Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by skipdup

Do you really think we should abolish all laws?

I was asking if you felt it was necessary that the government tell you it was wrong.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Very sad story indeed. I, for one, would have had no qualms whatsoever about aborting the child in this particular case. It could have been done early enough in the pregnancy that any question about what it was could probably be seen as moot.

These stories are all quite sad, and I'm afraid I would probably support an abortion if done soon enough in the pregnancy in these cases.

The problem with all of this is, however, that is not the demographic getting the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions (in our country) are given to middle to upper middle class whitebread women. Women who have chosen it as their method of birth control. Women who have careers (student or professional) that would be interrupted by a baby. The true face of abortion in this country is a young lady with a brief case and a lap top, climbing the corporate and social ladder. That face doesn't tug at the ol' heart strings so much, but yet it represents the majority of women choosing abortion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and interject a little personal opinion, based upon my own observations. These women could give a rat's ass about the poor and downtrodden they parade before us as the face of abortion. They are hiding behind that face to get what they want, and to hell with anyone else. Much less their own baby... it's all about them.

And the men running around out there knocking them up want that out; the out of a convenient abortion. So they join the shrill cries of "what about the ____???!!!" (fill in the blank - incest, rape, deformities, unwanted, etc., etc.) They could apparently give a ***** about those people either, other than in the context of a talking point o bolster their case. They know they would never get any sympathy for being unable to keep it in their pants. So they very cynically look to some one who can invoke that sympathy - the minority of cases that they prattle on about. And all the while these self serving bastards could really care less. All they want is pussy with a safety valve attached. They will stoop to any depth to get that.

So, there you have it. I guess I'm not really opposed to abortions of necessity after all. I'll give that inch. Problem is, the pro choice crowd will take that inch and go a mile, in a no-compromise grab for freedom to abort at any time for any reason. As purely a matter of convenience for women (and the men that got them pregnant) that should know better. That's where I have a problem with it.

I agree with everything you've said here Jeff and I honestly commend you for your courage to say that you might have a change in thinking about a subject regardless of a position. I don't recall reading anyone else nutting up (poor pun) like that on OT.

My only disagreement would be with your last comments towards the majority of pro choice supporters. I don't believe it's as dire as that. Seems to me that they spend more time trying to keep RVW intact, tenuous as it is, because that is all that is in place right now as a fundamental guide. It needs better definition I agree. The issue is whether it is serious enough on a National level to remain in Federal juristriction.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I was asking if you felt it was necessary that the government tell you it was wrong.

It is necessary for the government to enact laws that protect its citizens from those who would remove the rights we call inalienable. They do not get transfered to the mother because she is the caretaker/host, they stand alone and should be justifiably protected.

It is not too much to call into question the arbitrary day when today (day number X) the unborn has no rights worthy of the State's interest, but tomorrow (day number X + 1) those rights can be vigorously protected. That is what this discussion is about.

Any questions?

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Any questions?

Just one.... How is it that you totally misinterpreted my post?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

It is necessary for the government to enact laws that protect its citizens from those who would remove the rights we call inalienable. They do not get transfered to the mother because she is the caretaker/host, they stand alone and should be justifiably protected.

It is not too much to call into question the arbitrary day when today (day number X) the unborn has no rights worthy of the State's interest, but tomorrow (day number X + 1) those rights can be vigorously protected. That is what this discussion is about.

Any questions?

Dude, lay off the mushrooms. This is reality, not religious mysticism. Islam says you should beat your wife with a stick. Want to codify that? Mormonism says you can have a million wives. Want to codify that? The old testament says that during her period a woman has to stay outside the city. Want to codify that?

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Mule

Dude, lay off the mushrooms. This is reality, not religious mysticism. Islam says you should beat your wife with a stick. Want to codify that? Mormonism says you can have a million wives. Want to codify that? The old testament says that during her period a woman has to stay outside the city. Want to codify that?

I dunno, that last one sounds like it might be a good idea...

[Mule]

Dig this Doug:
http://dim.com/~randl/tcont.htm

[Mule]

A few more "laws" for your consideration"

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

t is common that a Christian will blow off these old rules with "Jesus came to change the laws, so these are outmoded, and we don't need them", but throughout Leviticus God states that these laws are to be followed forever. Hmmm.

[70SATMan]

OH let's not bicker and argue about who kills who...

[Wrecked944]

Today I wear black in protest of 29 pages of this drivel!

[Mule]

Yeah, let Jerry Fallwell make the laws!

[Hugh R]

Wow, that Leviticus guy is a real party pooper, huh?

[72doug2,2S]

Originally Posted by Mule

Dude, lay off the mushrooms. This is reality, not religious mysticism. Islam says you should beat your wife with a stick. Want to codify that? Mormonism says you can have a million wives. Want to codify that? The old testament says that during her period a woman has to stay outside the city. Want to codify that?

The rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in an American thing, you wouldn't understand.

Babble on Mule!

[dafischer]

At peril of being called out for a duplicate post...

My feelings on this thread.

[72doug2,2S]

Here's a summation of the responses concerning human rights on this page,

(with hands over ears)
la la la la la la la
I can't hear you.
I can't hear you.
I can't hear you.

Now watch mule write some thing off topic.

But, I bet you'd care it we were discussing your constitutional rights. I guess you think you're more important then those we're discussing, eh?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by 72doug2,2S

Here's a summation of the responses concerning human rights on this page,

(with hands over ears)
la la la la la la la
I can't hear you.
I can't hear you.
I can't hear you.

Now watch mule write some thing off topic.

But, I bet you'd care it we were discussing your constitutional rights. I guess you think you're more important then those we're discussing, eh?

IMO, your summation is amazingly inaccurate.

I have read some thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate posts in this thread in regards to human rights.

Best,

Kurt

[nostatic]

pot, meet kettle.

[trekkor]

thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate

I'm at a loss as to how these words can be used in the same breath as "abortion".


KT

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm at a loss as to how those words can be used in the same breath as "religion".

[nostatic]

I'm at a loss after a 240 mile flatbed tow.