and if you think one testoerone flooded towelhead who is paying his dues by blowing himself up in an airport to get to his 72 virgins is scary, try looking from the outside, at a religon that welcomes the end of human civilization, just so big poppa will come out of the sky and save the "good ones"
ok so maybe i wouldnt be so nauseated by all of this if it was poorly written, but it prolly deserves a special sophie, one for deciet of self and others
im sorry i had to comment this way on the piece but i feel you and your ilk are a danger to not only the human race but the world itself.
or as the bumper sticker says look marge, another pro lifer in favor of the war.....
kill one you are a sinner, kill a thousand and you are a savior

Posted 12 Years Ago


2 of 2 people found this review constructive.

In reading this I see so much more then just a discussion on Roe vs Wade, actually there is very little devoted to the exact topic. The "history" of man and woman was far more interesting to me then any other aspect. I agree that the world was by nature a male dominated world and even though the woman proved themselves in the "time of need" they were still not given the kudos for their performance. Trust me, as a woman in the American workplace and in a management position...the man's world is still very much here. I get treated differently on nearly a daily basis. I am one that feels it doesn't matter what sex you are as long as you can do the job. If I need to be puled from a burning house...I don;t give a damn if the rescuer is male or female as long as I make it out of there. I also feel that if two people are doing the same job then by God they should be paid the same for it. period.
As for Roe vs Wade...
I am pro choice. There are too many unwanted children in this world. If a woman is in a position that she is with child and there is a medical reason for her to not want to see this pregnancy through then she should have the option not to. I do not feel abortion should ever be used for birth control, buy a condom. But I do feel there are situations when a woman should have abortion as an option.

That said...Thank you for making us think.
c.


Posted 12 Years Ago


3 of 3 people found this review constructive.

Okay this is a very touchy subject and i am proud of you for diving head first into this ring. Let me start by saying that I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. But with that being said i do believe that women have the right choose. My opinion is not the fact of this matter it is the fact that women have that right as option. We can voice our opinions on if we think it is okay or not but ultimately the it is their choice.

I believe that abortion is committable it there are out reason for it. Medical, Rape, incest, things of that nature. But as the bible clearly states he who has no sins cast the first stone.



Posted 12 Years Ago


2 of 2 people found this review constructive.

The fact that innocent lives are being taken... you give congress an inch they take the world over. In the case of a mother losing her life and the child not living than there needs to be intervention but there is so much medical advance there is really no need for this anymore! A big debated issue, like RU484 pill, the so-called after sex and kill the baby pill.

People need to take responsibility for what they do. That is what needs to be debated. The path is clouded with other issues when the real issue is values, morals and ethics.

HH

Posted 12 Years Ago


3 of 3 people found this review constructive.


Request Read Request
Add to Library My Library
Subscribe Subscribe


Stats

182 Views
8 Reviews
Added on February 21, 2008
Last Updated on October 12, 2008

Author

Dave "Doc" Rogers
Dave "Doc" Rogers

Montgomery, AL



About
Artist • Author • Poet • Preacher I am a thinker, ponderer, assayer of thoughts. I have had a penchant for writing since childhood. I prefer "Doc" as an hommage to my grandfather Rob.. more..

Writing