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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking about asking so-called “Catholic” Pro-Abortion Politicians the following question in either through the mainstream media or a debate…

Would You Encourage and Support All American Catholic’s to Pray A Novena to Ask For “God’s Will” to be Done in the Upcoming Election?

What are your thoughts on this?
 
this is not a nuclear question. at most, it might be an embarassing question as it levers open a wedge between usually allied groups.

an abortion advocate would simply state that the law does not require a reason for an abortion, so aborting babies with genetic predispositions to homosexuality is and should be permitted.
 
It is legal to kill your baby in America. That is a fact. Our frontal militant approach to change this merely hardens hearts.

We should have bumper stickers that read “Sure you can kill your baby, but why would you do that?” Making it unfashionable will save more babies.

Anyone who works to keep abortion legal and thinks it is ok to dismember a baby with a suction curette one bone and muscle at a time and depositing it into a jar is nothing short of a monster. I don’t care what their frame of mind is, they are monsters who support a heinous act.

Even though they are monsters, we won’t save one baby by taking that approach. It just alienates them and makes them simply dig in. We have to provide a countervaling alternative that is positive and makes pregnant women see the positive side of bringing babies to term.

Love always works better then condemnation.
 
Copperman said:
Then why does a person get charged with murder if they shoot a pregnant women (who wants her baby) in the abdomen and the baby dies?
Click to expand...
Where did I say I agreed with all the laws the US has on the books, or that I thought they reflected the actual workings of a healthy society? They don’t. We’ve got all kinds of laws on the books that are various degrees of screwed up, although compared to some, this one’s pretty minor. Ideally (and completely off the cuff) I’d say it’d be an entirely new charge between felony cruelty to animals and manslaughter.
Even though they are monsters, we won’t save one baby by taking that approach. It just alienates them and makes them simply dig in. We have to provide a countervaling alternative that is positive and makes pregnant women see the positive side of bringing babies to term.
Click to expand...
Love always works better then condemnation.
Click to expand...
Until they see you calling them monsters – in short, condemning them – behind their backs. Real smooth there, slick. Go one way or the other, but if you try to walk down two roads all you’ll get is tendonitis of the crotch.
 
Copperman said:
Then why does a person get charged with murder if they shoot a pregnant women (who wants her baby) in the abdomen and the baby dies?
Click to expand...
its a way for the government to increase criminal charges against a perp. that’s all.
 
Mirdath said:
Where did I say I agreed with all the laws the US has on the books, or that I thought they reflected the actual workings of a healthy society? They don’t. We’ve got all kinds of laws on the books that are various degrees of screwed up, although compared to some, this one’s pretty minor. Ideally (and completely off the cuff) I’d say it’d be an entirely new charge between felony cruelty to animals and manslaughter.

Until they see you calling them monsters – in short, condemning them – behind their backs. Real smooth there, slick. Go one way or the other, but if you try to walk down two roads all you’ll get is tendonitis of the crotch.
Click to expand...
At the risk of coming perilously close to violating Godwin’s Law, supporting the dismemberment of human flesh (46 chromosomes) for the sake of expediency is something “you know who” would do. It is a despicable act. There is no need to speak “behind their backs” because they obviously have deadened sensibilities. Anytime someone wants to take the life of another it is first necessary to dehumanize them. History is fraught with examples of this. “It’s not fully human” is ALWAYS the necessary first step to do the dirty deed. Yes, the term is indeed monsters.

Pregnant women are vulnerable and must be treated with love and compassion. There is no tension between these two ideas and my crotch is just fine. But thank you for your concern.
 
Copperman said:
At the risk of coming perilously close to violating Godwin’s Law, supporting the dismemberment of human flesh (46 chromosomes) for the sake of expediency is something “you know who” would do. It is a despicable act. There is no need to speak “behind their backs” because they obviously have deadened sensibilities. Anytime someone wants to take the life of another it is first necessary to dehumanize them. History is fraught with examples of this. “It’s not fully human” is ALWAYS the necessary first step to do the dirty deed. Yes, the term is indeed monsters.

Pregnant women are vulnerable and must be treated with love and compassion. There is no tension between these two ideas and my crotch is just fine. But thank you for your concern.
Click to expand...
Anytime someone wants to take the life of another it is first necessary to dehumanize them. History is fraught with examples of this. “It’s not fully human” is ALWAYS the necessary first step to do the dirty deed. Yes, the term is indeed monsters.

Didn’t the same mentality occur in an earlier time at a place outside the U.S. Hmmmmmm, now where was that???
 
elts1956 said:
Anytime someone wants to take the life of another it is first necessary to dehumanize them. History is fraught with examples of this. “It’s not fully human” is ALWAYS the necessary first step to do the dirty deed. Yes, the term is indeed monsters.

Didn’t the same mentality occur in an earlier time at a place outside the U.S. Hmmmmmm, now where was that???
Click to expand...
Of course. Nazis dehumanized Jews. Japanese dehumanized Koreans. The list is endless.
 
Maybe a better question would be, “Does size matter?”

Roe v Wade made up distinctions of first, second,and third trimesters without any basis in science or law. Advances in medicine since the 70’s make those parts of the decision even more absurd.

On what basis is a two ounce fetus less human than a two pound fetus, a seven pound baby or a 120 pound teenager?

If size matters, is the average 5’10" adult man more human than the average 5’4" woman? Should I have above average rights to life at 6’2"? Should Shaq be President?

To the proabortion crowd the only question is, “Is a woman’s choice, even if not informed or even rational, more important than the life of her son or daughter?” Equal protection under the law depends on the whim of a girl or woman and all logic needs to be ignored.

It goes back to very first lie, “You shall be like God.” Once you fall for a whopper like that, you are capable of any pervesion of logic. Abortion is only one example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top