This is inflammatory. ? SamH’s take or the thing and person he has a take
on?
Whether we agree or disagree about whether the choice should exist, < Coming: a point that will unite us ALL?!
with very rare exception, no one makes the choice lightly, Not sure whether “with very rare exception” meant that dancingbrook has some exceptions to abortion in mind where it should NOT be done; or whether it’s rare that those choosing to abort - choose lightly. Either way I disagree (twice).
- The very rare exception to abortion being totally illegal would be the unintentional losing of the child while helping save the mother’s life. And hopefully whatever efforts that can be made to “save them both” will be made.
- In my opinion it is NOT rare but quite often that people DO “choose lightly” to abort. Does “quite often” mean “MOST” even? I don’t know. But dancingbrook’s “no one” - seems to bestow a great deal of moral credit to people **doing **this destructive thing.
and those that choose to allow others to choose, don’t do so with a “no problem” perspective or attitude.
"those that choose to allow others to choose" - I have to hand it to whoever first coined this
masterpiece of implication. How can one deductively avoid the idea that these people would be “open minded, tolerant, and ever-so-much-better” than their opposite numbers (on the pro-life side)?!
AND rest assured (it looks like) they additionally have wrestled with the issue. They don’t lightly allow abortions with a “no problem” ***but … they do allow them in the end. *** Up to and including Dr. Gosnell’s cavalcade of carnage on living post-born babies?
I’d like to have more info on that wrestling - and HOW they came to the conclusion they did. If it is not enlightening intellectually - it should at least give students of abnormal psychology some case data to ponder and write theses about.
I wish all the money and energy spent attacking those who choose differently, was spent helping to keep the born alive and healthy.
We MIGHT be able to AGREE here! Nice wish! Would having willing adoptees available save some babies (that WOULD be better money spent than on ads if possible). Perhaps a “ransom” for threatened-with-horrors babies could be arranged? (Sigh) I fear 'tis just a hopeless wish.
You deserve a salute for your excellent phrase
" … helping to keep the born alive and healthy". < (some of us get inflamed when “born alive - then killed” is advocated though - per THIS case).
We do nothing helpful by attacking others. Attacking others didn’t seem to be Sam H’s point to me. A person who makes such statements about his grandchildren ought to be disagreed with … with some passion, acceptable.
Your disagreement with Sam H came off on paper (to me) to be “scolding”.
If scolding is OK and NOT “attacking others” - this reply is also not personal (and it’s not).
I just disagree that: THIS choice be legally allowed (and I do agree that it
should be in court to determine WHAT will be allowed and WHAT is not). If the “very rare exceptions” threshold you allude to in YOUR take are exceeded (in this grisly case) maybe we will agree on the result?
Some choices should not be allowed to be made. That’s why we have laws at all. Not that laws can’t be changed, adjusted, or eliminated - but " choose to allow others to choose," without distinctions comes pretty close to or achieves the level of “anarchy” < which is all freedom and no security (against criminals for all is legal). Anarchy is another “choice” that ought to be resisted (possibly with even more than an inflammatory comment or two if necessary IMO).
Even anarchy seems superior to Dr. Gosnell’s apparent choices - though the former would allow the latter.
