Posted on 11/09/2004 8:23:53 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
Edited on 11/09/2004 8:39:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
You need to take that up with MonaMars. According to post #152, MonaMars is amazed "to no end how many people out there think that every woman who takes birth control pills is taking them just so she can go f*#@ the football team."
Funny. You know "zilch, zip, zero". MonaMars is amazed to no end.
Me? I simply commented on it. So get off my case.
Why are you so quick to jump on other posters for holding essentially the same views?
Exodus 21:22
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Is birth control murder to you?
My opposition to abortion has zero to do with a religion based value system. Nothing at all.
...is the basis of all law and government.
I thought the basis of government was the protection of rights. That Jefferson, what a silly goose he was.
Abortion is murder.
The protection of rights is a value judgment.
The point of contention is that he refused to give her prescription back to her so she could go elsewhere to fill it. That he had no right to do.
In some states, maybe most, you can enter into a union with another that permits you the status of "next of kin." As next of kin you can make certain decisions regarding medical treatment, hospital visitation and other stuff.
I still posses no "civil rights" that they do not.
Abortion being murder is not what seems to be evident in that passage. That passage would indicate that the author of Exodus believed that an aborted pregnancy was a tragedy and not a murder.
Inferring more from it, the person who "caused" the event was penalized. In other words the passage is not seeming to be discussing a miscarriage, rather an event caused by someone!
I am not so eloquent that I can adequately debate with all of the FReepers here. I just think that certain things are worth considering when engaging in arguments.
I personally find abortion to be a most troublesome subject, and I have long preferred to not discuss the matter. I will not post again on this thread.
""Abortion clinics are in business to kill unborn babies, pharmacies are in business to heal the sick. Two different missions, no?"
Actually, they are both in their respective businesses for the money!"
I was quoting another poster. I didn't write that. But I get your point nonetheless
Hit and run posts are for people who know in their heart that they are wrong.
I have to go anyway. I hope you aren't emotionally covering for a loved one who has murdered their own child. I hope that's not why you are "troubled" by it.
The protection of rights is the stated purpose of government according to our founding documents. If you consider that a value judgment your position is logically consistent.
There are those whose sex is indeterminate. Do they enjoy the same right? What about those who want to enter a union with them?
True...
And again this may be a problem...
And I notice no one has responded to your posting fetal brain development.
It's easier to FEEL that it's wrong than respond to facts.
agreed.
It's research. I've seen other research that reaches other conclusions.
There is no clear consensus on when a fetus is a person, not even scientifically.
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.