Posted on 08/25/2008 6:52:09 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady
Because I am addicted to arguing, I sometimes stray from Free Republic to go lock horns with liberals in their haunts. I don't go to DU, they delete you the minute they sense your shadow casting its blue shade across their tofu. I go to IMDb, where everyone roams free.
The Obamites hold forth endlessly about how Bush has crippled women's sexual freedom. Any restriction on abortion, you see, cripples women's sexual freedom. How can anyone get laid if you can't have RU-486 via drive-thru?
Now, I'm not really particularly interested in the abortion issue. I used to care, and was adamantly pro-choice (I never wanted children.) Now I'm older and don't really have a dog in this fight anymore, so to speak. But my years at FR have brought me to at least understand the pro-life side of the aisle, and I often argue it against liberals more out of a restless desire to irritate them than any sincere concern.
But today I got a little jolt. I posted this thread in the Politics forum at IMDb:
Would you agree to outlaw abortion if a procedure could be perfected that would extract an embryo, alive, at four months, and allow it to grow to term in an incubator and be put up for adoption with no further claims on or problems for the mother? The procedure (in this hypothetical situation) would be no more painful or expensive than an abortion. The only difference in outcome would be that the baby lives.
Unless some vastly different answers have been added in the last 15 minutes, the immediate consensus was "NO." No, who would pay for it? NO, who would adopt all these babies? NO, what if you don't want your offspring running around... alive.
Other than one who groused about a woman having to carry a tiny fetus a few extra weeks to get to the 4-month mark, none of the objections had anything to do with a woman's sexual freedom.
It's about money, and control. It's about having the power to kill.
I just didn't know this about the pro-choice side. They SAID it was about sexual freedom.
But their objections had little to do with sex.
No choice for the child.
No choice for the father.
Doesn’t seem pro choice.
You’re absolutely correct.
It’s about selfish control.
And government sanctioned murder.
I know!! That’s what’s bizarre. This is the only time in the history of the world they’ll snarl “Who’s going to pay to take care of these babies!” Try using that argument about immigration and they act like you just peed on the floor of the Guggenheim.
How long before the pro-abortion crowd starts seeing cases like these as just really, really late term abortions?
I hate to say it, but you are naive if you don't think that has already been discussed at length within the pro-death community. Please read up on Peter Singer, who is (or maybe was by now) the ethics chair at Princeton. He believes that killing a child under the age of 2 is less ethically wrong than killing a full grown dog.
Now, that's not true. Someone directly compared a fetus to a tapeworm. That's considerable respect, as far as these people are concerned.
/sarc
What they won't realize until it's too late is that what they avoided is motherhood of a live baby. They are still mothers but tragically their baby is dead by their own hand.
However, be assured that I am not totally naive nor surprised at all that this has been discussed, even at high levels of academia. As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun.
Just a quick scan of his Wikipedia entry sent my moonbat detector into overdrive.
Here's a nugget:
"Singer stated that 'mutually satisfying activities' of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer explains Dekker's belief that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as 'cruelty', but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror."
You are so right.
The severest judgments against Israel came about as a result of their worship of Molech.
Christian marriage isn’t just about “families”, it’s about limiting sex.
Christianism needs people to hate this world, so that they desire the better one they offer in afterlife. That’s why christianism is so often against human achievements, science, ambition, greatness — its radical escapism is also the ultimate nihilism.
Christianism is not against homosexuals per si, it’s against recreational sex — even worse, it’s against recreation. Earthly pleasure is antichristian, being happy without god is antichristian. They fear homosexual marriage because, in their minds, it’s all about sensual delight, and they can’t allow society to legitimize people to enjoy life. That’s also why they suddenly turned against abortion in modern times — in their minds, letting women abort would be a way of incentive sex.
I’m glad you have seen the truth about liberal doctine about abortion. Now, I would like to know, after hearing that from liberals, would you openly, avidly, and without second thought, support the pro-life cause and any pro-life groups in your area? If so, congratulations, you are no a moral conservative on the issue on abortion.
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.