Posted on 03/01/2005 7:09:47 PM PST by Rakkasan1
Except in the rare case of rape or incest the woman makes that decision when she decides to have unprotected sex. There are many ways to enjoy the fruits of physical pleasure without producing a new life. If you decide to not avail yourself of those means then you have given up your right to flush your mistake down the tubes. It's called personal responsibility something sorely lacking in todays it's all about me if it feels good do it world.
I don't know your background or experiences so I have to assume you really believe what you are writing and that is sad. I have never met a woman who was pregnant who didn't talk about her baby in the present tense. Then there are such terms as 'baby showers', 'being with child', baby on board t-shirts etc. Notice none of those use the term fetus but rather baby. That is because every thinking person knows that an expectant mother is carrying a baby not some non-descript fetus. The term fetus may be medically correct, but is socially uncommon and awkward and used only by those trying to dehumanize the unborn child. I feel very sorry for people like you who feel only those children that can be born into a "high quality of life" with great innate potential for happiness should be allowed to live. Who annointed you G*d and gave you the right to determine who over a long lifetime will enjoy a productive and useful life.
How can anyone be sure that a mother who chooses to murder some of her children through abortion, won't decide she made a mistake allowing any to live and just murder the others? Get that!
Sorry, but you're wrong on that score too. When you were alive in the womb (pre-Roe v Wade) the law prevented your mom from terminating you. It was your mom's choice to get pregnant.
How can we be sure a mother who wants an abortion but is prevented from getting one won't murder the kids later?
We can't be sure of s---.
I'm of the opinion that our society could criminalize abortions without a huge cost to women if we included a few protections for pregnant women:
1) they would always be allowed to give up their child upon birth, no matter what
2) they could not be penalized by their school/work/the gov't for taking time off to have the child (we would have to recognize the hardship inherent in being pregnant, and possibly even pay women to carry their children, if we're going to prevent them from having abortions and make them criminally liable for harming the fetuses, for example by alcohol abuse)
3) it might make sense to allow abortions in limited circumstances (such as for drug addicts who would not be clean during the pregnancy), but then we could demand those women go on birth control to prevent future pregnancies until they clean themselves up. It would just be too much work to try to prevent an alcoholic woman from drinking during her pregnancy if she didn't even want to be pregnant.
4) no exceptions for rape/incest. Allowing that would only encourage women to make false claims. And the children in question are still human; it's not their fault who their parents are or how they were conceived.
We would still have to recognize the possibility that women would deliberately miscarry. This is the biggest threat. If women are going to have abortions anyway, perhaps that is the best reason to keep abortion legal. Society is not going to be perfect no matter what, and it's not government's job to make it that way.
There is also the issue of whether women should have the right to decide whether any of their children will come into the world. People feel strong responsibilities to their children. Not having any control over a child would probably make a woman feel very bad (this could be balanced if she was happy it was adopted away to a loving family, but it's not always going to be this way)
There is also the argument that legal abortion is good for society. Crime goes down when abortion goes up. When women are allowed to choose when to have their children, they're less likely to raise criminal bastards. I don't think this is a moral argument for allowing the killing of children ("sorry, jr., but you're 25% more likely to become a felon, so you have to die"), but it certainly is a practical reason.
You are certainly the one who is sorry.
Abortion might have been illegal, but it was still available on the black market. The government did not "prevent" her from having an abortion, it discouraged her with threats of criminal punishment (which probably weren't enforced all that often anyways).
By your logic, the government "prevents" teenagers from getting drunk--but at least tens of thousands of teenagers are probably drunk in America at any given time.
Did she involuntarily spread her legs?
Just asking.
L
I don't believe I've ever had to resort to a personal attack when I disagreed with someone's opinion.
Sorry, but--no wait, I really am sorry. I shouldn't have been rude like that.
Click on my name at the bottom of the post - everyone has the option to offer a bio.
I have never met a woman who was pregnant who didn't talk about her baby in the present tense.
These are clearly women who want to have a baby and therefore are not concerned with choosing an abortion.
every thinking person knows that an expectant mother is carrying a baby not some non-descript fetus.
I disagree. There are many - maybe a majority - of people who make the distinction between a developing, potential human being and a baby which by most definitions has been through the process of birth. There are many stages in the process of developing and experiencing human life: conception, gestation, birth, infancy, childhood, etc. A sperm is alive but not a baby; a zygote is alive but not a baby; a fetus is alive but not a baby, after the process of human birth you have a human baby.
I feel very sorry for people like you who feel only those children that can be born into a "high quality of life" with great innate potential for happiness should be allowed to live.
You are feeling sorry for your own misconception regarding what I said. I do not feel that way. If a woman chooses to bring a child into a disadvantaged environment, that is fine with me - it is not my place to make decisions regarding who is and who is not brought into this human environment; I can not get pregnant and I certainly do not feel the need to force my current religious understanding upon others.
Who annointed you G*d and gave you the right to determine who over a long lifetime will enjoy a productive and useful life.
Again, I do not presume to know who will live what kind of life; but statistics indicate that a poor environment (especially one lacking love) results in negative consequences in the majority of cases. The critical point (which you seem to be avoiding) is the matter of freedom - freedom to choose; and that choice must be by the person most appropriate. I am not the one to choose, you are not the one to choose (for others); those in government are not the ones to choose, and the developing human does not have the capacity to choose - the person to choose is the potential mother.
The law is not the ultimate prevention - it only makes the consequences of a chosen act more severe. Does the speed limit prevent you from going as fast as you think you can get away with? If it does, you are in a small minority.
The speed laws are there to regulate traffic towards safety. The laws that would try to regulate what choice a woman makes about a process taking place within her body are motivated by a particular segment of religious belief - not appropriate for a free society.
Perhaps one of those innocent babes killed would have found the cure for leukemia.
What "seems important" to you is not necessarily what seems important to God. If you think our purpose in life is to strive for our own ultimate pleasure and convenience (used to justify abortion), then your worldview needs a little retooling.
I'll find myself sort of agreeing with you here--there's a fundamental and profound difference between man's law and God's law. And while I may occasionally break man's law against speeding, I'll never break God's law by taking an innocent life.
"... she fought for women's rights, abortion access ..." I wonder, will she be fighting God over her service to the evil of slaughtering His conceived children? ... Me thinks the woman is dust in the furnace.
Bravo ... sad what ther liberal societal engineers are doing to a once outstanding nation.
How about killing a toddler in the house ... I know, I know, you wouldn't do it, but you don't believe you should stop someone else from having that 'freedom' ... you relativists are so twisted.
You wrote: "The laws that would try to regulate what choice a woman makes about a process taking place within her body are motivated by a particular segment of religious belief - not appropriate for a free society." Would you mind telling me just when 'the processes' occurring in the woman's body can be legitimately (and that doesn't necessarily mean ONLY legally) considered another human being to be protected from being killed?
You wrote (ignorantly): "I do not agree. A child which has been born is quite different than a potential child which exists within the environment of a woman's body." What the hell is a 'potential child', you dolt? At what magic poofter moment does your hypothetical 'potential' become an actual?
Ahem, I want to issue to you a public apology for losing my temper toward you. I find it extremely difficult to be tolerant of willful ignorance when the issues are life and death ones. I will now presume you are not willfully ignorant (so your ignorance can be cured, if you give a small degree of purposeful research into the issues of individual human life) and apologize to you for losing my temper toward you.
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.