Posted on 08/15/2004 9:59:17 PM PDT by Coleus
Nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge that women are murdered by their husbands -- who are we to prevent a woman from killing her husband before he kills her?
There is nonesuch statistics that you so blatantly flaunt as fact. Please post actual statistics from MEDICAL JOURNALS and not Abortion Rights websites. Your disdain for life of unborn BABIES resulted in the drastic decrease in the reverence for life. Mass murder in schools, drive-by shootings, Husband killing wives, wives killing husband are just a tiny manifestation of your love of self so much that you are willing to snuff out the life of an unborn baby because the baby will cramp your style if you "allow" the baby to be born. It is because of the ultimate "SELFISHNESS OF SELF" that abortions abound in the world today. It has nothing to do with the mother's health. If all abortions were performed for the health of the mother, we would have very few mothers in the world today. Your so called statistics are skewed to give you the excuse, without having to feel guilt, your disdain for ANYTHING that will "cramp your style of living", even if you have to snuff out the opportunity for a life to experience life at all.
wow
THE PING!Hi SmartA, I've read other stories like this one and can't imagine how the nurses and doctors are able to deal with it!
Inre post 96. Excellent, well thoughtout and documented. I hope it opens a few eyes although we both know numbsuch, or whatever, will never understand the difference between good and evil.
THE PING!As someone who's ardently pro-life, I do not value the life of the mother over the child, or vice versa, they are equally important.Actually, what I am saying is pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Being pregnant, carrying to term, is a risky thing to do -- much more of a risk than a first trimester abortion.But your argument is based on a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that in cases where the pregnancy is actually threatening the life of the mother, that she be prevented from seeking treatment that might end in the death of her child, or failing that to abort the child.
But to argue that because some pregnancies can cause harm to the mother, therefore all abortions should be allowed based on that presumption of this potential risk, is ridiculous. It's as absurd as saying that because some men beat up their wives, therefore all wives should be able to kill their husband on the argument that the are committing self defense from this potential harm. No, the husband must pose an actual harm.Personally, I see it more as saying that because some men beat up their wives, all wives should be able to obtain a quick no-fault divorce, not forced to stay with their (possibly abusive) husband until he proves he is a threat.
Fundamentally, this is the "dying violinist" argument.
You analogy is still flawed, since a divorce doesn't actually do anything to prevent the harm to the woman. A lot of woman are harmed or killed precisely because they ask for a divorce. (In fact just recently somebody close to me who wanted a divorce had to deal with the situation of her normally seeming husband waving his handgun around upon hearing that she wished for a divorce) So to avert the potential danger of a husband going berserk when told the wife wanting a divorce, by your logic of her preempting the danger of pregnancy by killing the baby, would be that she should preemptly kill her husband.
Yet reading some of the posts above, I get the feeling that some FReepers would value the life of the baby above that of the mother? Where did you see that?Have we been reading the same responses?
This looks like a canned response frankly, to an abortion thread.Canned? No, everything except the (clearly marked) quote was composed on the fly. I've been avoiding abortion threads, too many extremists on both sides, driven purely by emotion. For example, the strong emotions th "Tiny Tim" story was calculated to evoke.
This was an incredibly touching story that gave a name, a life and a personality to just one of the millions of Americans whose life is permitted to be terminated because it's inconvenient and because the abortionist lobby has managed to de-personify them.Yes, an incredibly touching story which brings all of the "terminate the abortionists" wackos out of the woodwork:
Various parties wrote:
...we should ZOT those abortionists.... ...We should take the same view of abortionists as they do of babys... ...Sounds about right to me. But remember, we don't start the civil war, they do... ...They've already started it...many are probably just biding the time, finalizing all preps and making notes... ...Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so... ...You, sir, are a liberal tool who defends murder with your lame-assed excuses... ...What is it like to know that a Planned Parenthood extermination camp exists in your town?... ...Abortion is - literally - a Satanic sacrament... ...this doctor of death did late term abortions, so an assisting demon... ...Your disdain for life of unborn BABIES resulted in the drastic decrease in the reverence for life. Mass murder in schools, drive-by shootings, Husband killing wives, wives killing husband are just a tiny manifestation of your love of self so much that you are willing to snuff out the life of an unborn baby because the baby will cramp your style...
The pro-choice argument often pretends that the helath of the mother is their concern, but they wouldn't be okay with banning abortion even where the health of the mother was not at issue, so I never see the point in having the argument.Except that I am not your generic pro-choice liberal, I'm just a guy with conservative views who happens not to be a Christian, and who has temporarily forgotten the first rule of FR debate -- When somebody doesn't agree with you, has a different opinion arrived at from a different point of view, the best response is to just lash out with personal attacks, rather than making an attempt to sway their opinion with something other than bible verses.
(To the three adults in this thread who didn't stoop to that level, Truthsearcher, Lexinom and Coleus, please ignore the preceding paragraph.)
To the rest of the participants in this thread, thanks for giving me a clear demonstration of how only a certain subset of Christian Conservatives is welcome on Free Republic; all others can (will) go to hell, and will be reminded of that fact at every opportunity.
I didn't realize he'd committed suicide.
Though it's hard to understand why more don't.
Thank you, God Bless.
I'd be interested to know why you feel it's an either-or proposition (the baby or the mother) in all cases, or at least why you apply this rationale to pro-lifers.
Let me get this right... you think that quoting Bible verses is "stooping down", right? I feel sorry for you. Liberals have been ignoring facts since the beginning of the abortion debate and you cannot understand if we try a different approach? I'll give you some facts: the unborn baby is a unique human being, different from his or her mother and alive by all definitions. I make this statement as a Ph.D. in Biology. Now, murdering a human being is a sin, and I say that as a Christian. Hey, I can be both, can't I? No matter what excuse you come up with, abortion murders an innocent human being and therefore is wrong. Be thankful to be in a forum where people will quote the Bible to you... maybe something will stick and make a difference in your life.
As I read it(choking up),I kept thinking back to when my two children were born and the totally opposite emotions that where going thru me at that time.Life is an incredible thing when you give it a chance......I see it every day with my two.
OTOH, I absolutely agree that as the fetus comes closer to being a viable person, the state's interest in the second life grows
In one paragraph, you say that the state shouldn’t interfere, then in the next, you say, essentially, that the state should. What the argument boils down to, is when does the fetus become something deserving of the protection of the state. Is this time at conception? Birth? Sometime in between? If, as a non-religious person, you say birth, then abortion is obviously easy to defend, as no one is harmed. The problem comes, though, in the fact that no one really believes that one has to be born to have state protected rights. You, yourself, said that as the pregnancy continues, the state’s interest in the second life grows. You have the Laci/Conner law.
Since we agree that the growing fetus is a life and deserving of protection by the state at some point during pregnancy, we must infer that such protection also includes protection from the mother, if the mother intends to do harm to the growing baby. One is not excluded from responsibility simply because the victim is dependant upon one for his continued existence. We punish child abusers, people guilty of neglect, incompetent nursing home workers.
Therefore, the argument comes down to when, during the pregnancy does that life deserve protection. We could say 3 months is a good number. We could say that when the average fetus develops a heartbeat or brain activity. We could use the earliest that a child has survived outside the womb. All of these are arbitrary time frames that use arbitrary definitions of life. The only true scientific definition would have to be when the developing fetus has its own separate DNA and begins cell division. At that point, it is a separate and discernable life. In other words, at conception.
In conclusion, since a separate life begins at conception, the state has the responsibility for its laws to extend to it. Being the only one capable of allowing that life to continue does not excuse one from the responsibility of bringing purposeful harm or death to that life.
I understand exactly what you are saying. I am looking at my greatgranddaughter (8 months old) and realize how much pleasure I am getting from having her here each day. I cannot comprehend the void caused by 43,000,000 abortions, How many of these "pieces of tissue" would have brought joy to childless couples waiting in vain for a child to adopt?
I know I am rambling and "preaching to the choir" to most of the posters on this thread but I had to express my feelings. Thanks for your comments.
Bump for life
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.