Is abortion murder? Jon Dougherty reviews lawsuit won by pro-life demonstrator against city

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 17, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

[Quila]

BTW Do you vote for candidates that hold your views?

BTW, do you vote right-wing sheeple? Or do you actually make decisions for yourself?

[Alas]

bump

[FreeMe2]

Sorry...

I meant that for Quila...

[Psalm 73]

"If you can't joke about it, then all hope is lost."

If you can joke about children being molested, then surely all hope IS lost,

"...is there a list somewhere that details exactly what I'm supposed to believe on every subject in order to be "conservative"?

No, but when you originaly engaged me in this discussion, you claimed to be "pro-life",
which is quite dishonest, and usually a tactic of the left, or of Jim Jeffords. (Jim, is that you?)

[Quila]

No, but when you originaly engaged me in this discussion, you claimed to be "pro-life",

You define it one way, I define it another. Just like "conservative" has been hijacked to include a whole bunch of ideology not actually in the definition.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I agree with that.

[Shethink13]

One of my favorite political comics has four scenes:

"First Trimester": Woman just pregnant, a couple pro-life protesters around here
"SecondTrimester": Getting bigger, more protesters
"Third Trimester": Absolutely huge, surrounded by protesters
"Fourth Trimester": Alone with an infant and a hand-out cup, discarded pro-life signs laying all around here. Not that every pro-life person acts this way, but I'm sure it's indicative of a good chunk of the population.

Boy, you really hit a nerve with me on this comment. This is the biggest bunch of BS pro-abort propanganda.

Essentially, you are saying that unless I plan on housing and feeding a woman and her newborn child, I don't have any right to expect that she take responsibility for her CHOICE of having sex and getting pregnant and not make an innocent human being pay with it's LIFE because she doesn't "feel like" having a baby.

And if your side is truly pro-"choice", then THEY would be the ones providing the alternatives that you think the pro-life side are obligated to provide. So tell me, just how many agencies, charitable organizations, etc. are sponsored by the abortion industry that assist new mothers who chose not to abort?

[Shethink13]

Excuse me, is there a list somewhere that details exactly what I'm supposed to believe on every subject in order to be "conservative"? If there is, I'm bailing. I refuse to be a sheep.

No need to bail. You're not a conservative so there's nothing to bail from.

[sausageseller]

BTTT

[Quila]

No need to bail. You're not a conservative so there's nothing to bail from.

In the applicable definition here, Webster's says a conservative is one who follows the philosophy of conservatism. Here's that definition:

1. Doesn't apply in this country.
2. a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3. the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Please tell me where in this it says you have to take specific moral stands on certain issues? Aside from that, I'm also a Constitutionalist. I'm definitely not "moral majority."

[Quila]

Essentially, you are saying that unless I plan on housing and feeding a woman and her newborn child

You forced her to have that baby. Take responsibility for your actions. Back on the personal responsibility on her part though, you know I still agree with you.

So tell me, just how many agencies, charitable organizations, etc. are sponsored by the abortion industry that assist new mothers who chose not to abort?

Probably none. Definitely fewer than the pro-life side.

[Mugwumps]

This is a horrific example, yet in trying to think through this issue, I have wondered - imagine (as an intellectual exercise) that instead of ending the life growing in their wombs, mothers had to give first give birth, and then they could go out back and shoot their baby if they didn't want him or her?

Either way, the child wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Which is why "pro-choice" is a poor choice for a label.

[MHGinTN]

Mugs! You've nailed the contradiction in the 'pro-choice' debacle: it is the totally selfish 'choice' of life or death choice over another individual human, being sequestered in a womb the child had no choice to inhabit, that the pro-serial killing folks like quila believe is valid for humankind. It is, in the main, inhuman.

[Mugwumps]

Another thought - it would be interesting to compare these stats:

1) Number of people killed annually through abortion vs. the number killed by firearms.

2) The number of people killed (by abortion or firearms) by the populations of pro-abortion, pro-gun-control folks vs. the typical 2nd amendment supporter.

My guess is that it would be shocking to see that the high 'kill stats' are on the pro-abortion pro-gun-control side.

Perhaps someone has already done this. If so, please do point me to the url.

[Tribune7]

I can't imagine someone telling me "You will carry this baby to term."

The phrasing will be more along the lines of "you may not kill this baby."

[RobbyS]

I don't think that you have mentioned the lucrative in vitro fertilization industry that has grown up since adoptable babies became rare, or the stunning growth in the number of single-mothers. Adoption has always been more difficult than it should be, but now planned parenthood propoganda has convinced many to keep babies they can ill afford or abortion them, and has treated adoption as the "worst' choice.

[Hajman]

You forced her to have that baby.

This wording's curious. However, it's also flawed. It's not even technically accurate. You say it as if it was a direct action of pro-lifers'. In a cause-effect relationship, you seem to consider it the cause; however, this is not the case. It's the effect. It's the natural effect from not harming the unborn child in the first place. Oh, and the baby's right to life trumps the mother's 'priviledge' (yes, priviledge, as it's not a right) to not be inconvienced. We also force parents to take care of their children, or face penalties. What's different about pre-birth?

-The Hajman-

[Quila]

You say it as if it was a direct action of pro-lifers'.

Indirect. You will be the ones getting the law changed. I will probably be in that category too one day, so I can't deride anyone for that.

What's different about pre-birth?

We don't force them to take care of their children pre-birth.

[Quila]

planned parenthood propoganda has convinced many to keep babies they can ill afford or abortion them, and has treated adoption as the "worst' choice.

I really do hate planned parenthood.

[Hajman]

We don't force them to take care of their children pre-birth.

The question is, why not? If they don't have to take care of their child pre-birth, why should they have to take care of them post-birth? This is rather inconsistent.

-The Hajman-