Posted on 12/06/2004 3:19:12 PM PST by Lorianne
What a very twisted mind this is.
I guess she thinks they are losing the battle so she wants to try to take back the pro-abortionists' status as moral agents. Doing whatever you want to do is morally right as long as you agonize over it first.
Oh good! So we can kill babies and feel okay about it as long as we drug them first! Yay!
If I were to set about killing anyone who, in my opinion, lacked a soul, I'd be too busy to do anything else. The U.S. Constitution doesn't seem to mention "ensoulment" as a prerequisite for the right to life or any other right guaranteed therein, so the so-called "ensoulment" question (which I remember being bandied about by Jesuit apologists for this abortion holocaust over 30 years ago) remains the silliest one I've seen. It's beyond "moot". It's as sophmoric as the arguments I made with girls in the back seat of my Chevy when I was, well, a sophomore.
Arguement? So that's what they call getting in the back seat with a girl now, eh? =P
But...the fetus isn't a 'person'. It's just a mass of tissue. Who cares if it feels 'pain'. Do we care whether cockroaches feel pain? /sarc
The "pro choice" people need to stop this silly idea that the law can't tell you what to do with your body. They do it all the time. You can't put certain substances into it or use it to operate certain machines if you are under a particular age, you can't kill yourself, you can't put your body in areas they tell you you can't go, etc etc. But more reasonable than any of those things, they've decided you can't use your body to KILL SOMEONE. There goes the myth of "bodily autonomy." Of course, it already was a myth for pregnant women, since it isn't just their body anymore.
=O!!!!! So a senior citizen can abort me?!?!?!?!
You better stay away from nursing homes. :)
I only meant the arguments took place in the back seat of the car and involved our different ideas about what we should or should not be doing. And it's not "now" - we're talking 35 years ago.
Good thing Grandma's dead, I'd hate to see her coming at me with the tongs.
=P Just joking, friend
The whole "ensoulment" argument is a clever way for the left-wing to argue in-circles to the right-wing. The bottom line is there is no tangible measurement for humans to use in order to discern ensoulment. As such it is pointless for humans to debate. We ought to stick to what we know. I'm a cold and logical person on this topic. You put egg and sperm together and a new life is wonderfully and fearfully made. I give God credit for this amazing phenomenon and as such choose to protect it. The only thing that amazes me more than the left-wing's desire to kill babies is their equal desire to protect killers of adults from capital punishment. In my opinion this is a positively irrational position and borders on mental incapacity.
That's incredible.
I probably become overly sensitive remembering how rarely any of it got any further than arguing for me. Back in the day when Catholic girls were still Catholic.
"It will also do everything it can to help women and men prevent pregnancies if they do not want to have children."
Sorry, but you can effectively leave men out of this discussion if their desires are contrary, whether or not to continue the pregnancy: to what the woman wants.
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
ROFL!
"It will also do everything it can to help women and men prevent pregnancies if they do not want to have children."
Sorry, but you can effectively leave men out of this discussion if their desires are contrary, whether or not to continue the pregnancy: to what the woman wants.
"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
The author does have one good point at the end. Why aren't pro-lifers doing more to prevent abortions? I know there is more being done than the author implies--there are charitable organizations to educate women and to take care of those who choose not to have abortions--but surely much more can be done than we are doing.
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.