Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Your "solution" is akin to me responding to a question about whether invading Iraq was appropriate by stating that the real solution is to move all Iraqis to a moon colony. We live in the current world, not some fantasy land. Hence our positions must be rooted in reality even as we anticipate potential long-term changes to the landscape.
Ansel, does the pill work for everyone?
Congratulations!
You have created the latest edition of “The Undead Thread”!
Thank you!!! :-)
I was fighting against abortion during the 1970’s when it wasnt cool...
Abortion was considered a “Catholic issue”...
If the SBC (Southern Baptists) had joined the Catholics back then instead of ignoring appeals for help in the fight against what was, even then, a holocaust, I believe abortion would have beem outlawed...
What sane person could claim that babies should be subjected to the excruciating deaths that they suffer?...
Even David knew that unborn babies were alive in the womb from conception..Psalm 139:13-16
Go ahead, rub it in show off! ;o)
Hey Knitting!
LOL! The only thing I’m rubbing is my eyes. lol
Sure Mom, and as people dissented and dsimissed as science fiction a polio vaccine, millions died as well. See that yet?
No, especially when the heart of the matter is that you are pro-choice and the you believe a person's *right* to do what they want with their own body includes that person's right to murder.
Besides, even IF a person has some inalienable *right* to do what they want with their own body, they don't have a right to do what they want with SOMEONE else's body. That's what distinguishes abortion from organ transplant. Choosing to get an organ transplant is not the same as choosing to kill someone.
The right to her own body and decisions about what happens to it. We all should respect each other's right to our own bodies. Wouldn't you agree?
No. A person's right to do with their body as they please doesn't really exist. If you were perfectly healthy and wanted an organ transplant, no one would give it to you. Therefore your theoretical right to do what you want with your own body is stymied.
A woman's body changes drastically as a result of a full term pregnancy. A female has no right to govern those changes to her own body?
No, not at the expense of another life. And you might as well give up your ridiculous fetal transplant scenario because it it isn't even close to being a reality and so has no real place in the discussion. You are pro-abortion because you think a woman's choice and right to do what she wants takes precedent over all. You can deny it all you want but since you keep saying that, ignoring the rights of the baby, and giving the mother the right to kill that child, you are pro abortion. Until, and unless, medical technology makes your fetal transplant fantasy come true, no, the woman has no right to murder her child in the name of *choice* or *the right to do what she wants with her own body*.
Considering that you are a man and never have been nor ever will be pregnant, you are way over rating the effects of pregnancy on a woman. Has it not occurred to you that a good number of the FReepers here debating you ARE women and WE certainly don't see the *changes that occur in a woman's body as a result of pregnancy* to be an issue at all in the abortion debate? And, that is not enough to justify murder.
:o)
Got some sleep, eh?
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that Duncan Hunter is pro life and that I am also. He seeks an end to abortions and I do too. Please understand I am not a one issue voter where a small difference in the way to get to a common goal would disbar my vote.
Far and away, all issues taken into account, I agree with Duncan Hunter.
The answer is yes to transplant.
When I was a kid in 1973 I remember asking my Catholic mother what was abortion. She just said “sshhhhh, you will understand when you get older”, like it was some big secret. While she never believed in it, I have asked her why she and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of others weren’t sitting on the steps of the SCOTUS against their decision.
You are so correct the SBC and the Catholics could have stopped it in a joint effort.
Oh, yeah? Well how do you know it won't work, smarty-pants? Answer me that, huh. What's you solution, move them to an asteroid? You ought to stop being so negative and start thinking creatively like Gallileo and I do.
Isn’t the theme of your post a good reason to explore ANY idea that would stop the deaths? I believe it is. This is why I am willing to take the heat that some have thrown at me.
Finding an avenue to stop the deaths is important to me. Finding a way to retain some form of choice is also important to me. Should I ignore one of my core principles in favor of another? Or should I seek a position of my own that reflects all my principles?
“Sure Mom, and as people dissented and dsimissed as science fiction a polio vaccine, millions died as well. See that yet?”
Nooo not so I had my first polio “injection” at age 5...
The suffering world thankfully embraced the idea that their children could be inoculated against polio..
The mother of a best friend had been a victim of polio. She was lucky and had only been left with a crippled leg..
If you knew anything about polio, you would not use such an argument...
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.