by ignored_one 217 Replies latest social current
I've always felt that anyone that deeply, sincerely believed that abortion is murdering a living baby would be compelled to act the same as Hill.
Wow, so since I profess to believe that abortion is murder I should become a murderer to stop abortion?
The logic escapes me.
Alan,
A tenuous comparison if you don't mind me saying so, almost in the 144000 / FDS category of non-appropriateness.Nice try though.
Here's on the subject mentioned: http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html
Not really a comparable situation IMHO.
Englishman.
Stacey, try this: Assume for a moment that you lived in a society that waited until a baby was one year old before it was regarded as a person and entitled to the same protections as the rest of us, from the rest of us, by the rest of us. (It would be a terrible world, but humor me for a moment)
Now, picture that there were members of that society that thought it reasonable to go to a 'clinic' and have their little post-natal problem taken cae of - for whatever reason. But for now, lets assume that such people typically had their problem 'taken care of' because they couldn't take good enough care of the soon-to-be fully-recognized person.
Picture this clinic and the people walking in. Employees, Dr.s, nurses, 'customers' walking by vociferous protesters outside.
Now the question: Would you feel that someone who felt compelled to stop the immediate murder of these innocent little sub-one-yr-olds would be justified in using any manner necessary?
I would. Because I deeply, sincerely believe that a post-natal baby is a person.
Buster-
Good analogy. I await Pro-Lifers' responses.
Thanks, SP.
This topic can get pretty inflamatory, but I'm trying to keep the temp. down.
Stacey: I'm waiting for your response, and you're changing your picture? (just kidding) But I am looking forward to your response.
E-man said:
: A tenuous comparison if you don't mind me saying so, almost in the 144000 / FDS category of non-appropriateness.Nice try though.
Not a good answer. A good answer would have to address my comments point by point and show why each of them is wrong. A blanket statement is worthless.
: Here's on the subject mentioned: http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html
Thanks for the link; very interesting but irrelevant.
: Not really a comparable situation IMHO.
Sure it is. On the one hand we have a government that wants to execute murderers; on the other we have a government that wants to kill people for stealing land. Which is the worse crime? Murder or stealing land?
Let's see a substantive response, please.
AlanF
Yeru,
"abortion as birth control is the norm...and sickening"
Abortion as birth control would be sickening but it's not the norm by any stretch. Do you have any concrete evidence that it is? Of the women I know that have had abortions not a one of them has used it as birth control. None of them have even become pregnant again. One of them went so far as to get her tubes tied in her early twenties so she would never have to go through it again.
I believe in the right to choose. I've never had an abortion and most likely never would but I believe it's a woman's right to choose whether or not she wishes to bring a baby to term for whatever reason. I would prefer that the woman gave the child up for adoption but, for some it's just not an option.
I also don't think this man should receive the death penalty. I think state sanctioned excecutions are barbaric. Granted I'm a bit of an idealist and not very pragmatic but, I hope to see and end to it in my life time. Some will say that I support the "killing of babies" but want to protect the life of a murderer. Not true. I only support the right to choose when the fetus is still an unviable entity. Late term abortions are sickening. If it can survive outside the womb it is a viable, living entity.
Btw, Buster, good point!
~Aztec
I believe in the right to choose. I've never had an abortion and most likely never would but I believe it's a woman's right to choose whether or not she wishes to bring a baby to term for whatever reason. I would prefer that the woman gave the child up for adoption but, for some it's just not an option.
Aztec, I agree, in fact until kids are able to take care of themselves I think mothers and fathers should have the right to kill them.
What proof do I have that abortion is used as birth control...because these women aren't being refered to the clinic for a life threatening condition...they're going because the pregnancy is "inconvienient" or the sperm donor walked away...they're not "ready" to be pregnant yet...they don't have enough time...they don't have enough money...I forgot to take my pill...the rubber broke...etc etc etc ad nauseum. That, aztec, is birth control, plain and simple...and it's men and women being completely irresponsible about procreation...it's the further victimization of women by men who feel free to walk away because abortion is available and cheap...and the victimization by the abortion clinics that offer no followup counseling...I've talked to more than a few women now in the pro-life arena...who had earlier aborted and been offered no counseling or support by the clinic or anyone else for the emotional havoc that almost always follows an abortion.
The mating of a male and female of the human species can only produce another human. From the moment the two strands of DNA combine there is a seperate distinct human life there...the right to choose for both men and women...is BEFORE this occurs...after it occurs...it's not a choice...it's a life, a human life...so...if it's ok for a woman to "choose" to kill her baby while in the womb...why not extend that "choice" to outside the womb.
Buster,
You ask.
Now the question: Would you feel that someone who felt compelled to stop the immediate murder of these innocent little sub-one-yr-olds would be justified in using any manner necessary?
Let me turn the tables on you...why isn't it ok to kill a baby after it's been born since it's ok to kill one before it's been born?
Yes, I would feel that in a society that legally allowed the murder of babies it would be wrong to kill to stop this from happening. But I would lay down MY life to stop it from happening.
You try to paint us pro-lifers as a bunch of radicals...we're not...we don't condone what Hill did...your straw man has been burned to a crisp.
Why is it you feel a woman has a right to kill the baby that's inside her, but not the one outside her?
"From the moment the two strands of DNA combine there is a seperate distinct human life there"
That's your opinion.
I didn't say I was pro-abortion. I said I was pro-choice. When you take away the right to choose you only do so for the people who are unable to afford a private doctor who will stay quiet. You won't get rid of all abortions, just abortions for the poor.
~Aztec
PS be careful how you word your reply so as not to appear elitist.
Azzie-
be careful how you word your reply so as not to appear elitist.
At least he addressed your post.
Yeru-
if it's ok for a woman to "choose" to kill her baby while in the womb...why not extend that "choice" to outside the womb.
For obvious reasons.
Is a seed a tree? Is a germinated seed a tree?
