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

To: NittanyLion

No, because there is no valid argument to be made to do so. She retains a choice that accomplishes what it is she seeks. That being not pregnant.

Today, the case is made that the unborn death is the result of no alternative, therefor it has to be accepted. Like in war, death of civilians has to be accepted as “part of it”. My position suggests removing that argument entirely by keeping a choice, a different one, instead of just removing it entirely.

Let me try it this way:

A sexual predator molests my child. Society has decided that rather than exact my own vengance, retribution and justice, the criminal justice system must do that in my place. My choice, my desire, to see that person punished has not been removed. An alternative, deemed more acceptable by society, was put in it’s place to attain the goal of punishment. I press charges instead of shooting the bastard. Do you see the parallel I am trying to draw there?


8,754 posted on 04/25/2007 10:06:43 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 8538 | View Replies ]


To: Just sayin
the medical field has developed a method for transplanting an unborn child from one woman's womb into another's. Yet we have a woman who simply wants to abort her child instead of transplanting it. Should she be allowed to do so?

No, because there is no valid argument to be made to do so. She retains a choice that accomplishes what it is she seeks. That being not pregnant.

Nonsense - what she seeks is to abort the child. A "child transplant" is undoubtedly a more invasive procedure with additional risks. By your own logic, she has a right to govern her health and so the choice should be hers.

Unless you think that child retains its own rights. In which case any logic or morality applied to your fairytale world must also be applied today.

Today, the case is made that the unborn death is the result of no alternative, therefor it has to be accepted.

WTF!?! I have never heard anyone make that case except for you. Of course there is an alternative - carry the child to full term. When the rights of two individuals (mother and child) conflict, the temporary physical accommodation of the mother clearly does not warrant death to the child. Agreed?

8,777 posted on 04/25/2007 10:25:28 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8754 | View Replies ]

To: Just sayin
Today, the case is made that the unborn death is the result of no alternative, therefor it has to be accepted.

Pro-abortion by your own admission.

NO! the *unborn death* aka murder aka abortion, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED. Because your fantasyland scenario doesn't exist yet does not mean we have to accept the wholesale slaughter of babies.

8,810 posted on 04/25/2007 10:45:06 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8754 | 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