Posted on 02/03/2006 11:10:47 AM PST by presidio9
The two are not analogous.
The only intent of an abortion is to kill an innocent child.
But death of innocents due to collateral damage in war is NOT intended and often does not occur. The intentional act to kill an enemy during a just war is justified. The unitended collateral damage that may occur is not the same as directly killing a baby on purpose.
That sentence pegged my bogometer. Either it's an outright lie or "The Brotherhoood" is somebody she ticked off at school.
One of my childhood friends had this same problem...not that the agency wouldn't take the child, but that they would have had trouble placing him. So what did she do? She raised the child. Mother and son are doing fine, he is a human joke machine and I expect he will be one of the finest linebackers in the state in a couple of years.
What in the world did she have to be ashamed of, if it was such a great decision? And isn't it interesting how 2 out of the 3 women described are from really strict religious households? No hidden agenda there...
There's a very interesting article..."Roe Babies and Reagan Babies"...at oregonmag.com about how the younger generation is becoming pro-life.
I appreciate your views, but I'd like to ask this: If the fetus is a human (or we're not sure) why should killing it be legal?
No flame suit necessary. Two answers:
1. Strangely those anti-war nuts never seem to have the same feeling about the 100-250 million people killed by leftist regimes during the last century.
2. When those folks find me a war fought by Americans where the collateral damage is 43 million civilians and the rallying cause is "the freedom to have sex with men you wouldn't want to have a child wit" then I will agree with their assessment.
And notice the way the "journalist" at the campus newspaper puts this :"it was then that she realized society had valued some children over others".
Either sloppy or biased. Heck, probably both.
I agree there is twisting of what a fetus is. It's a live human being. It's not an anomaly. A woman just doesn't wake up one morning to find she is pregant by nature. She has to engage in usually unprotected sex (assuming she wasn't raped).
It is killing of an unborn but LIVE human being. I don't want to see abortion become illegal. What I do want to see is have it restricted. First trimester only. Parent notification. Alternatives and negative side effects explained in great detail. And have it all paid for privately (the woman, family, charities, NOW, or who ever wants to help them). I don't think government funds should be used at all. Ultimately, R V W should be over turned and the issue kicked back to the states and let the people of the states dictate to their leaders what they want. That's the only way the issue will be resovled once in for all. There will be states that will ban it and states that will allow it. That's democracy.
In the mean time, we have bigger fish to fry. Like the expanding government that is draining people of their money and wasting it on big socialist programs. And education. We will fall behind India and China (already are) in technology and science because we have an education system run by liberals who are more interested in indoctrinating kids into left wing causes that won't help our economy grow but will help in better understanding why we need to accept every other view point, no matter how damaging or wrong it is.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Personally, I am interested in conserving and reclaiming the liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Please enlighten me. WHERE does the Constitution say that abortion is ok? 'Cause I looked, and I just can't find it.
If it is a LIVE human being, how does restrictions ease your mind? It is still murder, just during the first trimester. How are you comfortable with that? If it is ALIVE (and it is) how is murder justified based on who's money is used?
I believe you are way off base.
College students don't live in a vacuum. They are on the receiving end of messages put out by all kinds of activist groups, mass media, politicians, bumper stickers, etc.
The need for abortion will always exist, to protect the freedom of women who don't want to give birth to a baby.
It doesn't ease my mind. What it doesn't do is eliminate one extreme for the other, as you would have it. You obviously don't understand human nature. If you did you'd realize banning it completely won't get rid of it. It will just push it underground. There is a compromise to limit it and make people think about their actions instead of draconian measures to make it illegal in every case and in every situation. And if you read the last part of my prior post, you'd know that I stated that people of the states should make the decision by either putting it on the ballot or by lobbying their state representatives to formulate state law governing abortion instead of having the Federal Gov, especially the SCOTUS deciding legislation. That way it will be the end of the debate. If people in one state vote to keep it legal, then fine. If another state votes to ban it, then fine. But, once and for all the people will have spoken.
I accept the fact that you think I am way off base. At the same time, you are way off base to think that abortion will ever become compeletly illegal across the country.
I'll even add that I'd prefer the abortion pill, assuming it was safe which it is not, over typical abortions performed today. Why, you ask? Because it puts the abortion clinics out of business and completely wipes out the radical pro abortion woman's groups. It puts the onus on the person to make that decision to take that pill.
I live in a world where I accept things as they are, not how they should be. Thus, I figure out what would work than trying to create a utopia that will never exist. Abolishing abortion outright will never happen. Putting limits on it to make people act more repsonsibily can happen.
You can try all you want to try to get the toothpaste back in the tube. Good luck.
And those messages are strictly anti-abortion? There's no activism on the pro-abort side therefore they need a special pro-abort event for balance? Give me a break.
Let me begin by saying that you're still avoiding my question as to whether you think this is a Conservative forum or a Libertarian one. Why are you afraid to answer?
That being said, your comment above is hands-down the most asinine statement that I have ever read on FR.
Needs editing. I'll edit it for free, and even give you two versions to choose from:
The need for abortion will always exist, to protect the freedom of women to have sex with men they don't want to raise a child with.
The need for abortion will always exist, to protect the freedom of males who use women as weenie warmers.
There, all fixed. Which one do you prefer?
See post 138.
Why do you, as a left-wing radical, bother posting to this forum? There are plenty of child-murder advocacy forums on the web.
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.