Posted on 02/04/2019 7:10:46 AM PST by Rummyfan
A better means would be to not lay with a man if you don't want to become pregnant.
...To its inevitable conclusion. What did this Smith character think was going to happen?
Libertarian. What a load a feces.
It’s not only her body.
One wonders how many abortions Cuomo has personally paid for.
With a mug like that I’m surprised any woman would come near him. But wasn’t he married to a Kennedy for a while?
“ supporter of a woman’s natural right to control her own body, by means of an abortion, if necessary.“
Libertarian or not, religious or not, it is not a matter of woman’s own body. The fact is that once the person is conceived he or she is a person attached to the mother.
The baby is not the mother’s body. The baby is a distinct human individual, being nourished by the mother’s body.
Boycotting New York products will not change anything. No one will notice. I don’t care where my coffee comes from.
The government has as its main function to protect the life and property of residents. Libertarians accept that fact.
The morality of killing babies has nothing to do with religion. It comes from our human nature. Most religions today have no clue what is meant by human nature, and would not understand what I’m saying.
Such a specious and immoral argument. The baby is not the woman's body. At conception it is 50% mother's DNA and 50% father's DNA. After 8 days it has it's own blood supply.
The baby is no more part of the woman than a person on life support is a part of the hospital.
IL Douchebag is destroying New York!
As a libertarian (who places natural individual rights above the power of the State), actively permitting the killing a human being while it is most vulnerable is the most criminal misuse of state power that can exist.
The author explains precisely why abortion is such a slippery slope. He is ok with abortion up to six months. But fifty years of that has desensitized and inured people to the horror of that mass killing, it’s a small step to what NY and VA are doing.
Of course, it cannot be contained there. Next will be parents deciding that infant’s some abnormality is bad. Then it will be because the child is “inconvenient” to “too expensive” or “we changed our mind.” Then it will be elderly people against their will. Finally, it will be “Wild in the Streets.”
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
The foetus is truly human from the moment of conception, when egg and sperm unite to create a being will the full complement of human DNA.
That is science. But science has no moral significance, so to understand its implications for our values we must look elsewhere. Perhaps here:
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt xxv:40)
Doesn’t the author mean the murderous democrat politicians?
JoMa
Exactly. The natural right to control your own body is preceded by the natural DUTY to control your own body. If women controlled their own bodies, 99% of unwanted pregnancies would not occur. (I'm exaggertedly claiming that only 1% of pregnancies are due to forcible rape. Even Alan Guttmacher would agree it's less than that.)
"If you don't want to make a baby, don't do the baby-making thing."
"Control your own body. A pre-conception right." How about those as slogans for Libertarians for Life?
That will incline you to the logical conclusion that either it's OK to kill our offspring until age 25 (because before that, the brain is still developing) -- or wrong to kill your offspring after Day One (because after that,the brain, like every other physiological structure of the body, is developing.) Eventually, our principled Libertarian is going to have to choose all or nothing.
I hope he doesn't end up on the side of mass murder.
P.S. I teach my Catholic RCIA students the basis of Natural Law.
The one flaw in that reasoning is that the baby that the woman is pregnant with, is not *her own body*. It's not an extension of her body, as if it were a mole or tumor being removed.
It's a genetically distinct human being with its own DNA.
Hence, her actions affect not only her body, but the body or another individual, one who CANNOT speak for themselves or defend themselves.
THAT is the issue with that argument. If it were indeed ONLY her body, no problem, but it's involving two.
And intentionally taking the life of another human being is murder.
If any person killed another in the same way the abortionists slaughter those babies, there would be calls for a return of the death penalty.
Acid attacks are universally condemned, but saline abortions? Fine.
Dismembering a person still alive would get someone locked up for life at the very least. Slicing the baby apart limb from limb, is a *woman's right to choose*.
Any murder done to an adult in the manner the abortionist performs the abortions would be considered sick and evil, and twisted.
The irony is, we demand the death penalty be humane and not cruel and unusual for serial killers and sadists, rapists and people who torture and kill others, but the baby, who has done nothing, can be killed in the most horrific manner possible.
The baby didn't even ask to be conceived. It just has the misfortune of being an inconvenience to the woman and she's given the right to do to that baby what no sane human would ever think of doing to another.
The best bumper sticker I saw said *It's easy to be pro-abortion when you're not the one being killed*.
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.