Tuesday, December 02, 2008
|
|
THE WORST CHRISTMAS GIFT IN THE WORLD
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
1:53 PM
|
|
Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s most strident supporters of abortion on demand, is offering a novel Christmas present for its supporters this year: gift certificates for “reproductive services” – including abortion. The Indiana branch of the national organization suggests that families should buy generous credits to cover contraception of every kind, including abortion, and then present these certificates under the tree to grateful daughters, sisters or even wives. Can you imagine the reaction of a family member who holds a brand new abortion certificate, and chortles: “I’ve always wanted one of these!” It’s ironic that Planned Parenthood wants to associate these services with a sacred holiday that focuses on a miraculous birth—not a termination of pregnancy. The secular left remains hopelessly out of touch with the American people and their most cherished traditions.
|
|
exactly right, how do these abortionists get away with denying choice to pre-born human beings?
After all, our very country was founded on the principle that all human beings are created (NOT BORN) equal.
As everyone knows, to create is defined as to bring into existence and everyone knows that at conception a unique member of the species homo sapien is brought into existence.
The abortionists should go to a country that agrees with their abominable belief that the Declaration of Independence is meaningless.
They should also leave rather than dishonor the U.S. Constitution that clearly states that personhood precedes birth. |
|
WindowCleaner writes: "Contrast that with the anti-choice gift of oppressing women and the quest for controlling an individual's rights."
LOL, how is prohibiting a woman from denying someone else's right to life "oppression"?
I guess Abolition "oppressed" white slaveowners, as well.
Stupid.
|
|
|
PP is a God-less, evil organization. |
|
|
There has never been any such thing as a woman's "right" to murder her own unborn child. This is a farse that is continually parotted by the left until people have totally forgotten this fact. |
|
unable to justify anything he/she spouts. An eight year old can write assertions, nothing particularly impressive about that.
Avoid responding with logic and sense, typical of an eight year old.
Are you an Obama supporter like those who did not know who he had chosen for VP or what his stand was on the war in Iraq? You write like such a person.
Do you think a reasonable adult would be concerned about unsupported assertions such as yours? If you do, you would be wrong. |
|
what an absurdity people who want to protect the pre-born human being ipso facto have no concern for born human beings.
Talk about non-sequiturs, you take the cake. |
|
abortion legal are cowards. They advocate attacking the defenseless and are unwilling to confront people who can defend themselves.
Put them in a room with an adult and they will betray their cowardice with their whimpering. |
|
|
i'm pro choice ,i just think that choice begins before they spread their legs and the guy drops his pants .The man has no say in the matter ,if he wants her to keep the child then he is oppressing her .If she decides to keep the baby , no matter if he wants her to or not, then he is stuck with child support for 18 years minimum .i don't hear any of you women rights idiots saying it was her choice so she should pay for the child . best choice is not to go around banging everything that moves . Children are far too precious to abort or raise without people that love them |
|
|
It has never been so clear that Planned Parenthood and NARAL view abortion as a good and sacred thing -- as though the "beauty" and "rightness" of a woman's choice to terminate an umwanted pregnancy is vastly better, always better, than actually having the baby...being "punished with a child" as Obama once put it. |
|
|
Between PP abortions and the Gay Right movments there won't be any Liberals in a few years. |
|
|
What about a man's rights? Say a man want's to keep the baby but the woman want's to abort. No medical problems, she just doesn't want to "punished" with the pregnancy. Does the right to choose trump the right's of the man who want's to keep his child? |
|
|
Your 5:08pm post is spot on! Can you imagine if a man said " I didn't want you to get pregnant and since you won't have an abortion I CHOOSE not to support it. |
|
|
I agree with "Recovered Lib." Calling pro-life opressing is an unintelligent way for librals to avoid the fact that abortion is murder. If you believe that the womens rights are being taken away then you obviously dont care about an individuals rights. What about the child's rights? If the child could speak for themselves, what do you think their opinion would be???? |
|
What makes you think that those who oppose abortion want "to control women"? Do you not have enough sense to see how people can believe that abortion is killing a human life? That abortion is contrary to the opponents' moral principles? I oppose abortion on these and other grounds, and I also think that we must take action to address the issue of over-population, but abortion is not the way. I think you, Windowcleaner, should have the right to make your own decisions, and that those decisions are between you and your conscience. But don't try to shove your "right" or what you believe to be abortion "rights" down my throat. That's a right you do not have.
Besides, if there is a God, and you have to face him some day, you will receive your just rewards. |
|
so let's stop the nonsense about choice vs. non-choice. Few women get pregnant just to have an abortion. Few women use abortion as birth control.
Roe is triggered by viability. Period. When babies can survive, then they cannot be aborted. Period.
Both sides need to be reasonable. No late term abortions unless mother will die. No denial of first trimester abortions, period. No denial of morning after pills. No denial of birth control pills.
It is a wedge issue that both sides use to raise money and keep their little organizations in power.
It is not an issue for most people. If you are so concerned about children, then let gay people adopt them. You simply cannot have it both ways...you cannot dictate how people bear children, and then dictate who cannot raise them. Your morality is bereft of logic. |
|
Planned Parenthood provides women with many health services. In doing so, it allows all those fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, etc, who don't want to participate in so-called 'immoral' acts like birth control and abortion, to avoid having to participate at all.
So, if people wish to give some woman a certificate so she can have an annual exam, let them. It isn't your business what the doctor and his or her patient do during the exam. HIPPA. |
|
|
Gee, I wonder how this is going to be used for that so-called "war on Christmas"? I do disagree with the folks at Planned Parenthood that this is a good idea for a gift, but I hardly see how you can blame it on us secularists. We say Merry Christmas all the time, and at least we don't scam people out of their hard earned money the way Focus On The Family and Liberty Counsel scam people by hocking them so-called "I support Christmas" buttons and bumper stickers. To me, the folks at Planned Parenthood and the folks at Focus On The Family are one in the same in scamming the masses out of their money in what they could have gotten: a Christmas present. |
|
I read in a book titled "The Divine Center" by Stephen R. Covey that during presentations he gives, in order to make a point, he asks his audience to simply remain quiet for a moment. On one occasion, a young man had been offended because Dr. Covey was making the case for a moral code. The young man said that he had no right to say what he thought was "right" or "wrong", because people defined that for themselves.
Now I pose the question: How can their be any order at all in the world at this point? Is there a binding element that, in some way, is uniting enough people to keep the world from being nothing but chaos? Yes. And I would also say that any form of order does not form itself with the help of a higher power. All things, especially in science, with the presence of such order, denotes there is a God.
Back to Stephen Covey's example of asking his audience to remain silent for a while:
The young man who had previously been upset voiced this: I know what I'm feeling, but it doesn't agree with what I'm saying.
Logic can be appealed to, yes, but reason I think is best complimented by faith, in that we recognize there is a governing hand in all things. Man alone is weak, our own intellect and power to reason being a gift from God.
On the topic of abortion: stop the name-calling for a bit, settle down, and listen past all the emotions that seem to make so much sense to us, be they on the pro-choice or pro-life side.
Is it right to abort a child? Tell me that the thought does not bring you close to tears, and I believe your intellect will be reconciled once this is realized. |
|
|
Sure makes the Thigh Master I got for my wife last Christmas look kind of good now. |
|
Since when is "choice" the opposite of "life"?
Women don't want to be "oppressed" with a baby? Fine. Make the choice to keep your knees together and your feet flat on the floor. Works every time, won't cost you a dime!
Corndog that is just too funny.. |
|
|
If someone is "pro-choice", then I say they should also support the choice of a man not to support a baby he didn't want. Why should a man's options stop with conception, while a woman has numerous legal options after conception? Also, as a taxpayer, I want my choice, too - the choice not to pay to raise that child. If a woman is has a "right to choice", she should include in that the consideration of that I, the taxpayer, will not support that baby and that the "father" may not, either. |
|
Few women get pregnant and have abortions? Those few women were pregnant 48, 589,993 since 1973. That’s how many abortions there were in the US since Roe v Wade in 1973. There were an estimated 1,206,200 abortions in 2005 alone. 22% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion. Look around you, my friend. 1 out of 5 of us, dead before we had a chance to breathe air. 69% of all African-American pregnancies end in abortion; 54% of Hispanic pregnancies do too. That’s genocide, Coldplay Lover.
Just think of the raw headcount of fellow citizens…gone! Over 48 million Americans killed…each with unique talents, insights, opinions, dreams. How many new inventions, business ideas, and shear labor hours are non-existent simply because a scared girl felt she would be too inconvenienced for another 7-8 months? I look at my children, and find it ghastly to consider taking their lives because they were inconvenient. And please, DO NOT reply, “but there was a good reason”. There were 1,206,200 good reasons to kill a baby in 2005? There are good reasons to kill over one out of five babies? Spare me. You may believe that Roe is triggered by viability. Abortion, however, is not.
Viability is the litmus test? So help me with that. Those 1.2 million people killed in 2005 would not have survived if they were not killed? What is the logic employed here? I would submit that the vast majority of them, 99%, would have been viable if we simply WAITED. After a nine month period, the completely helpless life would have had an independent chance to live.
Stop abortion except in those REAL cases of life endangerment for the child-bearer and in exchange gay couples are allowed to adopt? DEAL! Stop the killing of babies, first, though.
Your logic is bereft of logic. Think it over.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedst ates.html
|
|
Your argument regarding a babies' survival being the "cutoff" on when they can be aborted is foolish.
Place a baby outside the womb at birth (as Obama voted is the correct way to handle a botched saline abortion) and see how long it survives.
Life begins at conception. Ask any convened jury when they convict a murderer of killing two people, when shooting a pregnant woman.
Otherwise, this is a very schizophrenic country! |
|
|
Once again I ask the question; What besides time is the difference between killing a human at conception and the killing of a human at 16 years of age? Answer: A very small step in reasoning. |
|
too. Stop the nonsense. I find it amazing that men are the primary abortion opposers.
Roe is the law. Isn't going to change. Planned Parenthood allows the fundy health providers to take their 'principled' decisions.
When fundys stop denying living children the ability to be adopted by loving gay parents, I'll accept their anti-adoption position as being something other than a control mechanism. |
|
|
I, for one, am very grateful that there was not a Planned Parenthood clinic in Galilee 2,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
go see the new movie...The Day the Earth stood still....it is about Obama...he was born on Mars. Prove he wasn't, right?
Keep talking about nutter nonsense.
|
|
Abortion is horrific and will be the guarantee for God's judgment upon America. And Obama will lead us there quicker than anything.
But don't you think it's a little presumptuous to argue about Obama's appointments and policies, when he's not even a natural born US citizen? Ergo, he doesn't meet one of the three basic qualifications for the presidency. HE WAS BORN IN KENYA, AND ALL HE'S SHOW SO FAR IS A PHOTOSHOP FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. SEE FOR YOURSELF HERE:
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/obama-proof-he-was-born -in-kenya-fake-birth-certificate/
DEMAND OBAMA PROVE HE'S A NATURAL U.S. BORN CITIZEN - SIGN THE FED EX LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: (deadline is Thurs 12/4 12pm)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 82449
AMERICA IS WORTH IT!
**********************************
|
|
|
|
WindowCleaner writes: Tuesday, December, 02, 2008 2:03 PM
Selective outrage
"Contrast that with the anti-choice gift of oppressing women and the quest for controlling an individual's rights. 'Small government', my arse."
Windowcleaner buys into that idiotic leftist garbage that professes that someone opposes abortion because they actually give a rat's behind about oppressing women's rights. Yeah, THAT'S it. I really want to oppress women's rights, oh boy, just can't wait.
It couldn't POSSIBLY be because we think life begins early in the pregnancy, even at the point of conception, and while we gladly support women's rights, we think no human's rights should extend to committing premeditated murder, solely for the convenience of the person. And if we're not sure at what point life begins, shouldn't we err on the side of life? I mean, if your friend was comatose and you weren't sure if he were dead or alive, you wouldn't automatically bury him, would you?
Poor dumb Windowcleaner. Figure it out, pal.
|
|
then let's remove every fetus from every woman and say have a nice life. Let them figure out how to grow and live.
What utter and total crap. Roe pivots on viability. If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, it is not a 'human'.
What about the babies that are born? How come you'd let them stay in foster care rather than be adopted by loving gay people? |
|
for those what, 50 million women who have had abortions in the 36 years since Roe, who would have raised those kids?
You just want to punish people for daring to have sex. You want to punish women who get pregnant, and you want to punish gay people who don't get pregnant. It is all about enjoyment of sex, not about children.
You anti-choice folks are not lining up to take these kids in. Heck, one of your main proponents, Laura Ingraham, could not even be bothered to adopt an American child who needed a family. |
|
JB: Then birth control is murder.
A: No, contraception before conception would not be murder. My sperm not touching an egg and creating life is not taking life. Illogical.
JB: If life begins at conception then let's remove every fetus from every woman and say have a nice life. Let them figure out how to grow and live…If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, it is not a 'human'.
A: Are you no longer human if you need support from others to survive, like dialysis, or insulin, or an iron lung? I should have the right to kill my child if my child needs me to exist? How about we wait another 7-8 months after they discover they’re pregnant to remove them, and then we’ll both be happy.
JB: I have another question for those what, 50 million women who have had abortions in the 36 years since Roe, who would have raised those kids?
A: You think that if it’s inconvenient to find adoptive parents for these children we should kill them? How about all the other children out there now that they can’t find adoptive parents for…should we kill them too? What about those gay couples? Wouldn’t they have the opportunity you want them to realize with more children to adopt?
JB: You just want to punish people for daring to have sex. You want to punish women who get pregnant, and you want to punish gay people who don't get pregnant. It is all about enjoyment of sex, not about children.
A: I don’t want to punish others for having sex. I love having sex with my spouse, and I love having children with my spouse. I don’t see either of my beautiful children as punishment. Why do you see children as punishment? Did your parents feel that way, JB?
I am all for choice, but I am also for taking the responsibility for that choice, as opposed to killing someone because you do not want the inconvenience…and that is all this is about. |
|
So even a morning after pill, when you have no idea if there is conception or not, you are against that?
It really doesn't matter, does it? Roe will never be overturned.
|
|
|
Here, Honey... a gift of death to celebrate the one who gives us life! |
|
"What utter and total crap. Roe pivots on viability. If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, it is not a 'human'."
Viability? This is such a canard of the left. Show me a viable 5 year old sir. i.e one that can survive outside the womb. How many 5 year old kids in this world could clothe, feed and shelter themselves on their own? Are they not human according to your definition?
And prove to me, biologically sir, where life begins for ANY ORGANISM other than at conception. You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? It certainly doesn't seem to bother you much--I see you offering one ridiculous assertion after another on these threads. |
|
As far as I know, the question of when life is viable, that is, can survive without life-support, either mechanical, or biological (a uterus is, after all, a biological life-support unit), has already been determined by the medical profession.
A human (or formerly human) body of the post-womb variety, regardless of other biological functions, that has no brain function is pronounced dead and removed from (in this case, mechanical) life support.
A similar body which exhibits no higher brain function is called vegetative and is also removed from life support, albeit occassionally after time-and-money consuming legal delays caused by deluded if well-intentioned relatives.
So, since whether or not 'life' must be provided with 'support' has already been medically determined in common practice, it seems logical that the same standard be applied to those who are biologically (uterine-based) life-support dependant, i.e., a fetus, as is applied to those who are mechanically life-support dependant.
It would be fairly simple based on this standard to develop a middle ground wherein abortion is permissable.
This would prevent any idiocy such as that of those fanatics who suggest even the abortion pill should be banned as well as the equal idiocy of the opposite side of the abortion debate that believe any and all abortion should be allowed up to and including at the ninth month (such late-term abortions should, of course, be permitted to save the life of the mother.)
The unfortunate problem of the abortion debate is that both sides demand all-or-nothing, utterly ignoring the fact that rational and mature people must, when confronted by conflicting points of view, be willing to COMPROMISE. |
|
Good Morning, VeritasX.
When did “viable”, by your definition, become the approved litmus test of a human having the right to live?
What if you were 99% sure that the vegetative comma patient would be just fine in 7-8 months...that the higher brain functions you claim are required to be a human would exist? Do you still see it as OK to unplug that comma patient?
Try this analogy. There are conjoined twins that share a kidney. One can see, hear and speak and one cannot for another 7 months, when their conjoined status changes and they will be able to separate. The one that can speak now says she does not like the7-month inconvenience of having the other twin attached to her, and wants a doctor to kill that less fortunate twin. Remember, the silent twin needs the kidney the two of them share, but only for another 7 months. You would kill this twin?
Good Morning, Jamesbondi.
You said, “It really doesn't matter, does it? Roe will never be overturned.”
I’m guessing many Southerners might have been saying the same thing in the 1800s right after the Freeman Scott case. How did that turn out?
Don’t you see the similarities between not recognizing slaves as people and not recognizing unborn babies as people? The most unfortunate difference is that there will not be a Martin Luther Fetus Jr. to speak for those unborn. They only have those of us, no longer in jeopardy, fighting for them. Truly, they are the weakest among us and the ones most in need of our protection. Yet, you both are willing to judge which life is worth more than another and kill one for sake of the temporary (7-8 months) convenience of another.
|
|
Good afternoon, Ruslfish -
I don't believe viability is a perfect litmus test - I believe it is the best litmus test we can come up with in the attempt to reach a compromise between the very far divided sides in the debate on the issue of abortion. By using viability as the litmus test, we could reach a compromise which would allow abortions for a certain period, such as the first trimester, while banning the procedure (except as needed to save the mother's life) for another period, such as the last trimester. Assume the middle trimester is allowable for abortion as medically necessary for the health and well-being of the mother, perhaps. This is a compromise, which, while it would of course fully satisfy neither the 'choice' nor 'life' sides of the debate, would resolve the issue in a way which is at least more just than what exists now (nearly total abortion-on-demand), or than what the opponents of all abortion would impose upon us (no abortion at all).
Of course I would be extremely unwilling to terminate the lives of either of your examples, but then, I, personally, would be just as reluctant to terminate a fetus through abortion. I, personally, hope that the day will come, when, through education, health services - including birth control, economic and other factors, no abortions will be performed because none will be needed or desired. I do believe, however, in the meantime, that compromise is necessary, and that denying a woman the option to choose to terminate a pregnancy is just as wrong as allowing such abominations as partial-birth abortions. In the meanwhile, also, much greater efforts must be made to provide for the lives of children who ARE born, in the form of services to protect and nurture every child - all too often it seems that the more fanatical members of the 'life' side of the abortion debate forget about the "life" they are trying so desperately to protect once it is born into the world. |
|
|
the dirty little secret is that women don't want it overturned. Your little stepford fundy wife may say 'yes dear' as you froth over abortions because you think you know all about things, but when she gets beyond your grasp, in that voting booth, she will never vote for someone who wants to make abortion illegal again. She knows that men are the main leaders of these ridiculous social movements because they want to control women, so your daughters have abortions but call them 'female surgery', or they dare have sex and you force them to marry the guy who got them pregnant, even though you know he's a bum. Btw, when is Bristol's wedding? |
|
Hey VX:
Thanks for being thoughtful and looking at it from my perspective, and also showing respect. I really appreciate it. I get the feeling you are a thoughtful person who would like to settle the argument and move on to other constructive ventures.
Although I appreciate your perspective, I just can’t get my arms around the idea that we compromise an innocent human’s life to strike a compromise. As I mentioned earlier, sub issues like contraception, same sex partner adoption, faith questions, etc. really don’t strike me as troubling. I guess I just see human life as THE most important thing in the world. I see that a new and unique person occurs at conception, with distinct DNA and a pre-programmed plan for growth from that one splitting cell to the day we bury her/him in 80 years. As a human life, his/her existence is far more important to me than the inconvenience of the child bearer for those 7 months. I am not asking that woman for anything more than to not kill her own child. I am not asking for any more than that she accepts a level of responsibility for the new life created in her. I think that is where we separate in our arguments: you are willing to accept what I see as the death of a child if he/she only developed for 3 months or less in the womb. I am with you for the remainder of what you have said.
Jamesbondi:
I get the feeling you are comfortable with generalizing, stereotyping and making ad hominem attacks more than you are comfortable with talking and reasoning. I wouldn’t know how to answer your last accept to politely smile and turn back to VeritasX and talk with her/him.
And are you bringing up Bristol Palin? If so, I wasn’t invited to her wedding, so I wouldn’t know when it will occur. However, I’m sure you’ll have more judgmental things to say about her situation and family, you know, like all the folks who make judgments about same sex partner adoption.
Classy. |
|
One of the great things about a FREE society is that we as individuals can choose whether or not to participate in activities we agree or disagree with. It is our own personal thoughts, convictions, and morality that lead us to that end. You are free to persuade, but not to impose, your ideas upon another.
Don't like the idea of having an abortion? Then don't have one.
Next question.
This whole thing could take on an infinitesimal amount of validity if someone would simply point out that the stated goal of the founder of PP was the elimination of the black race. But you don't seem to have learned that self righteousness will get you no where in the real world.
The gift certificates are being purchased by consumers, not tax payers. It isn't a coupon that is showing up in your mailbox. It isn't a fetus rebate from the government.
This is why your party has failed: you always go for the moral high ground. People are sick of hearing it, because there is no substance beyond it. One need look no further than Desouza for that. |
|
If your argument is logical, then it should work in any context.
One of the great things about a FREE society is that we as individuals can choose whether or not to participate in activities we agree or disagree with. It is our own personal thoughts, convictions, and morality that lead us to that end. You are free to persuade, but not to impose, your ideas upon another.
Don't like the idea of having slaves? Then don't have one.
Don’t like raping a woman? Then don’t rape one.
Don’t like stealing from your neighbor? Then don’t steal from one.
Your argument begs the question. If it is a free society, where is the choice of the free human being that is being killed, raped or deprived of the fruit of their labors? The only reason why I am against abortion is that it kills someone. You do not have a right to something if it infringes on another’s life, liberty or property. What if those babies that abortion kills don’t want to participate in being killed? HOW ABOUT WE WAIT A FEW MONTHS, LET THEM COME OUT NATURALLY, AND ASK THEM THEN? Your argument chooses the right of a child bearer‘s convenience over the life of a child. That is simply not logical, and abortion is not a right of a woman unless her own life is at risk.
Next question. ?
“It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
-Hubert H. Humphrey
|
|
your post reveals why you really do not understand the abortion issue.
Roe v. Wade made abortion legal nationwide. So, when someone tells you, you don't like abortion, don't have one, that makes sense. Your retort about slavery and rape and stealing...those are illegal things. So, no, you don't get to make them equal to a legal act. I don't care about your alleged morality (Prop 8 proponents lied about lots of things, but it seems that the lying commandment is one that is consistently violated by the expedient far right in this country).
and as far as Bristol is concerned, she is as much my concern as you think fetuses in someone else's womb are, which is none of my business, and none of yours. Had Bristol's mommy not tried to become the VP and tell the rest of us what to do with our wombs, I wouldn't care about what Bristol did with hers. MYOB, eh?
When you show me a law regarding sick people, or the elderly, that equates their status with that of a first or second trimester fetus, then we can talk. Until then, your argument is wholly without merit.
|
|
I've had 2 full term pregnancies, no others, and no abortions. I would only have an abortion in the case of a severely deformed child. It is not moral to bring someone into the world who did not ask to be born with a deformity that means that person would be in a vegetative state for their entire 'life'. My morality. Legal morality too. Not your business.
If you want abortion to be illegal, pass a constitutional amendment. |
|
The very intent of the laws we have are to legislate morality. Laws try to encapsulate right and wrong and bring with them a social ramification.
Unnecessary abortion, where there is only an inconvenience of the child bearer to save the life of a child, is wrong. I see it as taking of a human life, and therefore should be illegal. It again deprives a person of one of the three inalienable rights: life, liberty and fruits of labor.
Remember, rape and slavery were once legal as well. That did not make them morally right. However, once we all realized the infringement on the rights of others by these acts, society created laws and carried out punishments for these crimes.
I believe executing prisoners is wrong too: no government should have the power to take an unarmed, imprisoned person's life.
I am against Prop 8. NO marriage is the government's business, and all should be treated as civil unions by the state for legal processes. Let marriage be between couples and their faith, not sanctioned by politics.
Do you see the consistency of my stance? LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY: three inalienable rights. The baby's right to live trumps the child bearer’s right to not be inconvenienced by poor choices or, God forbid, a terrible situation like rape.
That is the abortion issue, the slavery issue, and any other issue: the rights of the individuals...ALL INDIVIDUALS! Do you get that a law is not set in stone...that it is drafted by humans and imperfect? What is not imperfect is the individual’s right to exist, be free and pursue their dreams. Why is this so hard to see for you, my friend?
I need to drop off. I only ask that you think about where I'm coming from...see what I am saying, and consider what I am trully concernd about. Or, dog me out and say horrible things about my wife and the daughters of some politicians. I hope for the former, and will not be surprised by the latter. |
|
your little heart out. How come, in the 36 or so years since Roe, no national legislation to pass a constitutional right to life amendment? You figured out how to attack gays and their ability to marry, why not abortion? Answer? Because you don't have the votes and never, ever will. The dirty little secret is how many abortions (just like how many divorces) happen among the holier than though. Just like the pregnancies among the abstinent teenagers in Alaska.
|
|
"Unnecessary abortion, where there is only an inconvenience of the child bearer". Do you have stats on that? How many 'inconvenient' pregnancies have been terminated? Would you consider the 'child bearer' to be seeking an abortion because she is having a baby that has no legs or arms trying to deal with an inconvenient pregnancy? How about a fetus that has resulted from an incestual rape? That abortion would be because of the inconvenience to the 'child bearer'?
"It again deprives a person of one of the three inalienable rights: life, liberty and fruits of labor." No, it doesn't. Under Roe, that first and sometimes later trimester fetus' rights are subordinate to those of the 'child bearer'.
"Remember, rape and slavery were once legal as well." Well that would make it the reverse of this situation. Abortion was once ILLEGAL and then legalized. Your analogies are with illegal acts. Bad analogies.
Pass a constitutional right to life amendment if you think a fetus' rights are equal to mine. Go for it. You won't prevail because you don't have the support. The little secret about Roe is this...as viability changes, Roe becomes a more restrictive law. Pro choice people fail to recognize that, and pro life people don't seem to understand it. Both extremes take positions for political, not social or moral reasons. Without Roe to kick around, NARAL is out of business, and Right to Life pimps who live off of contributions would have to go back to selling snake oil. |
|
|
Wouldn't finding yourself homeless without having a job and not being able to feed your kids worse? Have we on the right have lost our moral compass? Families are loosing their jobs, homes and being destroyed and we care what Planned Parenthood is doing? There is no wonder we are loosing elections. |
|
Calvin College biology professor Pete Tigchelaar has used a three-month fetus encased in plastic as an educational tool for almost three decades.
Last year, Tigchelaar was approached by a student who told him that a generation earlier her mother had been one of his students. She explained that when her mother was three months pregnant, and had scheduled an abortion for the following morning, Tigchelaar showed his students the three-month fetus encased in plastic.
After class, the young woman cancelled her abortion appointment. Eventually, she delivered a baby girl.
"I am that girl," the student informed the stunned professor. "Thanks for my life." Professor Tigchelaar was speechless.
"In this season when we celebrate the birth of someone who came to give each of us eternal life," Tigchelaar says, "I am reminded that the unwed Mary would have been the perfect candidate for a similar procedure. I am thankful that her response was, 'I am the Lord's handmaid. Be it to me as you say.'
The complete version of this story can be found at the following site: http://www.calvin.edu/news/2003-04/christmas_story.htmhttp ://voiceforlife.glorifyjesus.com/ |
|
"Jamesbondi writes: Wednesday, December, 03, 2008 6:28 PM
If life begins at conception
then let's remove every fetus from every woman and say have a nice life. Let them figure out how to grow and live."
--------------------------
You've got to be kidding. Whenever I read drivel from the left about abortion I am always stunned by their blind ideology (maybe it should be called "idiology").
If you take your comments to their logical conclusion you then should make the case that we don't need emergency rooms, hospitals, medications, etc.
No artificial help --- tough it out or die.
You, my friend, are a tool of the left and a blithering idiot. |
|
fetus is not viable without the child bearer. That is why Roe pivots on viability. The right believes that life begins at conception but ends at birth. The right does nothing to really assure that kids live decent lives...heck, they go out of their way to destroy social programs, public schools, even as far as restricting what decent people can adopt.
|
|
|
|