W
WilT
Guest
Yes, Thanks for the link. I totally agree with it.
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
A society that allows abortion is denying the most basic human right – the right to life – to one group of human beings, unborn children.
It is ironic and tragic that women who have labored so long and so hard for equal rights with men, are now prepared to turn around and totally discriminate against their own unborn children (many of whom are female) and count their lives as worthless. It is also a senseless and violent act to turn on one’s own flesh and blood in the sanctuary of the womb. To turn on those who cannot yet speak for themselves.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabortsa.com%2Fchoice-or-rights-of-unborn-baby-2%2F&ei=Yt7FU8DyBaaH8gGSi4CICg&usg=AFQjCNFcWwwU8qpn-gketcTE1XtZJ0gAVw
Rosemary Bottcher, Feminist For Life and environmental chemist, in 1985 said,
"Pro-abortion feminists resent the discrimination against a whole class of humans because they happen to be female, yet they themselves discriminate against a whole class of humans because they happen to be very young.
They resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her, yet declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him or her.
They resent that women have been “owned” by their husband, yet insist that the unborn are “owned” by their mothers.
They believe a man’s right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim that a woman’s similar right means that she can kill her unborn child."
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F~prolife%2Farticles%2Fembryoquotes2.html&ei=4ePFU4myI4S98AHgvIGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNF7Ujatmt8mEUhWVkMU3IC7R8PdZQ
It is ironic and tragic that women who have labored so long and so hard for equal rights with men, are now prepared to turn around and totally discriminate against their own unborn children (many of whom are female) and count their lives as worthless. It is also a senseless and violent act to turn on one’s own flesh and blood in the sanctuary of the womb. To turn on those who cannot yet speak for themselves.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabortsa.com%2Fchoice-or-rights-of-unborn-baby-2%2F&ei=Yt7FU8DyBaaH8gGSi4CICg&usg=AFQjCNFcWwwU8qpn-gketcTE1XtZJ0gAVw
Rosemary Bottcher, Feminist For Life and environmental chemist, in 1985 said,
"Pro-abortion feminists resent the discrimination against a whole class of humans because they happen to be female, yet they themselves discriminate against a whole class of humans because they happen to be very young.
They resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her, yet declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him or her.
They resent that women have been “owned” by their husband, yet insist that the unborn are “owned” by their mothers.
They believe a man’s right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim that a woman’s similar right means that she can kill her unborn child."
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F~prolife%2Farticles%2Fembryoquotes2.html&ei=4ePFU4myI4S98AHgvIGAAQ&usg=AFQjCNF7Ujatmt8mEUhWVkMU3IC7R8PdZQ
E
edwest2
Guest
Here is how abortion supporters convinced a too trusting America, starting in 1969, that abortion was OK.
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/
Who decides when anyone has sex? The Church? The State? No. The individual does.
But who believes in self-control? Poor people see their poor friends raising babies because men aren’t taking responsibility for bringing a life into this world. Instead of being men, they are walking away from their own children.
Abortion is not a civil right. And Jane Roe of Roe v Wade, what happened to her?
youtube.com/watch?v=MYNyaNNq8Xg
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Contraceptive failure is the primary reason women seek abortion.
lifesitenews.com/news/two-thirds-of-women-seeking-abortions-were-using-contraception-britains-lar
Abortion will stop not by convincing men or women to not use contraception but in convincing them that what is being killed is not a “blob of tissue” but a human being. Women would not be anxious about delivering a blob of tissue. They know there is a growing baby in their womb.
Peace,
Ed
C
CaliLobo
Guest
Ed, Gary, and Ridgerunner,
I understand all your points. But you guys didn’t answer my main point. Why can’t we have a system in which the right to abortion remains, and those who oppose abortion don’t get one? Abortion supporters do not oppose…
I understand all your points. But you guys didn’t answer my main point. Why can’t we have a system in which the right to abortion remains, and those who oppose abortion don’t get one? Abortion supporters do not oppose…
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
For the same reason we can’t have a system where murder is legal and those who don’t believe in it don’t have to involve themselves. Regardless of those committing murder who have no problem with others committing murder, if they did have a problem there would something wrong with them and their logic. And this is the usual type of response by pro-choice. Catchy slogans with lacking reasoning.
This isn’t a heath issue, its murder. Unfortunately the public is influenced by the talk of a party who is not only wrong as Pelosi was on all 4-talking points of contraception-hobby lobby, but the response is to act more ignorant, and talk over the points when they are obviously wrong.
Its insulting when the real points are ignored and talked over and usually with anger and an attitude. Its another double standard in the precious theory of equal rights. We should then have the equal right to murder for any fashionable whim and call it good health. Oh wait, women already stretched abortion into fashionable murder.
People have been sold this lie through slogans for so long they are brainwashed with iniquity.
For example a woman has a right to choose? Choose what, which method to kill? This isn’t what color dress to wear tonight. Should anyone have the right to choose to kill a human being for virtually any reason? Then why all the whining when innocents are murdered in war on the other side of the world? Why all the crying when children are murdered in schools and cities across America. Why the double standards? We want to respond in a moral way to which we cannot apply the morality we would impose on others to ourselves.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Obviously, the system you want is what is in place. Your problem is not that, but the fact that we oppose it. Regardless, your question implies a larger one, and that’s the one to which I responded. Your fundamental difficulty with our opposition to state-sanctioned abortion is that you feel that opposition is based on a moral system that some, perhaps including you, do not share.
The problem with the broader concept, as I said, is that someone’s moral code will be made into law no matter what. The law is composed of almost nothing else; from the concepts underlying the laws regarding murder, to traffic laws, to the commercial code. So the real question is not WHETHER some moral code will be imposed on society by law, but WHOSE moral code will be imposed.
I mentioned one problem that appears to arise out of legal acceptance of abortion on demand; population failure. But the refusal of some segments of society (primarily its elites) to accept that legally-imposed morality without consistent underpinnings leads to contradictions. So, for example, partial birth abortion is allowed by law. A viable baby is deliberately killed, and that’s okay under the law. On the other hand, if a person negligently (say, in a traffic accident) causes an unborn child to die, that person can be charged with wrongful death in almost any venue and manslaughter in some. So, intentional killing on the one hand is okay, while unintentional killing on the other is punished.
Again, what consistent moral system do you favor to guide lawmaking in the U.S.?
C
clintonm
Guest
When using a limited sample size I would agree that there is a great chance of there being some sort of bias. However, 43 million is a large enough sample size for the actual average to hold out really well (and these are all averages and samples erring on the side of the smallest value). Though this comment speaks more to your view on human life than your view on the actual economic value to human life as can be expressed using demographic studies. To assume that a child born to a poor background will ultimately end up being poor means that you do not see that child has having the will and ability to escape so you are more than willing to deny that child a chance. Either life has sanctity or it does not. Or to take it away from that and go towards an argument that you make, what if all 43 million of those babies grew up to cure diseases and advance science to levels undreamt of?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
W
WilT
Guest
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Abortion is just an advanced form of birth control. Abortion did not become legal until people accepted birth control as a moral practice. Paul IV was right in everything he said in Humane Vita.
E
edwest2
Guest
B
BornInMarch
Guest
It has not all been defeats, Chile is a shining example of how laws preventing Abortion can improve society (after the pro-life laws were implemented, the female mortality rate dropped significantly).
M
mikekle
Guest
I dont understand how as a society, people today get so worked up whenever a kid is kidnapped and later found murdered, the police often devote personal time looking for the killer, people donate goods, time, vehicles, etc towards efforts to either find the body or the killer, so it would appear like we care very much about our young…however at the same time, its completely legal for a woman to kill her child before its born…?? How can people NOT be outraged by this and still go the lengths they do over any other child killing? Hypocrites?
What about police? Anytime changes are suggested to drug laws, in favor of legalization, police all over are up in arms, they protest, write letters telling judges to keep them illegal, why arent police so vigilant when it comes to killing the unborn? By looking at this, if someone suggested killing a 2 yr old should no longer be a crime, would any of these cops protest? I doubt it, being they arent voicing their opinions now when woman can legally kill their unborn kid…?? This is very strange, as police seem to be extremely vigilant when it comes to ANY murder, some will open 30 yr old cold cases, and work them on their own time, so on the surface, they appear to care about this, but not when it comes to babies…?? LOL does this make any sense?
Im fearful of what the future may hold, as we all know if someone is desensitized to murder, eventually, they wont mind any kind of killing, since people today dont seem to mind the killing of unborn babies, I would not doubt at some point, they also wont care too much about killing a 1 or 2 yr old…then it becomes acceptable to kill a 12 yr old, and on and on…whats the difference?
This wont stop until all the churches and religious groups band together and decide they are willing to fight this tooth and nail…law enforcement has no problems breaking out the big guns to protect these clinics where killing is legal, why should those who oppose it be any different in their methods in trying to stop it? After all, you cant bring a knife to a gun fight and expect to win.
What about police? Anytime changes are suggested to drug laws, in favor of legalization, police all over are up in arms, they protest, write letters telling judges to keep them illegal, why arent police so vigilant when it comes to killing the unborn? By looking at this, if someone suggested killing a 2 yr old should no longer be a crime, would any of these cops protest? I doubt it, being they arent voicing their opinions now when woman can legally kill their unborn kid…?? This is very strange, as police seem to be extremely vigilant when it comes to ANY murder, some will open 30 yr old cold cases, and work them on their own time, so on the surface, they appear to care about this, but not when it comes to babies…?? LOL does this make any sense?
Im fearful of what the future may hold, as we all know if someone is desensitized to murder, eventually, they wont mind any kind of killing, since people today dont seem to mind the killing of unborn babies, I would not doubt at some point, they also wont care too much about killing a 1 or 2 yr old…then it becomes acceptable to kill a 12 yr old, and on and on…whats the difference?
This wont stop until all the churches and religious groups band together and decide they are willing to fight this tooth and nail…law enforcement has no problems breaking out the big guns to protect these clinics where killing is legal, why should those who oppose it be any different in their methods in trying to stop it? After all, you cant bring a knife to a gun fight and expect to win.
C
clintonm
Guest
If you are Pro-Life then you should be pro life in every form, not just the unborn. So do not react towards abortion clinics and those that champion abortion with violence. Their judgment will come.
We live in a society that adores death. We have no concept of the value of a human life. Acceptance of abortion merely becomes the first of many sanctioned killings of undesired humans. Killing off the old and the feebled is what follows, and as the list of undesired lives expands the justifications for killing expand.
We live in a society that adores death. We have no concept of the value of a human life. Acceptance of abortion merely becomes the first of many sanctioned killings of undesired humans. Killing off the old and the feebled is what follows, and as the list of undesired lives expands the justifications for killing expand.
M
mikekle
Guest
Well, not really…if this is true, then why does murder have no statue of limitations? why do alot of cops and other investigators work soooo hard to solve murders, some work on their own personal time, spend years on one crime, etc. People tend to get worked up whenever a young kid is kidnapped and/or killed, they call for more laws, they want the killer arrested and put to death, etc. so it seems our society cares very much about the crime of murder…but only in certain cases, when it comes to abortion, none of the above applies…??? this is what I dont understand…how can a society feel both ways about murder?
If murder and killing were no big deal to our society in general, I tend to think we would have lax laws about it, no life sentences for killing someone, no other harsh sentences either…??
When you look at it, it seems our society is full of hypocrites.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
What I don’t get is the tone of this thread and the pro-life side. There are still way too many abortions and as a social issue it affects minorities much more (> 3x more) than others but there is a ray of hope.
The pro-life side is gaining ground. The fight is far from over but starting in the early 1990s the number of abortions started to decrease and have been on the decline since. In other words why isn’t there more talk about the ~300,000 babies a year not killed to inspire efforts to save the other 1 million that need help?
The pro-life side is gaining ground. The fight is far from over but starting in the early 1990s the number of abortions started to decrease and have been on the decline since. In other words why isn’t there more talk about the ~300,000 babies a year not killed to inspire efforts to save the other 1 million that need help?
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
I fear that while abortions at clinics are dropping, anonymous chemical abortions are taking their place. The line between birth prevention and birth termination has been blurred. I agree that our churches need to be firm on birth control in whatever form it takes.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
I agree with this in part.
The people that believe this is a 40-year-old issue simply do not understand the issue. The reality of the issue this that it is ubiquitous and has existed for all time. A change in the laws, while preferable, will reduce abortions; it will not stop them. The Church also prohibits masturbation and contraception. How is that working out?
People are looking for the magic-pill solution. The reality of the situation is that the only way to stop it is to change it is to change people’s hearts. Otherwise it will continue, and likely on a large scale, legal or not.
Lastly, those that address the contraception/abortion connection might want to look at the Muslim world. The Muslim world allows contraception, yet has some of the strictest abortion laws, and lowest abortion rates, outside the Vatican state. Those laws that people like two draw between the two utterly fail for this very large group of people.
W
WilT
Guest
I can’t speak officially for the Church but I do know that the Church doesn’t teach within a confined or narrow fields as politics and social issues. It’s position is much broader. It is a God ordained protection of humanity and it is stated quite plainly by Jesus. If your a Christian, then you have read where it states to do no harm to your brothers/sisters and help them if they go astray (and do harm).
- Status