JReighley: Life Worth Loving, Protecting

Eight comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Kage_Mann on May 16 at 7:26 a.m.

  I don’t think there can be any middle ground with respect to moral issues.That would mean you would have to compromise on your beliefs about morality and also, your religious convictions.Abortion is murder and to paint it any other way is being disengenuous.

• 

  Stickman on May 16 at 5:51 p.m.

  I don’t think there is a middle ground. I have to agree with Kage for once, though I would hate to ever admit that.

• 

  kamm on May 16 at 6:01 p.m.

  How many Pro-Life advocates are fostering, adopting or supporting the lives they have saved?

  Sex education is empowering young people to make adult decisions when they are really not adults.
  In my 40 years as a nurse, I never had to make a decision about a pregnancy, because I was given information and shown other resources.

  But I have seen the results of ‘babies having babies’…the neglect and abuse both mother and baby have been exposed to and the hopelessness of young mother’s views of their future.
  So, who’s helping after the Pro Lifers have gone home from their rally’s?

• 

  Liz on May 16 at 9:29 p.m.

  Kamm: it might be really interesting to break stuff down about who exactly is doing the abuse and if these are girls who were dissuaded from abortions. I suspect there is little if any correlation.
  My general observations have been that it is not the “babies having babies”` who are even considering abortion. A lot of these gals deliberately get pregnant so “someone will love them” or to try and keep the baby daddy around (very bad strategy).
  And most of the women I have known who admit to having abortions were not the potential child abusers. So access to abortion is not even related to the rates of abuse. in an awful lot of cases.
  It sounds like a good argument to try and beat pro life folks down into a corner about abortion, until you really examine the demographics going on. Access to abortion has absolutely no effect on a lonely fourteen year old who is ignored and/or abused by her own family of origin and thinks that she will fix her empty feelings of loneliness by having a child of her own. Until of course the baby that was supposed to make her feel wanted starts demanding more than she is capable of giving. And then the babydaddy splits and she has a whole nest of anger about a situation has failed to deliver.

• 

  Phaedrus on May 16 at 10:33 p.m.

  Anyone else with ideas how we can find middle ground in the abortion debate?

  “Abortion is murder”

  A good start to opening a dialog on a difficult topic would be to stop calling the people who may disagree with you, your ‘science’, or your theology, murderers.

• 

  Arch_Druid on May 16 at 11:36 p.m.

  If Kage Mann insists on making that out of context with the bible argument. Now, if a woman has a miscarriage that requires that she receive medical treatment for, then not only is she a “murderer” for something beyond her control, literally a health condition, so is the doctor a “murderer” for performing his job in trying to help her through a bad situation. That medically treated miscarriages are known to occur upwards of 20% of all known reasons for why abortions are performed; yet that crucial fact is ignored in favor of calling abortion “brutal.” The miscarriage has already cost one life; now the so-called “pro-life” crowd wants to cost a second life—the woman’s. I fail to find a moral grounding in these politics of dividing women against their children, fetuses against the “mom to be.” And didn’t the politics of division help to create the mess this nation is currently in?

  Try following the bible, Kage Mann. “Pro-life” is righteous behavior, not forcing pregnant women to have children.

• 

  LukeB on May 17 at 7:21 a.m.

  Assume an embryo or fetus is a person, and has all the rights thereof.

  If the State forces a woman to carry a fetus to term it is doing so for the purpose of saving the life of a person.

  Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to use their bodies against their will for the purpose of saving another person’s life.

  Thus, the State would be allowed to force people to register as bone marrow, kidney and other living donors, as well as force them to donate any and all organs upon their deaths, all for the purpose of saving another person’s life.

  However, the State is not allowed to do the above, and thus can not be allowed to force a woman to carry a fetus to term for the purpose of saving another person’s life.

• 

  jreighley on May 17 at 9:27 a.m.

  You know, I don’t think there is a lot of common ground either.. A fetus is either alive or it isn’t. It either feels pain or it doesn’t. I think as science advances, it is becoming more and more apparent that the pro choice arguments on these objective issues are wrong. The question is, how do we get people to consider the facts.

  In the past The pro-life side has used protest signs and rallies etc.. When they do that it comes across as a bunch of people who want to take away liberty — No matter what the facts are. When they are able to lovingly show an ultrasound, it has an amazing effectiveness rate..

  I do think that if life is worth protecting, the pro-life people do need to be willing to step up and adopt and protect it. I think this is becoming more and more prevalent, but it still is not where it needs to be. If it is really as important as we say it is, we should be willing to put our lives on hold to pick up the burden for somebody who is unwilling to put theirs on hold.

  Thanks DFO for plugging my comment. I feel famous.. ;-)

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic