<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>It looks Obvious - Latest Comments in They are not life lovers</title><link>http://rogelsview.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://rogelsview.disqus.com/they_are_not_life_lovers/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 10:03:32 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354669</link><description>&lt;p&gt;All I'm saying is that bias exists on both sides. The other moral side of this equation is no less biased.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">zoolish</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 10:03:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354668</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Honestly, I don't think so. What I wrote was based on the quotes.&lt;br&gt;It is true that I knew that Pro-Life is basically anti-women, and I wrote it in the post, I just didn't think that they will basically admit it with (as it was quoted) declaration that abortion is always wrong, regardless the risk to the life of the mother.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rogel</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 08:44:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354667</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well, I wouldn't dare stop you. But, you were being a bit biased... were you not?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">zoolish</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 07:08:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354666</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Being usual, or not original never stop me from venting in the past, I don't see why should it start now? :)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rogel</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 16:17:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354665</link><description>&lt;p&gt;True. But that's all so usual.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">zoolish</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 15:53:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354664</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You are obviously right. I just vent about the misuse and hijacking of the term "Pro Life" by group of people that are many things but not pro life.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rogel</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 12:12:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: They are not life lovers</title><link>http://www.rogelsview.com/in-the-news/libertarianism/privacy/they-are-not-life-lover/#comment-1354663</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Regardless of the issue at handâ€¦ show me a so called "moral" issue not dominated by personal motives, unrelated interests and just plain politics (not to mention money, power and domination) â€“ and I shall give you my kingdom.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">zoolish</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 11:59:50 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>