30 Years of Legalized Abortion

Newsmax ^ | January 3, 2003 | Jerry Falwell

[mr.sarcastic]

Calling all FReepers within driving distance of Washington DC. The March for Life is next Wednesday, January 22nd.

[mr.sarcastic]

Bumping FReepers from the other March for Life thread.

[mr.sarcastic]

From Nancy Frazier O'Brien in an article posted on Catholic News Service:

Perhaps the most cheering words for pro-lifers in 2003 come from Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, which on Jan. 1 changed its name to Naral Pro Choice America.

"We have never had an environment as hostile as this since Roe vs. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court 30 years ago," she said. "This could really result in more losses than we have experienced in the past."

[Mo1]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

[Psalm 73]

Ditto - will we see you at 12:00 noon at the Freeper meeting place?
"Lord, thank you for the Pro-Life victories in Novembers' elections - please don't let us squander this opportunity you have presented to us, and may we give all Honor and Glory to You, Lord Jesus. And please protect us as we travel to Washington for this years' "March For Life" next Wednesday. Amen"

[mr.sarcastic]

Ditto - will we see you at 12:00 noon at the Freeper meeting place?

Yes, I will see you there.

[republicanwizard]

I'm rigidly pro-life, but it isn't even based on religious principles for me.

It is simple logic. If my right to live is not protected before we are born, then how can I be sure it won't be protected after I am born.

It is also based in the idea that others are not responsible for one's actions. An unwanted pregnancy should not be ended by punishing the innocent.

Anyone ever notice that the media states that to be pro-life is automatically extremist, but they never have stated what an extreme pro-choice stance is. I suppose that is what they mean when they say moderate.

[Zack Nguyen]

Almost as bad are self-proclaimed "pro-life" Republicans who hope fervently that the issue will never come up, and do everything they can to make sure that it never does. They do not especially care if abortions happen or not and would rather not think about it.

[Notwithstanding]

---

To: Notwithstanding

Planned Parenthood celebrates 30 years of Roe v. Wade
Images taken from http://www.victorlams.com/etc/

[waterstraat]

Almost as bad are self-proclaimed "pro-life" Republicans who hope fervently that the issue will never come up, and do everything they can to make sure that it never does. They do not especially care if abortions happen or not and would rather not think about it.

Good point. Most of those who "say" they are against abortion, will do nothing to stop it. I say give them the death penalty, with is no statute of limitations. Every woman, every father, every doctor should be executed for first degree murder.

I am not "pro-life", I am "anti-murder".

I know. Most of you will say that it is an "Extreme" position to execute murderers. Most of you are against exucuting murderers, or will make excuses since they just murdered unborn babies, or because most of the murderers are female, or are doctors or nurses. So what?

You can call my position extreme if you want, but it is consistent, all first degree murderers should be executed.

[Charlie OK]

bump!

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping....

[mr.sarcastic]

My opinion of the death penalty is based primarily on two things: economics and which punishment I would hate most if I was a murderer. In the case of abortionists deserving execution, don't worry. On their Judgement Day, God will be the ultimate arbiter of justice.

First, economics. It costs far less to keep someone in prison for life than it does to execute them. I have written on this before and have numerous citations to back this up, but they are not at hand at the moment. I'd be happy to dig them out later though. Essentially, the appeals process is exhorbitantly expensive, and a huge percentage of this cost is going towards the down payment for all the attorneys' new Beamers.

Second, what is the worse punishment? Personally, if I knew I was going to have to sit in prison for 40-70 years and think about my choices, I think I'd opt for the death penalty. You don't have to agree with me on this, but just try to imagine it.

And finally, I don't think it is our role to play God. Are you concerned that these murders will not get what's coming to them eventually? Don't worry about that... even if they receive no earthly punishment, they will burn for eternity for their selfishness and disrespect for life.

[waterstraat]

I agree with some of your reasoning, and disagree with part of it. It is more expensive today to execute someone, but that is only because it is so rare to actually execute someone. If we had tens of thousands to be executed, for the same crowd, it would go much much quicker and much more cheaply.

The crime is the same - murdering a baby.

There are only so many variations that a hundred thousand women can make, or that the Supreme Court can hear. Once we get the basic appeals settled, the executions will go smoothly and speedily, and cheaply.

Also, I cant change your mind about the death penalty. If you are against executing first degree murderers, then that is your opinion, and we disagree.

Giving life sentences to 20 million women would be horribly expensive, and no diminishing costs for the volume, as it would if the death penalty were given. I think the huge volume of death sentences would be cheaper than throwing them all in prison. Putting 20 million women in prison for life, is horribly expensive, and would strain our economy.

[mr.sarcastic]

Giving life sentences to 20 million women would be horribly expensive, and no diminishing costs for the volume, as it would if the death penalty were given. I think the huge volume of death sentences would be cheaper than throwing them all in prison. Putting 20 million women in prison for life, is horribly expensive, and would strain our economy.

Even if we disagree about the death penalty, I think we can agree that the scenario you describe would never happen. The goal of the Right to Life movement is to protect innocent life. The day that Roe v. Wade is overturned will be enough of a victory for those who value life.

Furthermore, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, you could not prosecute women who are having abortions today, because right now it is legal. That is the problem.

As I stated previously, don't worry, murderers and abortionists will not escape God's eternal justice. Just because something is legal or you get away with it doesn't mean you won't burn in hell for it later.

[waterstraat]

I think we can agree that the scenario you describe would never happen

I will agree that the scenario will never happen, IF WE PUT TEETH INTO THE LAW!!and if we really mean it.

Once tens of thousands are executed(or put in jail for life), then the fear of SEVERE!!! penalty will substantially reduce abortions, but only if the penalties are severe and given out.

[mr.sarcastic]

You misunderstood what I was saying. Even if we put, as you say, some teeth into the law, you can't prosecute women and abortionists who have killed babies in the last 30 years, because the sad truth is that it is legal. Even when it is no longer legal, you cannot prosecute someone for doing it while it was legal.

You have clearly emphasized your point that you want an eye for an eye. There is a more important and immediate goal here: overturning Roe v. Wade to save future generations of children. It's pointless to worry about penalties of any kind before the action you speak of (in this case abortion) is even illegal. Focus on fixing THAT first.

Will you be joining us next week?

[Coleus]

http://www.cpforlife.org/teaching_against_abortion.htm

Christian Teachings Against Abortion

[mr.sarcastic]

Thank you for the excellent link.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I know I'll be there!