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

To: Milltownmalbay
I don't understand the reason for trying to pass the "The Child Custody Protection Act." It sounds like an act that will not reduce the abortion rate much, and could be a tremendous public relations disaster for the pro-life side.
I mean, let's say you have a pregnant 17 year-old in Bristol, Tennessee. Say this girl is three weeks into her pregnancy and an emotional basket case. She just emotionally can't handle pregnancy or life in general, and is smoking and drinking up a storm. She decides that she'll abort the baby, and it's okay with her parents, who figures the baby probably won't survive nine months of abuse anyway. Her older brother who is 19 agrees to drive her up the road to the clinic, which is just up the road and happens to be in Bristol, Virginia. (Full disclosure: I just picked a border city at random here.)

You wan't to make what her older brother did a federal crime? And even if you did, most of the country wouldn't agree with you. The pro-choice side would get a huge victory in publicity.

I would suggest the pro-life groups forget about this bill, and try to get all the other passed. A ban on "partial-birth" abortions would be a significant victory. It probably wouldn't save that many lives, but it would generate a lot of publicity about the repugnant nature of late-term abortions.
6 posted on 01/06/2003 9:50:26 PM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Our man in washington
Clarification: when I used "you" in my last post, I wasn't referring to Miltownmalbay, but to all activists on the pro-life side. I was replying to the article, not the poster. Miltownmalbay, thanks for posting the article.
8 posted on 01/06/2003 9:53:13 PM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Our man in washington
Say this girl is three weeks into her pregnancy and an emotional basket case. Two things of note regarding your hypothetical: 1) at three weeks, the 'girl' wouldn't have a clue that she was pregnant; 2) by the three weeks you mention, for the new individual human life in her womb, the alive individual at his/her normal life cycle stage has a beating heart that is developing chambers already, so anything to discourage slaughtering that new individual life outweighs the 'possible' publicity manipulation the pro-serial killing crowd might raise. Protecting the innocent and giving the girl a chance to choose life instead of killing are the central issues.

Full disclosure: I live within 19 miles of Bristol. If the parents approved the drive to the Virginia side (or from VA side to TN side) and the brother drives her there, it is highly unlikely that the issue you have created would even exist, especially for a three week gestational age pregnancy. Such creation of specious hypotheticals does nothing to forward a reasoned debate on the real issues that will arise over such bills as this wise young man has written about.

11 posted on 01/06/2003 10:05:36 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | 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