NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIFE

It is not arrogance. It is written.

So every matter on earth is written as to what is black and white? Or is it rather your interpretation of things. I would venture to say its the latter and not the former or there would not be large disagreement on issues. My original point was not to argue about the first trimester label to point out the arrogance that one has to have to assume they are correct in all matter.

It's certainly amazing that you cannot see the difference between someone who is pro-life yet supports the morning after pill and someone who supports abortion on demand. If your criteria is that a life is lost then by that logic you have to agree that someone who is negligent, runs a stop sign and kills someone is just as evil as someone who kills another in cold blood so long as the only criteria is that a life is lost.

By and large there is agreement that abortion is wrong. Especially on the pro-life side. What seems to be the issue is whether a woman has a choice to kill her own child or not, and when that "choice" ends.

There is a large amount of disagreement on the pro-life side about abortion, even if the general agreement is that abortion is wrong . Abortion in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother is one. The morning after pill is another. Even the use of contraceptives is an area of disagreement as shown by your statement. Where do these fall in your black and white view? I know you've already admitted "gray" in the rape/incest view, but what of the other two?

I would venture to say its the latter and not the former or there would not be large disagreement on issues. My original point was not to argue about the first trimester label to point out the arrogance that one has to have to assume they are correct in all matter.

I did not say I was correct in all matters. I am human, ergo fallible. What I said is that most things are stark in contrast... black and white. There is right, there is wrong, and most folks know the difference.

It's certainly amazing that you cannot see the difference between someone who is pro-life yet supports the morning after pill and someone who supports abortion on demand.

I can't see where you find a difference between murder in hours vs. murder in months. Is it somehow less of a crime to murder a 2 yr old child than it is to murder a 6 yr old child? What is the difference in life between an hour, a month, a year, a decade, or a century? it is still the intentional murder of a human being.

If your criteria is that a life is lost then by that logic you have to agree that someone who is negligent, runs a stop sign and kills someone is just as evil as someone who kills another in cold blood so long as the only criteria is that a life is lost.

The difference is between life lost and life taken. The life taken by the driver you mention is taken unintentionally. It is not murder to do so, but rather an awful accidental death. The life is lost through no fault, or at least without intent. The life taken from the womb is intentionally taken and is certainly murder.

While there is disagreement, as I have said elsewhere, I doubt it to be large- Or at least not by the numbers. The vast quantity of abortions are performed as a convenience and I doubt that rape, incest, and life of the mother are statistically significant. Few people I know would turn down an outlawing of abortion because of an exception for the above.

Those that would object would mainly do so because rape and life of the mother can be stretched beyond the common meaning to include just about anything.

The morning after pill is another.

I don't know a single soul who is pro-life who endorses the morning after pill. Most folks I know were dead set against it being legalized and still are.

Even the use of contraceptives is an area of disagreement as shown by your statement. Where do these fall in your black and white view?

I am against birth control because it doesn't seem to work.

I know you've already admitted "gray" in the rape/incest view

I did not. I gave it to you for the purpose of the argument. My opinion runs firmly toward life in all things. It isn't the child's fault he was conceived of incest or rape, It is the fault of the rapist. If any life should be taken it is his.

What I said is that most things are stark in contrast... black and white. There is right, there is wrong, and most folks know the difference.

While yes, most people know the difference between right and wrong where do you draw the line between what's right and wrong. You could ask 50 people and get huge disagreement on where the line is drawn on even the abortion issue. That's where "gray" comes in. Another example; stealing is wrong, but what about stealing to feed a family? If that's "white", exactly where does the line get drawn?

Few people I know would turn down an outlawing of abortion because of an exception for the above.

If you're referring to a law that would outlaw abortion and allow no exception there are many that would oppose it, including myself. This is because yes, rape/incest and life of mother issues are extremely rare, but it would take only one case where someone in that situation died because of an illegal abortion to cause a public outcry against the law leading to more harm than good being done to the pro-life movement. When your goal is to see abortions reduced you have to look at all the implications of your action in order to take the best possible goal.

I don't know a single soul who is pro-life who endorses the morning after pill.

Count me as one that is uncommitted on this issue and yet is against abortion. That is only because of the fact that you have to look at the overall costs/benefits to society for such an action. Is society better off by it or not? For abortion as a whole I would say society is worse off by far. But with just the morning after pill? I'm not as sure.

Another example; stealing is wrong, but what about stealing to feed a family? If that's "white", exactly where does the line get drawn?

Here we are, right back at moral relativism. Yes, it is wrong to steal to feed your family. Just as wrong as it is to steal for any other reason.

If you're referring to a law that would outlaw abortion and allow no exception there are many that would oppose it, including myself.

I am sorry, I must not have expressed myself clearly. Let me reiterate: I believe that most on the pro-life side would *not* oppose a law that would outlaw all abortion except where rape, incest, or life of the mother are in evidence.

Many who are opposed even to those conditions are opposed because rape and life of the mother can be stretched beyond the common meaning to mean just about anything...

For instance, a woman comes in during her fourth month and summarily declares the child to be the product of a rape, and wants to have an abortion. If all it takes is that declaration, what real teeth are in the law? Anyone could just declare rape and abortion would go on unhindered.

As another example, a doctor declares that a woman needs to have an abortion because the child-to-be is hindering her mental well-being... It is easy to see that the lawyers could stretch "life of the mother" to cover such a claim, and again, we are back to unhindered abortion, albeit with the collusion of the physician or psychiatrist/psychologist.

So it is the structure of the exception that folks may be opposed to, for the reasons and examples stated above.

No one would deny an abortion where the child is not yet viable and the life of the mother is truly physically at risk. Such an awful decision should be left in the hands of the woman, her husband and their families as to how one might proceed. But every consideration should be given to the life in the womb- If it is possible to deliver the child by any means, those means should be employed to the best of our collective ability.

That is only because of the fact that you have to look at the overall costs/benefits to society for such an action. Is society better off by it or not? For abortion as a whole I would say society is worse off by far. But with just the morning after pill? I'm not as sure.

While I understand your concern, I will strenuously object. The morning after pill is still the murder of a child, and still allows people to rut about with an escape of consequence.

Life is holy, all of it, every bit. The making of human life is also holy, and is specifically to be performed with in the bonds and boundaries of holy matrimony, as set forth by our Maker. Any compromise of that ethic will only hasten our slouching path toward Gomorrah.

Mr. Robinson,

I think I heard you’re supporting Fred Thompson in the primaries? Is that true? I am not sure what I’m doing yet. I consider Ron Paul and John McCain to be off the table. I guess Hunter’s off the table as well—just can’t get anyone to support him for whatever reason. Romney’s too slick. Huckabee is apparantly too liberal. And I know I don’t have to mention the former mayor of NYC. So all that leaves is Fred, am I correct?

Anyway, yer opinion is worth knowing. Was wondering if you are supporting Fred and also wondering what you thought about his MTP appearance-—his answers on abortion and also on Iraq and Iran.

Thanks for your time and for FR.

humbly,
h

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.