<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss 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><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>All I'm saying is that bias exists on both sides. The other moral side of this equation is no less biased.</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>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.</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>Well, I wouldn't dare stop you. But, you were being a bit biased... were you not?</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>Being usual, or not original never stop me from venting in the past, I don't see why should it start now? :)</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>True. But that's all so usual.</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>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.</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>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.</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>