Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee
A person is either 100% opposed to infancide or they are in favor of it.

I cannot say I agree with that statement. I think it is deeper than that simple statement.

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for? Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself. I find this to be an outcome where both sides of this seemingly endless debate can gain what it is they truly seek. Would this not be a good thing?

Maybe then, every election and apointment wouldn't have the litmus test of Abortion postion. If all Abortion is simply outlawed, then the debate will remain as it is right now just in the reverse. Rather than remove choice entirely, I prefer to seek another choice.... a better choice.

I just can't subscribe to the idea that removing choice entirely is the best way forward. In fact, I oppose that action.....like say, smoking bans in eateries and bars for instance. I much prefer a solution that opposing sides can agree on. An alternative choice rather than abolition of choice.

If preserving life is the base of your stance and a pregnancy could be removed from a female, who does not wish to remain pregnant, without destroying the pregnancy and thus seeing that pregnancy come to term in another female or even in a lab, would your opposition as it stands today be addressed to your satisfaction? It should right?

Likewise, a female not wanting a pregnancy should find this solution viable right? After all, what a female seeking an abortion today really wants is to not be pregnant right?

Keep in mind that what I am talking about is a possible future solution in idea. Setting a goal that two opposing sides could work together to bring about, rather than just fighting the same old fight over and over and accomplishing nothing but wasting time and creating hard feelings and division among our own countrymen.

In the not so distant past, we as a society could not remove an organ from one person and make it function inside another person. Today, we can with great success. This is the model process, in idea, I am talking about in terms of pregnancies and abortions.

I am sure flamings will be sent my way by folks who aren't really interested in anything other than what they see as valid. That is fine. I am not saying folks have no right to do such a thing.

I am Just sayin that such action shows true colors. My true colors are a positive outcome for all involved. Is this postion not honorable?

I am Just sayin that I think there are ways to change this hate-filled subject by injecting something positive where opposing sides can both be afforded that which they seek on the bottom line. Not all that unlike our founders did when they came up with Electoral College.

Two sides of a heated and heartfelt debate brought differing yet valid positions to the table, both also brought valid downsides about the other as well. Yet still, a workable position was found where both sides got some of what they were seeking. In that action, I believe our founders taught us how to settle serious differences. Seek out an alternative that affords both sides that which they seek rather than simply disallow one position entirely.

I believe that same thing can be done in regards to this very heartfelt subject. That is, if people on both sides would be willing to admit that there will never be agreement between the two sides as the debate stands today. In order to move forward without doing harm one way or the other a new alternative is in order.

I said at the start of this post that I disagreed with your statement. I said that because I am against all options put forth on this subject today. I am against abortion and I am also against removing choice (in general, not just abortion). What I am for, is an alternative that sees a pregnancy removed from one who does not want it in a way that does not destroy life.

Do you find this position to be without merit or objectionable? How does my position fit with your statement? Should my position proclude me from participation on this website? Would you shun me as an 'aboritonist' because I refuse to just remove choice entirely and call that proper....because I seek another way forward instead?
4,702 posted on 04/23/2007 8:31:03 AM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4610 | View Replies ]


To: Just sayin
A person is either 100% opposed to infancide or they are in favor of it.

I cannot say I agree with that statement. I think it is deeper than that simple statement.

Well, I think you're wrong.

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for?

I totally disagree. It's like saying, "I wouldn't commit murder/rape/arson/armed robbery, etc., but I think it would be wrong to tell someone else not to."

Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Let's see, abortion claims as many American lives EVERY SINGLE DAY as the terrorists killed on 9/11/01, so yes I fully support removing the "choice" to murder innocent Americans.

Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself.

Women already know how not to become pregnant. We don't need to do any Mengele-style experimentation for "alternatives."

As far as the rest of your post, my position on abortion is well documented here. I WILL NOT EVER CONCEDE that 3000+ murders a day is something to negotiate about.

4,713 posted on 04/23/2007 8:42:42 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4702 | View Replies ]

To: Just sayin
Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for? Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Oh Oh! I'll take that one, it's easy! The only time you should have a choice is when GOD gives you a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the child. Any other time you make a choice on your own you are making a choice to commit murder if you choose to abort the child. Giving people the choice to murder a child is a very very bad thing.

4,714 posted on 04/23/2007 8:43:48 AM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4702 | View Replies ]

To: Just sayin
Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for?

If it is a human life, there can be no choice.

4,717 posted on 04/23/2007 8:48:48 AM PDT by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4702 | View Replies ]

To: Just sayin
Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself.

Can you please explain to me how "a pregnancy can be removed from a female" "without ending the pregnancy itself"? I'm trying to figure out how a mother can be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. You terminated your mother's pregnancy - by being born. So what are you talking about? Was your mother's pregnancy "removed" from her "without ending her pregnancy?

You repeat mindless euphemisms and slogans, even to the point of making literally nonsense statements. Why?

You don't want to call a baby a baby. You call a preborn baby a "pregnancy", which from the baby's point of view, is an absurdity.

If you have to dress something up to cover up the truth of what's happening, it's probably a good idea to assume that there's something wrong with it.

Cordially,

4,951 posted on 04/23/2007 11:23:04 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4702 | View Replies ]

To: Just sayin

You’re either pro Life and Liberty or you’re not. This organization is. If you’re not, maybe you should move on to DU or some other pro death and slavery site.


5,013 posted on 04/23/2007 11:59:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4702 | View Replies ]

To: Just sayin
Since when did a woman's *choice* become a right? It's total brainwashing that a woman's choice is more important than a human life. At that rate, you should be able to justify murder of any kind at any stage in a person's life.

It's not just a pregnancy as if it were a thing. That's a real live human being that we're talking about and I fail to see how anyone with a shred of conscience can defend burning it alive, ripping it limb from limb, sucking it apart, or sucking it's brains out and crushing its skull.

Anyone who did it to a born human would be considered an inhuman monster. Why is it OK to do it to a preborn human? It's not like clipping off a hangnail or something.

5,661 posted on 04/23/2007 5:15:48 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4702 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson