Posted on 12/26/2014 5:55:55 PM PST by Morgana
No those things are not gone, just shoved down our throats. Now this judge wants to shove incest down our throats by allowing an incest victim to undergo an abortion in order to cover it up. Well incest of an underage child is still rape. Incest between two adults is still perverted.
o.O
No? They want much broader leeway in order to make abortion available at all times to all people??
Then what's the point of bringing up incest -- unless you're just shamelessly manipulating weak-minded fools?
Can’t fault his logic. The libertines should eat the crow.
It really IS the (ill) logical conclusion
San Francisco isn't the problem ... it's the planet
Jesus can't be too far away
He mowed our lawn last week.
It certainly is good logic that if same-sex activity is considered a right, then so should consensual incest and polygamy.
I don’t know the stats on incest. Really. I do know that abortion is used to cover it up. Was a case in Huntington, West Virginia where a father and mother took their daughter to Charleston for an abortion. Come to find out the father was one who got her pregnant. CPS later got involved but no thanks to the abortion clinic. Not sure how CPS found out but they did and it made the news. I know I posted it here. Sick case.
Not funny, FRiend.
Of course you could pass a different variation of the law to state that the aggressor in incest rape shall be put to death and the victim and any child will live.
This opinion is all over the place, with incest under and over the age of consent, abortion, same-sex, pedophilia, and who knows what else being brought in.
The sex positive agenda seeks to “normalize” (end all moral judgments regarding) ALL sexual pairings.
Now we’re talk’in. Preach it Bro. ;-)
Logic needs a viable premise to stand on.
Yup..just slidin’ down the slippery slope...
Once its OK to dismember babies, well...everything else is a short ride
Ping.
Sad.
The judge’s convoluted rationalizations are nauseating.
Because a young child is raped, they have had a “sexual awakening” is nonsense. That they are later able to have sex voluntarily with others does not negate the physical or emotional damage that took place. Even worse, to say that they suffered no harm because later they agreed to incestuous sex is just repulsive. It could justifiably be called “Stockholm syndrome”.
An analogy is that this judge is sent to prison, where he is raped repeatedly by violent criminals. After he is released from prison, the criminals look him up, and he is so emotionally subjugated to them he voluntarily agrees to be raped by them some more. The judge has had his “sexual awakening.” The courts find that he is now legally a homosexual, so cannot be raped by other homosexuals. Maybe with the logic that he can keep them out with a cork.
“The judge’s convoluted rationalizations are nauseating.”
You ain’t just whistling Dixie! Lucky for me I already threw up my egg nogg with what I posted last night.
I think they’ve succeeded. There is no moral standard being offered today other than “consenting,” and “consent” is defined to include “too drunk to stop it if you wanted to.”
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.