Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
“Abortion is not murder of a human being...”
Yes it is.
And the baby would have suffered death either way; at least he died feeling the love from his parents.
Everyone born has to die anyway. Is that a reason to murder them?
Duh - it’s already pinged.
Beddy bye!
The liberals, believe it or not, have very strict moral absolutes. Yes, they value nearly the exact opposite things we do, but they still have moral absolutes as strict as any Taliban hiding out in Pakistan.
That, in and of it’s self, is not a convincing argument.
Nah, they fight among themselves.
I’m talking about these:
“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson
And, one of my all time favorites:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites—in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
— Edmund Burke
You’re making my argument.
You’re being very obscure.
I can only assume you want a liberaltarian adolescent boy fantasy world. Unless you explain yourself. But I’ll have to read any replies tomorrow. Insufficient sleep for days. Gotta get horizontal.
If I’m wrong about what you mean, my apologies.
What about abortion in cases of rape or incest?
Abortion Q & A — BY JOHN CARDINAL O'CONNOR, ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK
July of 1990
http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/cardocqanda.html#qa13
Some evils are what we call intrinsic evils, that is evil in themselves, so that no circumstances can justify them. Direct abortion is such an evil. It simply can not be morally justified. This principle holds even in regard to rape or incest. An unborn baby is an innocent human being who has committed no crime, regardless of how conception came about. It is never morally right to destroy an innocent human being.
What About Rape?
http://www.prolife.org.uk/about/keyabortion.htm
Abortion is often recommended in cases of rape. But abortion does not undo the rape; instead it compounds violence with violence. It is an indefensible response to a complex situation. Putting aside the injustice of an innocent child being killed for her father's crime, there is evidence that abortion only deepens the trauma of the rape victim as well as taking the innocent life of her child. A rape victim requires special emotional care regardless of whether or not she obtains an abortion. By recommending abortion as a quick and easy way to “lessen the impact”, a disservice is done to raped women.
By promoting abortion specifically in the case of rape one implicitly argues that the means of conception determines the value of a human life. This line of reasoning fails to acknowledge that, biologically speaking, there is no difference between a human being conceived by a loving couple and a human being conceived by rape. Are we to deem born children conceived by rape as having no right to life?
It is also worth noting that statistically speaking, violent rape is extraordinarily unlikely to result in pregnancy; moreover, women tend to love their babies even if they hate the father.
Priests for Life Q&A on Abortion
http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html
A key study on this topic is the book Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, By David C. Reardon. In this book, read the testimonies of 192 women who reveal that most pregnant sexual assault victims don't want abortion, and those who do abort only suffer more. This is the most comprehensive study published on this theme. http://www.afterabortion.org
Dr. Theresa Burke also addresses this topic in her book Forbidden Grief, www.forbiddengrief.com. One example from that book is this testimony: “The rape was bad, but I could have gotten over it. The abortion is something I will never get over. No one realizes how much that event damaged my life. I hate my rapist, but I hate the abortionist too. I can’t believe I paid to be raped again. This will affect the rest of my life.”
Please also see the following testimony from Jenni Speltz, who was conceived in rape: http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jennispeltz.htm.
In many cases the best choice is adoption. It is important to note that there are hundreds of thousands of couples that want to adopt but have been unable to because so many children are never allowed to be born.
What about the life of the mother? (by Fr. Frank Pavone) http://priestsforlife.org/questions.html
Answer: There are two questions at issue here. One is medical (Is there ever need for an abortion to save the mother's life?) and the other is moral (Would an abortion in that case be justified?) The answer to both questions is no. There is no medical situation whose only solution is a direct abortion, as many doctors have testified. Morally speaking, furthermore, it is never right to directly kill an innocent person, even if good results are foreseen. We do not say that a baby's life is more important than the mother's. We do say that they are equal. You may never directly kill either one of them. If, in spite of the best medical efforts, one or both of them die, nothing morally wrong has been done, because an effort has been made to save life, but has failed. That is far different from killing.
See also these articles by Fr. Frank Pavone:
”Persuading People that Rape Does Not Justify Abortion” http://priestsforlife.org/columns/column8-17rape.html
What moral/ethical/good things are ever done in back alleys anyway?! “Safe, then Legal” http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2003/03-10-06safethenlegal.htm
Three expert physicians’ testimonies stating that there is no “medical reason” for having an abortion. http://priestsforlife.org/articles/dropinion.html
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Children suffer the consequences of their parents evil, but to lay that at the feet of God amounts to blasphemy. God never punishes the innocent for the sins of the guilty (Ezekiel 18). God acts to inhibit the sins of the guilty, and in so acting innocent people are harmed.
It is important to remember that God has the authority to take life, and man does not except in the case of a government exactly capital punishment on the guilty. God often takes the (physical) life of the righteous or innocent, but that is not punishment. In fact, it is a mercy that is reserved to God.
A woman who shoots a rapist is justified. But if she shoots his sister or his child, that is not justified.
Sure it is. The woman is pregnant with a entity that is the result of the fusion of a human egg with a human sperm, giving it the complete set of human DNA. Your denying the humanity of that which with the woman is pregnant is delusion of the highest degree.
Abortion is wrong, but not for reasons you hold.
Well then, if it's not wrong because it's not murder, then on what basis do you determine that it IS wrong?
You’re not making any sense either.
And you’re doing just what you’re condemning in others, but failing to see that in yourself.
It seems to be a common trait in liberaltarians.
What I’m saying is this: in the 20’s we banned alcohol. Good arguments have and can be made about the evils of alcohol and why people shouldn’t do it ever and why society shouldn’t tolerate it.
So we banned it. What was the consequence? Bootleggers. Gangstas. Al Capone. Speakeasies. People drank just to defy the govt. A giant and competitive illicit market was instantly created that resulted in a criminal underground with escalating violence.
One of the favorite tools of the criminals was the Tommy Gun. A series of high-profile killings by the rum-running gangsters resulted in the Gun Control Act of 1934, which was supposedly designed to reduce the violence, but in hindsight was the first shot in taking our gun rights. Similar comparisons can be seen in the drug war and the 4th amendment. Not that I’m an advocate of legalizing drugs, but my point is that all out bans on things have two effects on human behavior: 1) rebellion against the ban, 2) the power and control hungry to use the ban to take other freedoms away.
Which is why I’d allow a genuine rape and incest exception for abortion. I am afraid a total ban would create unintended consequences, not the least making the victims of crimes outlaws in their own right. Not only does the backlash scare me, but the liberals would twist it to their purposes.
Health care would be a great example. I see abortion ban supporters arguing ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ as reasons to ban abortion. Well, that’s the same argument the socialist Dems are using to justify national health care. And you know if there was an abortion ban, they would use that in court to say we must protect every life thru universal health care. And you know they will.
My point in my response to your quotes by Jefferson and Burke is to say that I agree with them. All the laws in the world can’t police men who are internally corrupt. My hope is with a rape and incest exception that the girl or woman would make the right choice and keep the baby, but I won’t go as far to make them outlaws if they don’t. Making such a law isn’t a substitute for a lack of personal morality and will create far more problems than it solves.
In the end we’ll still save 99% of the babies being aborted today. I’d rather have results than philosophical but pyrrhic victories.
I don't know about others, but I have no problem with the libertarian argument against government involvement in abortion legislation. To any libertarian who says -- "Let's not get the government involved in protecting the innocent unborn human beings" I say, -- "Fine, and get the government out of protecting any humans against the murderers, not just the unborn".
In a free society in the libertarian mold the abortionists will be machine-gunned in front of their clinics, adn the "mothers" won't do much better.
Have a good rest.
At most, and not often, the mother-to-be was unable to say no, and in some cases may have entered into a situation where whe lost control.
The most innocent of the parties is developing inside the mother-to-be, who was not there at the start of the crime.
That is who an abortion punishes, the one who had no say, no hand in the rape. They get the death sentence for the actions of others.
I have a fundamental problem with that.
Incest: the same problem exists, whether the incest is truly between related family members, or an unrelated family member by marriage (The stepfather in the example the writer uses is not a blood relation).
Still, the one who is executed for the crime of at least one other is the one who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and again, the sentence is death.
No matter how hard I have tried to look at this from every angle, I am left with the same problem in both instances.
It is the unarguably innocent who suffer death for the actions of others.
In no other instance in our culture is this allowed or condoned. Nor should it be in this one.
“forcing someone by law to bear the result of an injustice doesn’t ring well with me in a free country.”
I agree, as long as you don’t have to kill anyone that is innocent of the injustice. Like the unborn person.
Freegards
I don’t know that I could.do that. I don’t know that I could hold a suffering,dying baby, thinking I could have prevented that. It is a horrible choice to have to make and I don’t know that I could view a decision to a abort a baby to prevent unnecessary suffering the same as waking up and deciding I didn’t want to be pregnant anymore.
I know the outcome is the same... a dead baby ... but I guess the struggle for me is that I don’t think I am convinced that it is ok to put someone thru pain and suffering before dying when the pain and suffering part of it could be shortened. This is one of the few things in my life that I am not cut & dried, black & white one.
Forgive me if I don’t reply any more today. It is almost 1AM and I have an early morning. But I appreciate the discussion and will check back tomorrow... I want to ask about the ‘make a choice between mother or baby’ dilemma.
Thank you.
The question is whether or not you believe there is a human being existing before birth and if so should this person be murdered for revenge, or the psycholical comfort of the mother, or for any reason. Once the deed is done e.g. a pregnancy following rape THEN what. Is carrying a child for 9 months physical or psychological torture -will killing it make things better?
Anyway, IF one truly believes that there is a human being existing before birth THEN it is quite understandable to see why even rape seems a hollow reason to murder an innocent...
There is no 'wiggle room' here like some would imply...
This Snot Rag fellow makes some really idiotic arguments.
If a fetus is not a human being, what is it? An aardvark?
Then what? The blue fairy comes to the delivery room and with a wave of her wand turns that non-human into a human baby at the moment of birth?
Idiotic.
“What I’m saying is this: in the 20’s we banned alcohol.”
How is it that alcohol prohibition becomes an argument against prohibiting everything the culture of death likes?
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.