Posted on 10/08/2007 7:29:07 AM PDT by Dukes Travels
It’s time for the fight against abortion to move to a new front. An honest look at the landscape suggests that the longtime goal of the pro-life movement – the banning of abortion – is never going to be achieved.
We need to try something else.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. But if the goal is to save the lives of unborn children – and it should be – we need to look at our primary line of attack and see what it has achieved, and what it is likely to achieve in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
Watch Leahy crawling on his belly like the reptile he is begging the GOP POTUS for a "moderate" dependable babykiller nomination in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor ("Bring Us Together, Mr. President!!!!) Watch Spector analyzing Scottish Law to prove that abortion can never be outlawed! Mass suicides at the usual suspect babykiller organizations. Not only that but those guys who went out in the rain without their rain coats might have to financially support their children casually conceived. Oh, the horror! Oh, the lost revenues at the sports bars!!!
Slavery just has too many powerful friends in the South. It will never be banned.
Not so. When Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, there was no great consensus or outcry to change the abortion laws. The Supreme Court just did it. Now they can just undo it. Too bad if the pro-death crowd doesn’t like it.
You deal in moral surrender, nothing less. I am the person I have become, for good or for ill, but I would love to see you post your pro-life credentials. Not likely, huh???? You don’t actually imagine that the pro-life movement will EVER listen to your counsels of surrender. It may take more years to do it right but the pro-life movement WILL do it right!
So are you gonna continue to mock like a little girl, or are you gonna explain why one voter gets a nine month escape clause and another voter gets "no return, no refund" on exactly the same transaction.
No, I don't. That's why I now ignore the pro-life "movement." They didn't have the guts to fight at first, nor the brains to adapt now.
Frankly, I see people like you in history as those who prayed for deliverance from the moslems right up until some Moor cut off their head.
That Church will never surrender to its enemies and, as guaranteed by its Founder, the very gates of hell will not prevail against it. History is littered with the corpses of far more impressive enemies of the Church than Planned Barrenhood.
Your purpose in posting here is apparently nothing more than that of a troll. Why should pro-lifers take you seriously?
The pro-life movement will gladly ignore you and will win anyway however long it takes.
Are child support payment obligations cutting into your personal booze budget????
Your argument is full of assumptions...so I can play that game too and say that if Hillary takes over with a Democrat congress you can kiss ANY chance of having your first priority realized...EVER. What makes you think once they take over, we’ll ever get any chance again. You ASSUME,again, that there are enough people who think like you do that after seeing a Hillary presidency, will rise up en masse and revolt. I’m sorry to say, and this is not an assumption, that there are just not as many as you think or else we wouldn’t be where we are today.
If Rudy says he will appoint pro-life judges, why don’t you believe him?
All that being said...if abortion is the number one issue to you, which apparently it is, than I guess you have no choice. I just think one day you, and the country, will regret it.
Or we can just go with my solution -- arm the unborn. If abortion's going to be legal, we might as well even the odds. ;)
Kay was never with us.
Forty years of failure from the likes of you.
With regard to what the Constitution said in 1789, you are absolutely correct. But the 14th Amendment says that “no state may deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.” In 1866, the persons referenced were freed slaves. But the words say “any person.” As soon as any state denied the protection of the homicide laws to persons in the womb, that state was in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has, without any foundation in the text of the Constitution, held that people living the womb are “not persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.”
The question is not what the Constitution said in 1789. The question is what the Consitution says NOW, and the Constitution NOW includes the 14th Amendment.
Thus, any state which denies unborn people the “equal protection of the laws” is in violation of the Constitution. The issue does NOT belong “in the states” because states are not at liberty to ignore the 14th Amendment.
Slavery ban will never happen!
To whom? I know of no one a woman has to answer to if she becomes pregnant. Conversely, men have to answer for her becoming pregnant BY LAW depending on the choice SHE makes.
When a man engages in non-contraceptive sex with a woman not his wife or with a woman who is his wife, he has exercised his reproductive choice.
This canard is a clear violation of equal protection. She does not make any such choice when engaging in sex.
She may or may not become pregnant. If she does, Roe vs. Wade gives her a choice to bear or not bear the child. If he does not want her to control that decision, he should not engage in the actions which may make her pregnant.
Spoken like a true despot. "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind us searching your house."
The thing you people can't seem to get through your thick skulls is NO ONE but a woman can obtain an abortion in this country. No one else can force her to have it, and no one else can prevent her from getting it. She bears 100% of the responsibility for abortion.
You purposely conflate "getting pregnant" with "getting an abortion" because you don't have the stomach to admit the girl you're trying to "protect" is the one doing the killing, and the "protection" you're affording her is what encourages her to take the gamble.
However evil it may be to allow her to abort, it will not be an improved situation to allow the sissy posing as a man to whine that his inability to force the abortion of the child she has decided to carry somehow justifies his refusal to support the child.
Yes it will. Your inability to think of second and third order consequences does not mean they don't occur, and you can bet she'll learn them very quickly when she doesn't get privileged status.
We have laws to protect women from men forcing sex on them. We can't make laws protecting women from encouraging men to have sex with them. What we have to do is restore the balance that promoted chastity in civilized societies throughout our history. We have to present women with the very real possibility that if they don't "say no" to unworthy men they run the very real possibility of winding up pregnant and alone.
Granted, this isn't going to solve the problem of unwed pregnancy, but it will restore the societal dynamic to where it was before the problem started to mushroom.
It's bad enough for "do-gooders" to consign millions of people to poverty through welfare, but since Roe, they've actually become accessories to murder.
We also cannot make laws requiring men to resist feminine enticements but we can and do make such men as do not resist pay their child support. And a good thing too.
Check Rudy’s track record and his associates (Kerick, Harding, Pirro). He is a greasy LIAR!
Let me explain to you what the current social/political dynamic looks like.
Our very good family friends have a 15 year old son who is currently the most sought after young man in his school. He literally has teenage girls throwing themselves at him, constantly. He's not particularly charismatic, or handsome. He's not particularly talented, nor gifted. In fact, he has a fairly serious learning disability.
What he IS is the last remaining virgin in his school, and the girls are constantly vying for the prestige of deflowering him.
You see, that is the kind of aggressive, flagrantly cavalier, self-destructive attitude that is engendered when one group, in all other respects equal to it's peers (and in the case of women, actually superior given our democratic society and their small, but significant edge in numbers), is given favored status by the government.
That favor is something you and your misguided comrades have fostered by not actually warring over the murder of children, and then making common cause with the abortion rights crowd to retain the pre-Roe social and cultural privileges of women.
More than anything, you fools resemble the Hollywood half-wits who occasionally ship huge amounts of food to starving nations. They congratulate themselves for their compassion, while at the same time ruining local farmers, thus perpetuating the starvation.
I know; you did it "for the children."
How high are your court-ordered child support payments when you could not bully the mom into aborting the offspring.
I have never been associated with an abortion. I have no children at this time, but my wife of 20 years and I are in the process of adopting.
We do not voluntarily associate with people who are unrepentant aborters. We do have friends who describe themselves as "pro-choice," but should any of them actually obtain, or facilitate an abortion we would immediately terminate the relationship.
In short, your question is nothing but venomous vituperation with absolutely zero basis in reality.
If you favor a right of men to order the murder of their offspring, you are trying to make the problem worse.
It is a measure of your duplicity that you, no doubt, think this kind of blatant mendacity is justifiable. I have never made the suggestion that men should be able to "order the murder of thier offspring." My suggestion is that men be permitted to "opt out" of parenthood by a simple legal procedure disavowing the child.
Obviously, there can be no exact parallel to the woman's "right" owing to biology. The "paper abortion" would be a close enough approximation to serve as "equality." Even so, the male analog would not even involve the death of the child as the female exercise of the same "right" does.
I really don't care one bit about your imagined lack of "equal rights" to murder your offspring and I certainly do not welcome such homocidal notions or their holders having anything whatsoever to do with the pro-life movement.
The lack is anything but "imagined." The only thing that IS imagined is your vicious accusation that "murder of your offspring" is the goal. The goal is to restore the balance that existed prior to Roe. If you don't like the balance God instituted, take it up with Him. Even with your fossilized viewpoint you should be able to see the havoc that has been wrought by man's attempt to try to correct THAT particular "defect" in his existence.
I really have no interest whatsoever in your ideas any more than I would have cared for Hitler's opinions of Jews or Pitchfork Ben Tillman's opinions of blacks.
Certainly an ironic comment coming from someone evincing such spitting rage over nothing more than a threat to the privileged status of women that has thus-far lead to the widespread abandonment of such concepts as chasitity, modesty, and propriety.
Furthermore, this disingenuous outrage is aimed at men engaging in "unprotected" sex when it's universally known the single contraceptive available to men from the broad range of contraceptive choices is the *least* effective at preventing pregnancy. Rather reminiscent of the proverbial fury of rejected women for their rivals rather than their object of affection, if you ask me.
We also cannot make laws requiring men to resist feminine enticements but we can and do make such men as do not resist pay their child support. And a good thing too.
Again, I don't know what to say to someone so far out of date. It's like running across someone who refuses give up an antiquated disdain for Japanese manufacturing. Your assertion is exactly the wrong thing for the problem you profess to be concerned about.
Has it ever occured to you why so many stable, successful, couples are going overseas to adopt? To be sure, there are those trying to cover over the truth with accusations of "fashion" or "ignoring American kids," but the reality is people with good sense recognize, in America, there is no such thing as a binding contract with a woman where children are involved. The only way to guarantee no future "shakedown" or unwanted involvement from the birth mother is to adopt from a place that won't allow her to renege on the adoption. Do you think anyone with any sense is going to sit across the table from a 15 year old girl in crisis, and negotiate terms for adopting "her" baby, because that is the expectation in America's default "open adoption" culture.
Is this kind of "protection" a "good thing," too?
I am STILL waiting to hear what YOU personally have done to translate the principle of pro-life into political, practical and legal reality. Until you respond to that, we may safely assume that the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and that your beer budget is dearer than your offspring-—to you at least.
I'm not going to trot out a pro-life resume to someone who is going to ignore it, and call me a liar, anyway. What I am writing here stands or falls on it's own merit, with or without your approval.
My wife and I have a long history of pro-life efforts, and we both come from families with a proud tradition of adoption.
I will admit having a hard time with those who insist on "staying the course" when the opposition has managed to get every single effective tactic used by the pro-life movement made illegal. I seriously wonder what it would take to prove to such people they have indeed failed, and their efforts are not just a waste, but a hindrance. More than anything, it reminds me of the backward African cultures that promote having sex with a virgin as the treatment for AIDS.
And by the way, I don't drink.
You don't trot out your "pro-life" resume because you do not have one. When you trot it out, I will start paying attention. Meanwhile, you are irrelevant and so are your opinions. I just cannot imagine why you expect to be called a liar. Force of habit, perhaps???
If, by "rehabilitate", you mean convert me to your delusions and desire to empower irresponsible men, don't waste your time. It won't happen in your lifetime or in God's lifetime. Nor will your pet eccentricities have the slightest effect on the pro-life movement (or the conservative movement) in those time frames.
As to foreign adoptions, American courts are governed by "choice of law" principles favoring the laws of the country where the child was conceived., where the parents reside, where the contract for adoption was initiated, etc. This makes it simpler to guarantee long term results. Also, so long as the US recognizes the legal system of the country in question as competent generally, the US courts will tend to defer to foreign law with jurisdiction over the adoption.
I would never have guessed that you don't drink. The content of your posts certainly suggests otherwise.
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.