Posted on 05/12/2007 9:20:40 PM PDT by Mike10542
WOW, Thats a Biggie Debate, How did it end?
enjoyed reading it, good job, study hard in law school!
Next time I think it would be good to bring up the ultrasound requirement whenever the bring up the blob of tissue argument.
Well, I came back with the fact that we do not really know when life begins.
Here was your fatal mistake. We do know. Just study embryology. Life begins at conception by definition.
(which was a funny question because they are all Christian, yet pro-choice;I don't tend to believe there is such a thing. You fall into the mistake of using their ridiculous terminology. It's "pro-abortion." I'm pro-choice, but not with regards to murdering children. L'chaim, my friend.
Good on you.
My wife is Jewish. She is radically against abortion - that is also part of her religious beliefs. In our opinion, the attribution to pro choice among Jews is really Jews who are Liberal, or whose religion is Liberalism, abortion is not part of the formal religion, only part of individuals Liberal Social beliefs.
Read Nat Hentoff for some very good arguments for prolife from an atheist.
Also, these type of statements normally reveal that you don't really treat murder for what it really is. If you support law enforcement, your audience must wonder why you wouldn't want women who hire hit men masquerading as medical professionals to murder their children to even be jailed.
Truth be told abortion is really more about sex than it is about anything else. People who are pro-abortion are so obsessed with sex so enslaved to sex that they demand the right to eliminate any unwanted consequence that might result from sex. And if they encounter anyone who is making an effort or appears to be making an effort to enfringe upon that right they can be very full of rage at times. If abortion can get rid of their unwanted result of sex then that is why they support abortion. If on the otherhand they acquire some perhaps fatal STD’s from sex they demand the gov’t spend millions if not trillions of dollars to solve the unwanted consequences of their sex obsession. IMHO!
You did very well.....and good luck in your studies....we need more conservative....er CONSTITUTIONAL attorneys!
Thanks for posting. Good job.
The topic of the day was "Gay Marriage." My daughter stayed quiet until an openly bisexual girl pointedly asked her what she thought of the issue.
My daughter looked her straight in the eye and said, "I believe that homosexuality is a mental illness."
Later a friend pointedly asked her *why* she thought gay marriage was wrong and she put it this way. Marriage is a contract. Any contract made by mentally incompetent individuals is invalid. Homosexuality is a mental illness. Thus, no marriage contract between two homosexuals can be valid.
The fight goes on, in small ways, every day.
(On a funny note: The meeting went on after my daughter's "outburst" and the members of the group created a plan to send letters to Al Gore and HC, telling them how terrible the conditions of their school was in order to solicit money. My daughter whispered to her boyfriend, "Oh! They're going to lie to get money! They *are* democrats!")
Still, pro-choicers are remarkable resistant to pro-life arguments. The cost of saying "I was wrong" can be very high, especially for women who have had abortions.
It is much easier to win debates than to change minds, but it sounds like you made a good start.
From the WSJ/Opinion Journal
Rudy and the Right
Just what Republicans don’t need: an abortion brawl.
Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
As if Republicans don’t have enough problems, their Presidential candidates and interest groups seem eager to re-stage a fight over abortion the American public doesn’t want to hear. Blame both Rudy Giuliani and his conservative critics, but if the GOP wants to lose in 2008 they should keep this up.
Mr. Giuliani has created the stir by flopping around on an issue that he should have been better prepared to handle as he seeks the GOP Presidential nomination. The former New York Mayor says he finds abortion personally abhorrent but nonetheless supports a legal right to the procedure. It isn’t news that this is a hard sell for many Republican primary voters. But for Mr. Giuliani to change his views after so many years in public life would make him look unprincipled, which is not what Americans want in a President.
Yet Mr. Giuliani has wandered all over town on the issue, saying one week that he favors federal funding for abortions, while later noting “It’d be OK” if Roe v. Wade were overturned and “OK” if it wasn’t. In a recent interview on CNN, he said he supported a “strict constructionist” reading of the Constitution while also saying he believed abortion “is a Constitutional right ultimately.” The missteps speak to a lack of discipline by Mr. Giuliani, or perhaps a lack of preparation by a first-time Presidential candidate. He would do better to be consistent and direct, which by mid-week his aides were saying he finally plans to be.
It isn’t as if Mr. Giuliani doesn’t have a case to make. Whatever his personal views, the political reality is that abortion policy is now determined largely by the courts. Legislation—such as the ban on partial birth abortion—matters only at the margin. What count are judicial nominations, and on that score Mr. Giuliani says he’d appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. If Mr. Giuliani means what he says, then in practical policy terms as President he could do as much to promote anti-abortion goals as any of the other GOP candidates. He could credibly say that, if Roe and Casey were overturned, then abortion policy could and should be settled democratically in state legislatures.
This is where some of Mr. Giuliani’s conservative critics are also politically opportunistic, not to say cynical. “Americans do not yet realize how far outside of the mainstream of conservative thought that Mayor Giuliani’s social views really are,” says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, knowing the networks will always put him on the air when he’s trashing a Republican. Adds Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration Congressman desperately trying to become a two-issue candidate: “If a Republican President of the United States won’t vigorously fight to protect the life of the unborn, how long before the trend toward the culture of death becomes irreversible?”
These conservatives seem oblivious to the realities of contemporary life and the complexity of social change. If Roe is overturned, abortion’s availability, and more importantly, the demand for it, will not disappear—whoever is President, whatever he (or she) believes. But these conservatives can posture with the most extreme position because abortion has been hijacked by the courts and thus denied the normal process of democratic compromise.
Say that Roe were overturned and abortion again became a matter for states to regulate. Most would probably enact measures reflecting the rough public consensus that abortion should be legal but more restricted than it now is. We doubt there would be any major or radical shifts. In 2006, voters in South Dakota—not Manhattan or Vermont—overturned a ban on most abortions that the state Legislature had passed the previous year.
As for the politics of 2008, the last thing the GOP needs is another intramural abortion brawl. As a resurgent Democratic Party advances all manner of misguided proposals for the economy, taxes, national security, health care, energy and the environment, voters need Republicans to revive their own reform agenda. An abortion fight will make the party seem irrelevant to the main voter concerns, or captive to its litmus test interests.
Mr. Giuliani has his strengths and weaknesses, but he shouldn’t be disqualified for the nomination because of his views on a single issue that a President can’t do much to change other than through the courts. The only victor in a drawn-out GOP abortion donnybrook will be the Democrat who winds up in the White House.
Mike -
Great job. Pretty wise for a 25 year old. KUDO’s!
Hey, here is an angle that no one seems to give much thought to - the aftermath of abortion. What happens to the woman who aborted. I am a Christian and at our church, there are women who come in monthly if not weekly looking for solace and especially forgiveness for what they had done even years earlier.
The Pro-abortion folks like Planned Parenthood like to take a young girl at the most confusing, vulnerable and emotionally unstable time in her life and convince her that it’s for the best. Years later she is regretting what she did and is so emotionally distraught that she needs professional if not also spiritual counselling.
This is the carnage in the wake of the abortion. The “mother’s” life has thus changed and will never be the same again. Whereas, if she had at least put the baby up for adoption, whe night have had a clearer conscience and a better self-image.
There is always a very easy answer to the question of abortion. It is not reproductive. End of debate. ( And that is not necessarily a religious stance but a humanitarian one. ) People have stared daggers through me when I give them that answer.
The Act of Aborting is the premier sacrament of the religion of Radical Feminism, and for Radical Feminists and their disciples nothing is to be tolerated, neither considerations of morality, ethics, law nor any issues of practicality, that might hinder the free and unfettered expression of this sacrament.
--as soon as the first cell division begins, even before the new life implants in the woman's womb, the new life is expressing his or her own will to live and grow;
--cell division is the hallmark of cell differentiation, where cell lines are being made by the new life and tasked for special jobs for survival of the new life, such as accomplishing implantation, making a placental organ to accomplish nourishment and oxygenation, and building a body of other organs to survive being born into the air world in several months;
--a new life in a human womb is a human ORGANISM, not some blob of cells ... the newly conceived is a human organism, not subunit of an organ, the mother's body only give life support, the new organism makes everything including the placental encapsulation for this new life begun at conception
This refocusing of thought toward ORGANISM rather than mere blobs of tissue is vital to establishing in their mind the right for a human organism to not be killed, which is what abortion does, kill an alive human organism, a human being.
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.