Posted on 02/13/2007 3:02:27 PM PST by Jim Robinson
We have two major political parties in America. One is pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti first amendment, pro gun control, pro big government, pro big spending, pro illegal immigrant, pro environmentalism, pro United Nations, anti war.
The other is or is quickly becoming pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti first amendment, pro gun control, pro big government, pro big spending, pro illegal immigrant, pro environmentalism, pro United Nations, fading quickly on the war.
Huh?
Amen.
You've provided an excellent discussion of a complex subject. Do you think, in time, this will lead to a permanent rupture, as in the formation of new parties etc.?
Aww, shucks. ;)
I'm taking that as an apology, even if that's not how you meant it... you are forgiven!... :)
I dont mean to be rude, but you arent looking for a discussion, you are looking for an argument. Well, I'm not so what suits me is to end this conversation with you.
Thank you.
If only everything else in life could be so easy!
;)
Suit yourself.
I know a Nun who would be most happy to smite you two upon your sore knuckles until you come to some sort of an agreement.
Sister Smite.
Yup.
Just to be clear, I personally oppose abortion in all forms, except to save the life of the mother, and I think that circumstance almost never really happens anymore, and am very suspicious that the claim is made.
I oppose abortion because I believe God has implanted a soul into the baby at conception, and that for that reason, the human baby exists from that point onward, and if we intentionally kill it, we commit murder.
This is a religious belief. I cannot base that assertion on logic, because I cannot logically prove the soul. I think law is nothing more than the morality of the lawmaker enforced with guns, I want all the law to reflect my morality, and I have no problem whatever enforcing my opinion on other people by force. So, the arguments that "I have no 'right' to impose my moral views on other people" leave me cold. I don't CARE if I have the "right" to do something or not. What matters to ME is whether or not I CAN do it. If I COULD, I would outlaw abortion, because I don't like it. If the majority disagreed with me, I would impose my will on them anyway, because I think I am right, and I don't really give a damn what my opponents think, feel, want, etc.
However, we live in a democracy, and it doesn't work that way here. Here, most people support abortion rights in some fashion. If I had the power to change that today, without discussion, and to enforce my will with the police, courts and army, I would. But I don't. Here, the majority calls the tune, and the majority wants abortion on demand, at least in the first trimester. All the polls show that, and the vote in South Dakota confirms it.
So, although I oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds, I live in a country where I am outnumbered and outgunned, and my will is not the law.
In spite of my opposition to abortion, I am perfectly capable of looking at the advantages abortion offers. Sexual liberty is no little thing. Time was, that it was a crime to have sex out of wedlock. It's still a sin, but it is no longer a crime. Sex is now recreational for most people. Sex still can bring babies, by accident. Abortion provides a safety net to ensure that such consequences do not follow from people's recreational activities. They want the orgasms, not the babies, and in this democracy they have constructed the laws to have what they want. Morally, I oppose this because abortion kills a baby, in my view. My view's not the law. Abortion on demand kills a baby, it's legal, and legal abortion certainly removes a consequence of having sex, making sex freer and easier across the board than in past ages. Most people like it that way, and they have the votes to win.
It's not a matter of my not having sympathy for the handicapped. Remember, I oppose abortion. It's nevertheless a fact that there are very few handicapped people born anymore, because they are aborted in utero. Do I think this is monstrous? Of course. Does it reduce the numbers of handicapped people and the cost of caring for them? Yes, it absolutely does. That is reality.
Does abortion cut the welfare rolls?
Absolutely!
About half of abortions are procured by people in the underclass. If those babies were born, there would be 1 million more people a year, every year, going on welfare. The number 47 million is used as the number of babies abortioned. 23.5 million of those babies would have been born to welfare mothers, and we'd have 23.5 more people on welfare in America were it not for abortion having nipped them in the bud before the society had to pay for it.
Or they'd be in prison.
Be born in the ghetto and male, chances are you're going to do vicious things and go to prison. So, of that 23.5 million welfare babies, 11.75 million would be male, and about a third of black males go to prison at some point. Let's inject another 4 million criminals into our society and prison system and see what happens to the crime rate.
Abortion has particularly nipped in the bud the criminal unborn, and been a key source of the plunge in crime rates.
These things are so.
So, the question is should we have abortion and enjoy those social benefits from abortion, or should we outlaw abortion and augment social plagues to Latin American levels (Latin America does not allow abortion, and the surging numbers of poor people and criminals make it very hard to do anything with those societies)? Which do we prefer, North American or Latin American society?
That is really what the choice is.
Because I agree with the Latin Americans that abortion is murder, I think Mexico City and Caracas are more moral places than New York and Washington DC and Chicago, where abortion is legal. Given the choice, I would impose Latin American standards on abortion on North America, fully recognizing that this would MEAN Latin American levels of crime and poverty.
These things always come with a tradeoff. Always. Catholic countries are more fecund. They do not murder babies. They also have higher poverty and crime, and more people with congenital defects. These things follow one from the other. America kills the babies in the womb, and avoids the problems that live poverty cases bring. Latin America doesn't and has poverty and more crime.
It's a choice.
I would choose to turn America into Latin America, if I had the power, because I would outlaw abortion completely, and if you outlaw abortion completely, what you get is Mexico.
"Do you think, in time, this will lead to a permanent rupture, as in the formation of new parties etc.?{"
I don't know if it will, but I think it SHOULD.
The real facts can indeed be inconvenient things.
Our choice, as far as I can see it, is Mexico in this life or Hell in the next. I choose to get used to Mexico.
So what do oyu suggest we do about it?
Right now I'm praying that a pro life and liberty conservative gets the nomination.
Sister Smite.
Yup.
How about we go with the cliche, agree to disagree... lame but it's the best I can do...
Sister Smite, Sacred Heart Academy, 4th grade... tossed me out of choir, some claim I couldn't hold a note! Yes, I know her well... LOL.
It can be, we make it hard! Im into cliches tonight... :)
Close enough. ;)
Not quite accurate. Fewer babies are being born with birth defects thanks to a vast increase and advances and early intervention actually repairing many defects or detecting a stressed baby in the birthing process. This also helps prevent such things as the cord getting wrapped a number one cause of CP which has had a huge decline. The woman with no lega and arms? Her mom took a medication that did it. This was in the early 1960's.
The ones being born with handi-caps stand much better chances now at surviving and leading normal lives. I saw what Polio did to this nation I went to school with kids that had it, MD, CP, Autism, Blind, Deaf, you name it. This was back in the early 70's when they didn't know that much about how to deal with it. My wifes been a quad for 21 years now likely due to Polio Relapse Syndrome.
There is another woman who can help a person put being handi-capped in to perspective. In the late 60's the woman severed her spine in a diving accident. She can mover her neck that's about it. She has done some of the best paintings you ever have seen. She uses her mouth to paint. Her name is Joni Erickson Tada.
I don't agree with your reasoning in the rest of your post. I can't agree with it conscience and common sense forbids me to.
I'm with you. We have to slug it out through the early stages of the primaries.
But, if the GOP chooses to be Evil Party II, I'm gone, and I'll take as many with me as I can. Won't be hard. There are millions of Republicans who believe what I believe.
And if not?
Stan Eveans famousl.y said that "Whenever one of our people gets in a position to help us, he ceases to be one of our people." With VERY few exceptions that's been true. And remember that the former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie proclaimed that there is no place in the GOP for limited-government views.
The RNC just chose the open-borders, pro-amnesty Mel Martinez instead of picking someone like Michael Steele. Unfortunately, that is likely a sign of the party's future direction -- at least for the immediate future.
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.