Posted on 11/22/2011 11:40:03 AM PST by marty60
Except for the fact that it says that how you are conceived has a bearing on who you are as a person.
It’s a lie, and a pernicious one. I’d rather defend and stand behind the truth, and bear the consequences thereof.
Look at it this way. YOU want US to compromise with the pro-aborts on this issue. How is this any different than the democrats wanting compromise with socialism?
You cannot have a ‘little bit of socialism’, ie, making sure that ‘revenue’ in the form of raised taxes, is equivalent to ‘cuts’, in the form of actually cutting programs.
See what I mean? You want to know WHY MS failed? 20 percent of those who voted to end socialism waffled when asked to stand behind the unborn child.
Why are you reaching out across the aisle on this issue, when you despise socialism and wouldn’t reach out to them there?
It’s exactly the same.
You have states where a person would no longer be a person, and states where a person would be a person.
It would be legal, fr’nstance, to kill your child in the state of New York, and illegal to kill your child in the state of Pennsylvania.
How is this different from slavery below the mason-dixon line? You have an arbitratry geographical distinction defining the definition of a person. A line carved and stained in blood.
Hey, I’m all in favour of Calhoun and nullification, but personhood is one space where the feds have say.
“We believe these truths to be self-evident”, that all men are CREATED equal. Not born equal, CREATED equal, and are bestowed by their CREATOR, (not the government), certain inalienable rights, to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The state can no more deprive a person of these rights than the feds can deprive a person of these rights.
I’m not sure what the heck you’re talking about.
I’m talking about doing something to reduce abortion.
The vote in Mississippi illustrated that the ‘personhood’ idea won’t fly.
Rape, incest are a minute percentage of the abortions in this country.
I would be very happy to have a bill that banned abortion with those two exceptions.
If you would rather be a purist and have no bill at all, I guess that’s your idea of progress on this matter.
“I’m not sure what the heck you’re talking about.”
It’s simple.
1. The unborn child is a person.
2. Abortion kills an unborn child.
3. Therefore abortion, in all cases, is wrong.
“I’m talking about doing something to reduce abortion.”
You’ve lost the first premise. The first premise is that the unborn child IS a person. This is WHY abortion is wrong. If we argue that abortion is ok in some but not in other instances, then we’ve essentially said that it’s not about personhood.
“The vote in Mississippi illustrated that the ‘personhood’ idea won’t fly.”
False premises lead to bad conclusions. 42 percent voted in favour of the personhood bill. Had all the folks who voted against socialism stood with us, then yes, the bill would have passed. I’m confident that this bill will successfully pass, but we have some work to do to convince people that this is the way to go.
“Rape, incest are a minute percentage of the abortions in this country.”
Yes, but the problem is that you are denying that the unborn child is a person. This is an ‘attractive’ option only to politicians who value compromise over truth.
The truth of the matter is there is nothing different between an unborn child conceived in rape or incest, and an unborn child conceived otherwise.
Planned parenthood states, very clearly, that they believe that every child should be wanted. How are you going to combat this attitude that it is ok to kill your child if the child is unwanted, if we are arguing that rape and incest are good reasons to kill your child?
“If you would rather be a purist and have no bill at all, I guess that’s your idea of progress on this matter.”
Show me where a bill like yours has succeeded anywhere. Perry didn’t pass one in TX. So why is your idea ‘viable?’
I quoted what he said, and it had nothing to do with adoption.
If you are going to keep insisting that he said “adoption”, or spoke about adoption, you are going to have to find an actual link to an actual quote.
You can’t just make up what the candidate said, and then attack people for not agreeing with your fantasy.
On the issue of adoption and “forcing women to raise kids”, maybe we are just talking past each other. Since we are discussing a national campaign and a serious conversation with a journalist, that is the context in which I am speaking.
I have no doubt that there are idiots out there who try to argue that pro-lifers want to force women to raise kids they don’t want. You can find blogs on that subject. I’m sure I’ve had people say that to me.
But NOT IN the serious dialog about the subject. As I said, if Piers was really being stupid, Cain should have slapped him down on that, which Cain didn’t. That’s what I would do, because it’s a joke.
There are NO proposals anywhere to force women to raise kids. EVERY state has safe haven laws to allow any woman to give up their child for any reason without consequence. There is NO DEBATE on that subject, no reason to ask that question of a serious candidate for office.
Anyway, I certainly think Cain is sufficiently pro-life. And I hope your work in the field is and will continue to bear fruit.
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.