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

To: Just sayin

I think you are the one with the problem with the obvious. The mother’s and childs rights are not equal here. The child had nothing to do with its conception, it is the innocent party.

The “mother” and I use that term loosely engaged in behaviour known to have consequences (pregnancy), failed to use widely available means to prevent the pregnancy, then says her right to be free of consequences trumps the childs right to life.

The mother is at fault and actions have consequences. She gave up her “right” not to be inconvenienced when she had unprotected sex. Therefore no right to an abortion. It is the childs rights that need to be protected


8,534 posted on 04/25/2007 7:08:21 AM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8523 | View Replies ]


To: Mom MD

There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

George Washington


8,535 posted on 04/25/2007 7:10:31 AM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8534 | View Replies ]

To: Mom MD
I guess you do subscribe to the notion that some rights are more equal than others huh? You said that pretty plainly with this comment

The mother’s and childs rights are not equal here.

If a pregnancy is brought to term, just in a different place than where conception took place, who right's are being violated? Would you be saying that a unborn child has the Constitutional right to remain inside the body where it was conceived? Seems to me you would have to be saying that.

I did not say anything about "inconceived", for in my idea, a pregnancy is still brought to term.

My question to you is " Why do you, right along with others, try to present my position as something other than it is?" Especially when at the heart of the matter, we are on the same side? Preserving the life of the unborn right?

Is it so out of bounds and impossible that there might just be more than one way to do that?
8,728 posted on 04/25/2007 9:52:35 AM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8534 | 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