“Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That's why this election is so important,” the Obama ad contends. “John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That's what women need to understand. That's how high the stakes are.”
.
Well, at least he didn't call him a right wing ideologue
25 comments:
Is it true that they arrested "Roe" at Norte Dame as a domestic terrorist because she opposes abortion?
I don't know.
Funny how "Roe" is now never mentioned given that she's switched sides, though, isn't it?
It doesn't matter that Roe switched sides. Everyone can change their minds if so inclined. For all you pro-lifers, how many of you are against capital punishment? How many of you contribute to organizations that help single moms and kids? How many of you are willing to make sure that affordable health care is available to everyone? How many of you would be willing to adopt a baby that was not, for whatever reason, wanted by its mother?
How many of you--yourself, a sister, wife, daughter, etc.--would be raped and become pregnant--would you want that woman to carry a fetus for nine months perhaps reliving the attack every single day?
Capital punishment is a whole different thing, Anon. A criminal has been given due process, a sentence handed down by a jury of his/her peers, for crimes committed.
An unborn child has committed no crime and has no advocate save pro-life groups.
A lot of pro-lifers give money, time, goods to organizations that help women with unplanned pregnancies.
In Wisconsin, at least, there is BadgerCare that will help pregnant women receive medical care.
I am more than willing to adopt a child. It's expensive when done privately, but people do it. There is also adoption through the foster system. We've often thought about going through the foster system, as soon as we purchase a house rather than an apartment.
As for rape, how does abortion erase the memory of the attack? It certainly doesn't bring justice to the attacker, and it certainly ends the life of a human being who did nothing wrong. I find it troubling that your response to a rape victim is not, "Let's get you some good counseling," but rather "Let's get you to the nearest abortionist pronto!" as if that will get rid of the pain and trauma of a rape totally. Women who've had babies conceived in rape say that the experience was healing and helpful to them - more so than if they had aborted.
If it were me, I wouldn't abort. And my husband supports that decision and we would raise that child as his own.
And there's always - ALWAYS - a subtle undertone in pro-choice people's argument that we expect women to keep and raise the baby. If she doesn't want to, that's fine. But the notion that her independence - her womanhood - hinges on her right to KILL that child is sad.
Anonymous said...
Everyone can change their minds if so inclined.
It will be interesting to see how many more times Obama changes his mind in the future.
How morally bankrupt do you have to be to compare the murder of an innocent, unborn child to the execution of a convicted murderer who has had anywhere from 5 to 25 years of appeals before he actually recieves the due penalty for his crime?
I think Roe is a good example of many women that are now prolife. But, it appears that diehard abortion supporters are leading us to a tyranical goverment if they can arrest her as a domestic terrorist.
If someone tried to save innocent people in Germany: would the Nazi have considered them domestic terrorists? Weren't Nazi socialists?
Just raising the questions.
Norma McCorvey WAS at ND. I don't know if she was arrested.
For all you pro-lifers, how many of you are against capital punishment? How many of you contribute to organizations that help single moms and kids? How many of you are willing to make sure that affordable health care is available to everyone? How many of you would be willing to adopt a baby that was not, for whatever reason, wanted by its mother?
How many of you--yourself, a sister, wife, daughter, etc.--would be raped and become pregnant--would you want that woman to carry a fetus for nine months perhaps reliving the attack every single day?Should we sign up for ALL those causes, or a select few, or just one?
I certainly hope that you have your daily dose of Condesension and Moral Superiority now...taken together with vitamins and minerals, you should lead a long and very sour life.
Billiam,
The comparision is valid. If you are truly "pro-life" you seek to protect life in all its forms, be it guilty or innocent, its still life. To suggest otherwise enables conditions to be placed on taking a life, which is no different than the pro-choice folks. You just pick a differnt point on the same slippery slope. But your logic is the same.
Super ID -
you're an embarassment with that kind of reasoning.
Here is the link to the video story of Roe's arrest for those interested:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/norma-mccorvey-roe-from-roe-v-wade.html
Oh irony,
I am pro-life with conditions and I agree with SI, so I must be an embarassment too. It is all where you draw the line. The embarassment anon person obviously draws the line between any baby and a guilty criminal. I believe if the mother's life is in jeopardy she should have the right to an abortion at any stage. After all, most of the time, you don't know the mother's life is in danger until in to the third trimester or near actual birth.
Given that I have set my line, I find capital punishment to be on the okay to kill side pretty much all of the time. If you are pro-life and pro-capital punishment, you are hypocritical. If you accept any line that includes killing criminals you are not 'pro-life' are you?
There are many places where a line could be set. Jesus taught that all life is precious. I do not disagree with him, but I am not as perfect and I read the data about how many murders in the US are repeat offenses and I think they should be taken out of society permanently in more cases than they are.
Tuerqas
Super ID's point is that philosophical consistency first requires a philosophy. If that point is to guard the "sanctity of life," that opens up the playing field to a number of other issues (though probably not as many as anon posits). A problem with the abortion debate is that some see abortion as "categorically" wrong. If that belief is held sincerely, then follow form. If not, then admit the limitations of your position.
most of the time, you don't know the mother's life is in danger until in to the third trimester or near actual birthUhhhmmmhhh...your knowledge of medicine is adequate, if you are living in the 18th Century.
Now it's merely a display of total ignorance.
For starters, babies can live ex-utero after about 5 months' gestation, making killing the child somewhat draconian, no?
Further, your mind fails to acknowledge--or more likely, understand--the difference between the criminal and the unborn child: intent.
The criminal had intent; it is required to show that in order to obtain a conviction.
Super ID -
"you're an embarassment with that kind of reasoning."
And yet I've used the same reasoning as the Pope:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml
So I'm in good company
Super ID -
Can you then explain the difference between kill and murder?
Sure.
"Kill" is a broader term meaning to deprive one's life;
"Murder" is the unlawful killing of an individual generally with the mens rea of malice.
and your point?
Now can you explain how taking a convicted criminal's through capital punishment promotes the sanctity of life?
Nobody EVER claimed that 'capital punishment' promotes the sanctity of life. That's like saying that Wonder Bread is a vegetable supplement.
Capital punishment is one of a range of remedies which a State undertakes to protect its citizens (and itself, indirectly) from extraordinarily dangerous criminal offenders. The Catholic church has CONSISTENTLY said that capital punishment is licit (given the usual conditions: evidence, fair trial, yadayada.) That teaching has NOT changed.
However, John Paul II opposed capital punishment, (but NOT as a matter of doctrine). He posited (in effect) that when a State is wealthy enough, it should life-incarcerate a felon otherwise deserving of the DP--that is, that the State could forego utilizing its right to capital punishment.
It's a suasion thing and has the advantage that if a State voluntarily withholds the DP, the State cannot make a fatal error.
ID -
Dad is a pretty smart guy and I agree with his answer, at least this time.
Abortions will not stop if people stop supporting capital punishment.
I just cannot see you in a court room before a jury with a picture of a baby and a picture of a serial killer and saying they both deserve to be killed. I think most people would say one would be murder.
I also think most people would say one deserves to live but one deserves to die.
DAD29
"most of the time, you don't know the mother's life is in danger until in to the third trimester or near actual birthUhhhmmmhhh...your knowledge of medicine is adequate, if you are living in the 18th Century."
That very well could be, because I do know nothing about medicine. So you are saying my statements and beliefs are ignorant because there are zero times per year where a mother is in life danger from a pregnancy where the final option is one life or the other...
If I believed you, I would have to move my line. The point was still that I can imagine instances where abortion would be preferable. They are few and far between for me, but there are instances therefore I have drawn my line, but thanks for the attack rather than addressing the point. You cannot imagine an instance where abortion would be preferable, that is much more okay with me than a pro-choice position.
Tuerqas
So you are saying my statements and beliefs are ignorant because there are zero times per year where a mother is in life danger from a pregnancy where the final option is one life or the other...Tuerkey--that is NOT what I said. Please note that you specifically said "in the last trimester," which is infelicitous, OR ignorant (take your choice.)
There are such things as "ectopic pregnancies," which are a clear and present danger to the life of the mother. They are usually discovered very early-on (in less than 8 weeks' gestation.)
There IS a morally acceptable solution based on the Principle of Double-Effect. A doctor MAY remove the danger ONLY for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Yes, this is an 'abortion,' but the intent is what counts here.
"Intent" is critical.
It is analogous to firemen who extinguish a fire in a home, but "drown" all the goods in the house by using 10,000 gallons of water in the process.
They are justified in the destruction by virtue of the larger good--putting out the fire before it spreads to other houses and/or kills occupants of the home.
DAD29,
There are such things as "ectopic pregnancies,"
Yeah, my ex-wife had 3 of them. They are almost always found in the first trimester, and one of the reasons I have the views I do. I didn't really even consider ectopics to be part of this debate, though, because in most cases there is absolutely no chance of even bringing the baby to term in the first place. There is no 'choice' involved of letting the baby live or not, at least in our case. One fallopian tube removal and double scarring on the other later, she cannot have kids in any conventional sense.
Even with my extremely limited knowledge of medicine, I know there are dangers found in all trimesters and different treatments available for each. I was thinking that the 3rd trimester and pre-birth complications was most appropos to the discussion because that is (I thought) where there are the most cases where there is a choice between endangering the mother to try to save both or it becomes a one or the other option, but I admittedly communicated that poorly.
Even so your condescending (misplaced I may add)commentary immediately following concerning intent is your 'line'. It does include certain types of abortions, therefore your line is very similar to mine(if not exact), but your tone was dismissive of my belief with phrases using 'total ignorance', 'draconian' and 'your mind fails to acknowledge'.
I was merely acknowledging the accuracy of the comment by SI. If you reread my comment that you so insultingly deconstructed, I said I was pro-life, but there are conditions under which I feel abortion is necessary, and that I am pro-capital punishment.
Unless you are so Catholic that you are against contraception because of the potential life lost or whatever reason Catholics are using(that is beyond my line), my failure of a mind seems to agree very closely with yours...
Huh.
Tuerqas
I said I was pro-life, but there are conditions under which I feel abortion is necessary...My, you are a sensitive soul. Just for fun, take a look at the dialogue on Free Republic. If you think I'm nasty, you ain't seen nothing yet...
As to the above:
Saving the life of the mother is NOT ABORTION.
These days, the MD's can deliver a baby (rip-and-zip, or C-Section, if you prefer) and keep that baby alive and growing so long as the baby is 24 weeks (or more) in the womb.
Pretty much takes care of "last trimester" problems, no?
"My, you are a sensitive soul."
Heh, and for a pro-life, religious person DAD29, you ain't.
I will, however, try to continue to honor a point Rick made in an earlier post that I took to heart "Meditations on the precautionary principle":
"We see the latter expressed in the political blogosphere in the ease which we think that the proper response to people we disagree with is insults and ridicule. "
Since then I have tried to do less of it here and will continue to do so even if it makes me look sensitive to Daddy.
Rick, I would amend your quote above to '...ease which we think that the proper response to people are insults and ridicule whether we agree or disagree with them.'
Tuerqas
Post a Comment