Posted on 07/03/2013 5:00:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yes, that’s the easiest way to circumvent the argument politically. Just say “Well, I don’t like to deal in hypotheticals. When someone proposes a law banning all abortions except for rape and incest, then I’ll gladly give you my opinion on that law.”
Re: There should be no exceptions, the baby did nothing wrong, why should little him or her be the one to die? Kill the rapist if you need to kill anyone, for the baby did nothing wrong.
Agree. Is it ever just to punish the child of a rapist instead of the rapist? In the case of a child conceived by the criminal act of rape, why should the child receive the death penalty? He or she is an innocent victim.
Time to deconstruct the ravings of this author’s article premises.
Firstly, the ProfessorPerson is advocating motherhood without a committed, reliable two parent family to support the child to be.
Secondly, PerfessorPerson avoids the issue of who pays for the child. By advocating for single parent child raising, he either condemns the mother and child to a probable life of of everything or he expects to have Big Gubment AgencyPersons provide for the bastard and its mother from money earned by others who may not agree with his views.
AdacementedPerson clearly is unaware of an idea, central to a historic American thought once widely accepted by intellects far greater than his, that to force a man to support through the power of government that which he opposed was tyranny.
Folks loosely called “Founders” held that thought. Do the same for a moment, please.
Note that a chiuld who becomes a “welfare client” costs US TAXPAYERS umpteen hundred kilobucks - our money, not money provided by the anti-abortion faction or the academented faction.
Secondly, may I suggest rremembering the warning that factions carry the power to destroy the Republic?
Let the mother to be make the decision without any government intervention using money from the taxpayers.
Then, and only then, can the intrusive 800 pound AgencyApeman position be countered.
Until the anti-abortion groups realize they are arguing against their own money, taken from then by teh pro-abortion government, they are undertaking a fool’s errand.
Keep the government inside the carefully crafted bounds of the Constitution!
My apologies to all - my fickle fingers of fumble struch again.
“Secondly, PerfessorPerson avoids the issue of who pays for the child. By advocating for single parent child raising, he either condemns the mother and child to a probable life of of everything or he expects to have Big Gubment AgencyPersons provide”
should have had a ‘less’ inserted between ‘of of’ to read:
“Secondly, PerfessorPerson avoids the issue of who pays for the child. By advocating for single parent child raising, he either condemns the mother and child to a probable life of less of everything or he expects to have Big Gubment AgencyPersons provide ...”
Bad, BAD fingers!
Wow, this was so valuable. I’m going to just memorize this. I do some volunteer work near an abortion mill at times, and I live in a very liberal area. These arguments are so simple and logical, they could be immensely helpful, especially with the mistaken “compassion” of the misguided young who haven’t thought things out.
Ummm...but aren’t our tax dollars being used to fund abortion now?
Mutterings about who pays money for what are a distraction and the province of lawyers.
A woman or a man should not be allowed to kill off a baby, for any reason, saving that such baby will kill the woman by complication if brought to term, and the woman so chooses.
Life is not about money or comfort. The blessings of life, and liberty, and all the other God given rights are inherent in man, irrespective, because all men are created equal.
Besides, unrestricted access to abortion has produced more, not less, single parent households.
I guess you missed this part of ProfessorPersons dialogue:
Me: Well, you haven’t convinced me that the pregnant woman really benefits. The abortion doesn’t solve the problem. She suffers terribly regardless. But when those conceived in rape are aborted there are multiple tragedies. One human is deprived of life, one adoptive couple loses a child, and others are deprived of ever knowing the innocent child who would have had a long life and formed many friendships. I think that the weight of the evidence is against the abortion. I just cannot see who really benefits from the abortion.
Excellent article.
It’s not your fingers that are “bad”.
Very well said
Excellent reply to the poster
I guess he doesn’t like it that Dr Adams is very much pro life
The ongoing American legalized slaughter of the unborn has long since eclipsed Hitler's slaughter of the untermenchen, Stalin's slaughter of the kulaks, and Mao's slaughter of "intellectuals".
You're aware of that, right?
This is one of the best articles by Mike Adams that I have ever read. I feel like I am watching him talk to the young college student, very compassionately.
Thanks for posting his stuff every week.
Evidently not, I’m sorry to say.
For every argument by analogy, there is usually an equally compelling analogy from the other side. Analogous arguments get nowhere because both sides can sit there and make counter analogies all day long. Case in point, abortion in the case of rape is an analogy from the pro-murder-children-in-the-womb crowd.
Pro-life should be about the “willful disregard” for human life by using abortion as a method of birth control. “Culling” has its own set of arguments.
Start aborting babies because they have the so-called “gay gene” and let the hilarity from the left ensue.
No, it would undermine any moral position you had as you become a willful murderer.
Pro-life should be about the “willful disregard” for human life by using abortion as a method of birth control. “Culling” has its own set of arguments.
And that itself has an emotional aspect. (I didn't advocate ONLY appeal to emotion. I said that most effective discussion [read: argument] has appeal to ethos, logos and pathos.)
For every argument by analogy, there is usually an equally compelling analogy from the other side. Analogous arguments get nowhere because both sides can sit there and make counter analogies all day long. Case in point, abortion in the case of rape is an analogy from the pro-murder-children-in-the-womb crowd.
I didn't give any argument by analogy. Moreover, only a fool would say that argument by analogy is useless.
If you have ever watched a woman carry and deliver a child, note the “deliver a child”, how an you want to force a woman to undergo that if she:
1. Does not want to carry and deliver the child she was forced to conceive.
2. Does not have a husband ready and willing to be a supportive and caring father for the child, not to mention a husband to her.
I am well aware of the toll of abortion being used as a substitute for birth control.
That was not what I was addressing.
Allowing government into the decision of whether or not a woman carries a child or not is a mistake.
Allowing government the power to tax those who are opposed to abortion in order to raise funds to pay for abortion is a tyranny which the Founders fought against and thought they had won. “A republic, if you can keep it”, said Franklin.
When Big Gubment is no longer allowed to tax all to support the Dr. Gosnell’s of America and their abortion mills, then America, teh Constitution, and many babies will be safer.
Some things are not to be managed by government. Leave abortion to the woman, AND STOP TAXING ME TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS _ YA LISTENING IN, AGENCYPERSONS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.