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

To: madprof98
As solidly pro-life as I am, I think the uncle was out of line.

The girl is 11 yr. old and as abhorrent as we find her mother's beliefs about "choice", it is not right (at that age) to undermine her relationship with her mother. IMO, it would have more appropriate for the uncle to state simply that he disagreed with Gore on the abortion issue. Anything beyond that should have been discussed with the mother beforehand.

I would be just as angry if the situation was reversed, and someone had told my 11 yr. old child that they voted against Bush because "he hates women and wants them to be oppressed by men."

Flame if you want, but I'm going off-line for a while.

18 posted on 09/13/2001 2:12:47 PM PDT by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: workerbee
I totally agree with you workerbee. The uncle has done permanent damage to the relationship between this mother and daughter. The child will only have one mother and at such an impressionable age the uncle should have been less specific.
24 posted on 09/13/2001 2:22:05 PM PDT by linen53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
I would be just as angry if the situation was reversed, and someone had told my 11 yr. old child that they voted against Bush because "he hates women and wants them to be oppressed by men."

Your analogy is seriously flawed. Bush doesn't hate women and want them to be oppressed by men, so anyone telling your 11 yr. old would be lying.

The uncle in this story told the truth. Gore favors killing babies. Pro-abortion people can argue "the woman's right to choose" all that they want. What they are arguing for is the right to kill babies. It can't be sugarcoated.

By the way, the woman's daughter may just be in shock from learning how close she came to being sucked down a sink.

28 posted on 09/13/2001 2:27:28 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
"I would be just as angry if the situation was reversed, and someone had told my 11 yr. old child that they voted against Bush because "he hates women and wants them to be oppressed by men." "

How would the situation be reversed in your analogy? In your little scenario the 11 yr. old is being told an outright lie. This suggests that you believe the girl's uncle told her a lie. Care to explain yourself? Maybe you're not as pro-life as you claim to be.

37 posted on 09/13/2001 2:38:15 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
Flame if you want, but I'm going off-line for a while.

Typical of this poster. Drive by responses frequently. Just ignore her.

43 posted on 09/13/2001 2:58:14 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
As solidly pro-life as I am, I think the uncle was out of line.

I have no use for people who are relentlessly cagey about what they believe and why. The uncle was asked why he chose Bush over Gore. I suspect he answered honestly and that's not out of line.

45 posted on 09/13/2001 3:17:41 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
You are comparing apples and oranges. The Uncle was right to speak the truth. The mother should have done the same.

But if she did so, she would be telling her daughter that women have an unrestricted right to use a perverted medical professional to destroy another human being. The mother in essence is saying in agreement with NOW, Eleanor Smeal, and NARAL that the mother's rights have priority over her own child's and is willing to destroy her weaker and dependent flesh and blood to get her way.

57 posted on 09/13/2001 6:26:21 PM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
I know he doesn't feel that way, but to many pro-abort types he does, simply by the virtue of the fact that he is not pro-abort. The very definition of "woman-hating oppressor", to them, is someone who does not believe in "choice." So in the context of this discussion, the analogy works.

No it doesn't. The brother could easily explain that Bush not a woman hater, but that some people think he is because they are afraid he will do something to stop them from killing babies. Their opinion of him is not based in truth. But Gore does IN FACT support the killing of babies... he would proudly call himself pro-choice. One side has an opinion, the other side has a fact. An eleven year old could understand that.

...it is not appropriate for an adult to try and undermine the relationship of a child and her parent...to make their children question their authority or love. It is simply wrong to drawn an 11 yr. old into a situation like that.

1. You're assuming he was trying to undermine their relationship by telling the truth, not a lie or even a distortion.

2. Her mother had/has ample opportunity to explain her position to her daughter. Apparently, she couldn't. She's the adult who undermined their relationship, not her brother.

3. If the mother supported puppy torture and wanted to vote for the pro-puppy torture candidate, I don't think 11 is too young to learn what your mother supports. After all, shouldn't Mom be proud of her puppy torture position and be able to explain why puppy torture is a good thing?

I know you're pro-life, but I disagree with your opinion that the uncle was out of line.

Husband of Artist

61 posted on 09/13/2001 8:45:47 PM PDT by Artist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: workerbee
OK, consider yourself flamed. Nobody can be 'solidly pro-life' while choosing to couch infanticide in anything other than accurate, factual terms.
66 posted on 09/14/2001 12:48:02 PM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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