Posted on 01/27/2002 6:26:17 AM PST by Bowana
First of all "most" people who collect Medicare and social security have already paid into the system for a lifetime. Young mothers and welfare families have not.
It's not the mistakes people make that shouldn't be paid for, it's the continued abuse of the system by having more children when they can't afford the one's they already have!
Secondly, this guy IS me.
BUMP!
I am Pro-Life, Anti-Abortion, and Pro-choice!
I would suggest life, counsel against abortion, and still be willing to accept the right of a person to choose.
Easy access to abortion will only continue the illusion that one can continue unchaste living, with consequences passed on to the baby rather than absorbed by the unchaste. This is a lie, for abortion will leave its mark on the soul of anyone who still has a soul to mark.
Since easy access to abortion will only promote more unchaste living, it stands to reason that such access should be denied.
I also am glad you were not aborted. No one should be, regardless of the inconvience it will bring to the lives of those responsible.
How tediously the morally bankrupt seek incessantly to justify their lack of values, and to what end?
How instructive that their vindictive nastiness invariably shows through at the end. Everything is a "struggle " for this pathetic sap. His beef is with the vagaries of life--but he takes it out on everyone, flailng wildly about with draconian punishments for the innocent and guilty alike.
In fact, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, stated the most humane thing that could be done to a child from a large, poor family was to be killed. Peter Singer, profesor at Princeton, suggested that handicapped babies be killed after they are born. Adolph Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, killed the handicapped and elderly. That's where this nation is headed due to irresponsible, selfish people that have no respect for human life.
No, a baby that sucking its thumb in the womb at around nine weeks, should have have its arm ripped off. That's not an option. The option is adoption or keeping one's legs closed until one can deal with the potential consquences and responsibilities of sex.
I do not recommend easy access to abortions, on the contrary I would recommend a difficult course to obtain abortions.
I believe that councelling and options should be discussed in length. In the end though I still believe in the right of a woman to choose.
As for the religious angle, that is wonderful for those that believe, but there are those that don't believe at all. There are also many who belong to many different religions. To expect everyone to live by one set of religious beliefs is not possible.
That's nice that you claim not to want to make turning the most innocent of living human beings into a pound or so of chopped meat easier. See, one can be a mildly compassionate neo-pagan without interfering with the bloodshed!
No compromise. NONE. If you think that pro-lifers are going to be as exhausted as those whose sacrament is the slaughter of little children, you have another think coming.
The slippery, slimy, can't we all get along pseudo-moderation that crawls on its belly begging for the respect it does not and can never earn ought not to get the time of day.
This issue will be resolved in favor of life. It is not a question of whether. It is a question of when.
If you think you need a flame-retardant suit now, wait until you see how much you will need one after you are dead if you don't change your tune.
Oh, I am just soooo insensitive.
By the way: Right to choose WHAT???? Why the right to choose to butcher the baby, of course, if it is inconvenient, or poor, or handicapped, or just not perfect enough, or able to be defined out of the human race by judges like Herod (roasting on an open fire eternally) Blackmun. Maybe some of the babies are the wrong race or sex. Didn't we fight World War II against the Hitlerian and Sangerian (Planned Barrenhood) philosophies of justifying mass murder on eugenics grounds? Not that I am judgmental, you understand.
An interesting and very well-done site.
I hear this crap so often, it's incredible. If abortion would prevent women from taking their frustration out on the babies, or of giving up their baby into a life of possible neglect and abuse why has child abuse increased since 1973?
Abortion devalues life so people of weak character, whether they have participated in abortion or not, will view all human life as less important than before. This is why 17 yr old girls throw babies in the trash at a school dance or college students beat a child to death moments after it is born.
Abortion is evil and does nothing but spreads evil.
How would you propose to accomplish this?
What is to be done with every baby born to one that is not ready to handle the responsibility?
Why are people forced to seek foreign babies for adoption instead of American babies?
What about rape, incest, and which life is to be chosen when the mother and baby are at risk? Do nothing to favor either and risk both?
Should a woman who is raped or suffered incest be forced to give birth to the baby of the person who raped them?
If so, should they be forced to bring up the child of the person that raped them?
This pathetic sap is Me.
His beef is with the vagaries of life--but he takes it out on everyone, flailng wildly about with draconian punishments for the innocent and guilty alike.
Innocent children have to suffer when their parents have them with no consideration of how they plan to support them. Children have to suffer when their parents are abusive, or when one of their parents commits a crime. Any punishment will invariably effect the innocent as well.
When a spouse commits a crime the innocent one will loose the income of the guilty, whether illegally gotten or not, it will still effect the innocent party. The child of a person who commits a crime has no understanding that their parent must pay a price for doing something wrong. All they know is that they are loosing a parent.
Do you have any solutions or are you just attacking someone else's views?
What a hodge-podge of questions! Each of them seems to come with a hidden agenda, and some of those agendas conflict with others. This one, in particular, sticks out like a sore thumb. Obviously people are "forced to seek foreign babies for adoption" because so many American babies are sucked down the sink in abortion mills. There is a huge demand for these supposedly unwanted babies, and it is next to impossible right now for any newborn made available for adoption in the USA to languish in foster care.
There is not one dropof truth to this statement. There are many American babies available for adoption. I know. I have adopted four healthy and beautiful newborns and have always had my choice of infants and never waited longer than nine months. Do not believe that there are no children available.
The poor souls languishing in foster care are children whose birthparents have not signed away custody, or the state is going through the ardous process or removing custody.
Don't let anyone ever tell you that there are no American children available. In my last adoption I had in one day, calls about 8 babies.
From what I understand, isn't the process to adopt an American baby much more difficult then to adopt a foreign one?
That is part of my understanding, and not a "Hidden Agenda"!
I'll also add another to my "hodge Podge" of questions; What about the older children in Foster Care now? Most adoptive parents only want babies.
AND why is Rosie O'Donnell able to fast track her and her friends adoptions? If it's because of her "Ability" to provide for them, let me remind you that many of them like her, are single parents. So much for the establishment of a family environment.
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.