Posted on 03/01/2005 7:09:47 PM PST by Rakkasan1
Sue Rockne was a fighter.
At the Minnesota state Capitol, she fought for women's rights, abortion access and safety for battered women. As a Democratic activist, she fought for and with the party and served as a 12-year Democratic National Committee member and five-time delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
And for 13 years she fought leukemia, a cancer that kills many of its victims quickly. She challenged it with the aid of a little red scooter that zoomed her around the Capitol halls and helped her travel across all seven continents in the past decade.
On Saturday, she succumbed to complications from the disease. She was 70.
"She went fast, which is a blessing for her," said her daughter, Lauri Rockne of St. Paul.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Choice only applies to those who have that capacity and possibility.
The difference here is that you seem to think that human life is so important that we should degrade its quality by limiting freedom. I think that life consists of much more than this human experience and that freedom is an essential element in progressing to that realization. Quality of life is more important than the quantity of human beings on this earth. For more on this see my last post.
It was her choice to have sex with the boy before it was clear that they would be life partners (usually indicated by marriage).
A dead baby and a broken-hearted teenager are the result of the "choice." Note that is was not HER choice, but his and his parents'.
Most people define a baby as existing outside the body of the mother.
Did she not consent to the abortion? Who took away her free will?
Which is more desirable, a broken-hearted teenager or a teenager unprepared for the responsibility of motherhood and doomed to the likelihood of poverty and unhappiness for all or most of her life, inflicting the same on her offspring? See my last posts regarding quality of life.
No, I don't believe abortion is murder. There is a substantial difference between a developing human being inside a woman's womb and a growing baby existing in the environment which we all share. There are also substantial differences between born human beings at different points of development and different standards apply in those cases (ie. 21 to kill yourself and others by drinking alcohol).
If you truly believe that abortion is murder, you should be preparing for another civil war to force your views on everyone. That should be good for a substantial quantity of dead adults and already born children.
I expected as much. Nice talking to you.
The actual threat here is that the opportunity to experience human existence (most likely under less than desirable conditions) is denied - maybe permanently or maybe not.
It is my belief that life consists of much more than we here in this human experience can ever imagine. Human birth and death do NOT encompass all of God's creation. What seems important is to experience the best QUALITY of life as possible and constantly try to progress towards our original creation in the image and likeness of God. An unlimited quantity of human beings on this earth, likely living a poor quality of life, does not seem to lead to that goal.
"Who put you or the government in charge of determining whether or not a woman must involuntarily experience the most consequential activity she will ever face - the development of a potential human being inside her body for 9 months and then endure a process which few modern women now endure without pain killing drugs. "
Who put the woman or anyone else in charge of determining whether or not a baby must involuntarily experience the most consequential activity he/she will ever face - death.
When I was inside my mom's womb, it was me, not herself inside. And because it was me, she had NO right to take life from me. And because a non born baby can' defend her/himself, as they can't speak, they need other mature adults from the outside to defend their rights.
False dichotomy. Ever heard of adoption?
Well Damn...70 aint that fricken fast! But at least she is GONE.
Ah, I see. It's not killing, it's just "denying the opportunity to experience human existence (most likely under less than desirable conditions)".
A wise man once said 'opinions are like a$$holes.' And hey me and you both got one for what it's worth.
Funny how all you folks that support abortion on demand are born already. Just think if your mom would have chosen to exercise her government given right to terminate you (had it been legal back then), we wouldn't be haven't this discussion.
Yes, it was her choice to have sex with the boy. A baby was killed as a result.
Most people define a baby as existing outside the body of the mother.
That a "fetus" is a baby is scientific fact. Most pro-choicers would agree with you. Science does not.
Did she not consent to the abortion? Who took away her free will?
She consented under duress because she thought that it was the only way to keep the relationship with the boy. His parents forbade him from seeing her unless she went through with the abortion. It's called COERSION.
Which is more desirable, a broken-hearted teenager or a teenager unprepared for the responsibility of motherhood and doomed to the likelihood of poverty and unhappiness for all or most of her life, inflicting the same on her offspring?
Those are the incoherent ramblings of an insane person. I suppose killing a baby just makes it all better?
Your position as stated above is lunacy.
See my last posts regarding quality of life.
"Quality of life" is another mindless euphamism which is void of meaning.
And freedom to kill your sister of your uncle if they are inconvenient to your quality of 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.