Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S
Eaker
Thanks, Billy and Hilly!!
Now that we agree, let's sum it all up:
ABORTION a bad word even to abortionists.
As a woman, I am heartily sick of the litmus test being whether or not I "approve" of abortion. I imagine many minorities are also feeling sick of being judged by the color of their skin, and lumped into some imaginary grouping based solely on that criteria.
As a woman who has experienced more than my fair share of "spontaneous abortions", I would never knowingly "choose" to inflict upon myself, or anyone else, that particular grief.
Ann Coulter is correct in this article.The Democrats are indeed the Abortion party.Abortion "right" is the only issue they have to keep uneducated women on their plantation.I want this issue gone.I do not believe anyone should be able to "choose" to terminate a second or third trimester pregnacy, based solely on personal convenience.There are valid reasons a woman must undergo a medically induced abortion.I dont think the majority of women view abortion as a viable birth controll method.
I think the abortion "issue" is one manufactured by controlling socialist elements of the Democrat party.The fear factor.The controll factor.The Taliban Democrat factor.
Roe v Wade only provided legallity for individual patient/doctor choice of treatment options. Nothing in that ruling mandated abortion on demand.
I truly want politicians to get out of my womb.I think minority races also want everyone to get out of their skin color.How can we ever achieve true equality, when a powerfull pollitical party (Democrat) bases their power on lies and fear?
That's no reason to resort to hyperbole to oppose abortion. (In fact, hyperbole should be even less necessary.) Moreover, suppose that a woman who finds out her husband is committing adultery becomes despondent and kills herself. Would you have the law treat her husband as a murderer?
If I believe that abortion is a taking of human life, then it shouldn't make any difference whether that life happens to be my own child or yours.
If anti-abortion people could prove that abortion is the taking of a "human" life, then they would have no need to resort to hyperbole. (Moreover, I could make a strong case that there is nothing wrong with valuing the lives of your own children more than those of anyone else.)
In the same vein, a southern before the Civil War would argue that he (or she) is simply pro-choice. Stephen Douglas certainly made that argument to Lincoln in the Lincoln/Douglas debates. How much respect would such a position get today when slavery is universally viewed as an evil?
I certainly respect Antebellum Southerners who thought slavery was wrong but should be legal more than I respect those who held slaves and claimed that it was part of God's plan for negroes. Lincoln, for example, was not an abolitionist when he first became President but rather thought that slavery should be ended by (a) appealing to what he thought were the Jeffersonian instincts of most Southerners and (b) compensating slaveholders for giving up slavery. It was only when he realized that slaveholders would fight to the death to preserve slavery that he became an abolitionist.
Of course, a legal choice to enslave is the opposite of a legal choice to abort. The modern slaveholders are the anti-abortion zealots who want to maintain pregnant women in bondage until they deliver a baby.
Calling it "pro-choice" is not a philosophical decision, but a marketing decision...
On the contrary, the "pro-choice" label is accurate for people who do not want the state to prohibit abortion and that's why it infuriates the anti-abortion zealots. On the other hand, the "pro-life" label anti-abortion zealots use is false advertising (unless the "pro-lifers" are in favor of women having as many babies as possible even if that means they have to be raped and held in bondage throughout their fertile years).
Notice that politicians will invariably say "I want to preserve a woman's right to choose", but they never explicitly say choose what.
Do you really think anyone doesn't know what choice they are talking about? If I asked a conservative office seeker "Do you believe that the state should permit people to choose to smoke so many cigarettes that they die of lung cancer or emphysema", you would expect him to say "Yes, I think the state should permit people to choose to smoke so many cigarettes that they die of lung cancer or emphysema"? There is a huge difference between false advertising and effective true advertising.
I don't think that and I didn't say that, but as in this column, Coulter harps way too much on the adultery and thereby hurts the Republican/conservative cause.
Even if you could prove that, it wouldn't justify the hyperbole of Ann Coulter and the other anti-abortion zealots. I fact, as I have stated, if you could prove that you would have no need for hyperbole.
You've got to be kidding. Here's a proof for you. Examine the DNA of an aborted baby and the DNA of a baby the same age born prematurely.
Then examine your own DNA. You will be surprised to find that all three of you belong to the species homo sapiens, the definition of human.
Not really. I believe in a soul but also believe that there is pretty strong evidence suggesting that the soul does not enter the fetus until shortly before birth.
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.