Asking Pro-Choicers "The Nuclear Question" by Mark Crutcher

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAL

Guest
Mark Crutcher’s new post begins by asking, “How would you like to ask the pro-choice mob a question that is guaranteed to have them jumping around like worms on a hot rock? Well, read on.” Well, read on.

Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?

MORE…

markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2007/8/17/Gays-and-Baby-Killers-A-Shaky-Alliance#comments
A new study suggests political persuasions may be partially genetic in origin.

If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?

jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/weekend_questio_14.html#comments
 
I would love to see this question posed to Political Candidates in a nationally televised political debate for United States President.

They would have no clue on how to answer the question.
 
That’s nice and all but those politicians will spin that question around in a circle.

Show those same crooks an aborted baby photo and see how they answer their support of that one.

Talking about abortion over the last 35 years hasn’t saved one baby’s life, that avenue has failed.
 
"Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?"
Well now, should it be alright for a woman to kill her unborn child because there is genetic evidence that they will be:

a) Retarded
b) Prone to alcoholism
c) Physically disabled
d) Not related to her husband

The answer to all these questions is “no.”

Assuming that there’ll ever be a day that homosexuality is firmly connected to genetic disposition, even those plagued by it are still children of God. No child comes into this world that has not been sent by God. We are all sinners and all have crosses to bear. Some are homosexuals, some are mentally or physically challenged, some are orphaned, some are born into extreme poverty and hunger. Nobody, heterosexual or homosexual, deserves to be murdered.
 
“Talking about abortion over the last 35 years hasn’t saved one baby’s life, that avenue has failed.”

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that…but the bs mumbo-jumbo that Crutcher is serving up doesn’t add ANYthing to the cause, IMO.
 
To qualify someone’s humanity in any way is always altruistic. That said, for a philosopher, ethicist, or professor to quality human life as “some who thinks,” which is often used to justify abortion, they are being equally altrusitic, just like a soccer player who qualifies life as being able to kick a ball.
 
Pious_Mat said:
To qualify someone’s humanity in any way is always altruistic. That said, for a philosopher, ethicist, or professor to quality human life as “some who thinks,” which is often used to justify abortion, they are being equally altrusitic, just like a soccer player who qualifies life as being able to kick a ball.
Click to expand...
I am not clear on your usage of “altruistic” here. Can you elaborate?
 
Amolibri said:
…the bs mumbo-jumbo that Crutcher is serving up…
Click to expand...
What bs mumbo-jumbo? I think it is a valid question and would be very interested in hearing how pro-abortion politicians would answer it. Or avoid answering it, more likely.
 
Mark is a good guy and I have some of his sidewalk counseling stuff but it didnt work with the police unfortunately. I believe that Mark supports graphic imagery which means he plays for Team Life not Team Feelings.
 
Leopard said:
What bs mumbo-jumbo? I think it is a valid question and would be very interested in hearing how pro-abortion politicians would answer it. Or avoid answering it, more likely.
Click to expand...
“Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay?” :confused: 😦 :o “straw man” if I’ve ever seen one.

Inflammatory rhetoric, IMO…and does nothing to promote the cause.
 
Someone genuinely pro-choice would simply answer:

“I’d be appalled at the close-minded sickness that might lead someone to choose to abort their child out of homophobia. But I do not support the creation of any sort of ‘inquisition’ to determine what basis a woman is using to make her choice. I maintain that abortion is a decision that a woman must make by herself via her own conscience and that the government must stay out of it.”

Any pro-choice pol wouldn’t lose a thing with a response like that, even from the gay rights crowd.
 
manualman said:
Someone genuinely pro-choice would simply answer:

" … I maintain that abortion is a decision that a woman must make by herself via her own conscience and that the government must stay out of it."
Click to expand...
I agree with Manuelman that pro-choicers would simply find a way to sidestep the question. Actually, this has come up before, both in the slavery debate and in the context of abortion. Back in the 1850s, in response to the heart-rending accounts of slave families being sold apart in the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, proposals were made in the South to prohibit separating husband from wife, or parent from child, in the sale of slaves. The slaveholding-rights forces vigorously opposed such legislation by making two arguments: (i) this “never happens” except in the “fevered imaginations” of the abolitionists; and (ii) once you step in and “start to regulate the relation of master and slave, there will be no end to the encroachment” on slaveholding “rights.”

Similarly, when California Senator Dianne Feinstein was running for the Democratic nomination for US Senate back in the 1980s (her opponent was named John Seymour I believe) she was asked during a televised debate whether she would support legislation banning the use of abortion for purposes of sex-selection. She said she would. Seymour immediately jumped all over her, accusing her of not being really pro-choice, saying that (i) abortion for sex selection “never happens” in this country; and (ii) if you give a single inch to the pro-lifers, and start to regulate the woman’s abortion decision, there will be no end to the encroachment on that “right.” Feinstein backed down and later said she would oppose any such legislation.

So, unfortunately, I don’t think Mr. Crutcher has come up with an “unanswerable” challenge after all. But we should all keep trying. Moreover, if the public becomes persuaded that what pro-choicers claim “never happens” actually IS happening, then answers like those given above may no longer suffice, and pro-choicers would indeed be in a box.
 
bmmckinney said:
…Talking about abortion over the last 35 years hasn’t saved one baby’s life…
Click to expand...
But it has! I know at least four people whose mothers were ready to abort, but did not because someone talked to them and offered them help. One of them is a mother herself now whose children are their grandma’s pride and joy.
 
bmmckinney said:
Talking about abortion over the last 35 years hasn’t saved one baby’s life, that avenue has failed.
Click to expand...
That would be why all the indicators we have show that both the abortion rate and the sheer number of abortions in this country has been falling for years, I suppose.
 
bmmckinney said:
That’s nice and all but those politicians will spin that question around in a circle.

Show those same crooks an aborted baby photo and see how they answer their support of that one.

Talking about abortion over the last 35 years hasn’t saved one baby’s life, that avenue has failed.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, you are correct! Out of sight, out of mind. Show the world the horrors of war or Michael Vick hanging a dog and they riot. Show a martyred infant, “Ohh that’s sick, I don’t need to see that, you sicko!” The media has it’s spin on what political gains it wants, it’s called in your face. Seems to work most of the time…bmm, I think you’re onto something.
 
I wanted to add a second “Nuclear Question” to the mix. I was watching Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel on Hannity & Colmes last night. Cal and Bob are trying to bring conservatives and liberals together on the issues. Cal Thomas (Pro-Life) asked Bob Beckel (Pro-Abortion) this question…

Would You Support National Legislation Stating Abortion Clinics MUST Give Free Sonograms/Ultrasounds of the Woman’s Unborn Baby Before Performing an Abortion?

The Pro-Abortion Bob Beckel said “Yes”! I thought this was great for both of them to come together on this question. The reason Cal Thomas asked this question is he knew 80% of the women who want to get an abortion and later see an ultrasound of their baby, change their mind and keep their baby!

If this did become national legislation, I would like to see at least a couple of days waiting period between seeing the ultrasound and performing the abortion. The longer the waiting period we could get out of this, the higher the percentage of women would want to keep their baby after seeing the ultrasound!

Can you imagine saving the lives of 80% of the unborn babies in the womb without trying to overturn Roe v. Wade?

What are your thoughts? Would other Pro-Aborts support this? Would NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood support this?

My thoughts are if they did not support this, it would be another true marker on where they really stand (just like the “Partial Birth Abortion” marker)!
4D Ultrasound Pictures of Unborn Babies…

prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/
 
Amolibri said:
“straw man” if I’ve ever seen one.

Inflammatory rhetoric, IMO…and does nothing to promote the cause.
Click to expand...
Just to point out the obvious, but that is/was exactly the approach that was used by the “sex without consequences” crowd to win over the masses. Considering that the gay lobby is a big part of that political back-scratching block, it is a “nuclear question” to pose to a pro-abort/pro-gay politician in that they can’t answer it without either alienating part of the pro-aborts or the gay lobby, and dancing around it leaves an opening as to whether they really buy the malarkey about personal choices or are supporting it for political reasons.
 
KarenNC said:
That would be why all the indicators we have show that both the abortion rate and the sheer number of abortions in this country has been falling for years, I suppose.
Click to expand...
To be precise, they held pretty constant until the 1990s, when we saw a sharp drop. We continued to see a national decline, but at a much slower rate, with increases in some states at the beginning of this decade. It is hard to tell what has been occuring the last few years since the Administration has stopped publishing most of the related annual reports.

However, poverty trends are not encouraging. About 60% of abortions in this country are procurred by woman living in low income and poverty brackets. More than half of them already have children. African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately represented, which sadly means that Christians and Catholics are disproportionately represented.

Since they presumably know they are committing a grave evil, the pressures they feel must be great indeed. 😦
 
SoCalRC said:
To be precise, they held pretty constant until the 1990s, when we saw a sharp drop. We continued to see a national decline, but at a much slower rate, with increases in some states at the beginning of this decade. It is hard to tell what has been occuring the last few years since the Administration has stopped publishing most of the related annual reports.
Click to expand...
Which annual reports do you mean?
However, poverty trends are not encouraging. About 60% of abortions in this country are procurred by woman living in low income and poverty brackets. More than half of them already have children. African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately represented, which sadly means that Christians and Catholics are disproportionately represented.
Click to expand...
Since they presumably know they are committing a grave evil, the pressures they feel must be great indeed. 😦
Click to expand...
In order to reduce the number of abortions, it is necessary to address the reasons women have abortions, not just make it harder for them to get one. That simply relocates the issue.

guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top