Posted on 11/11/2012 8:55:29 PM PST by SquarePants
I would follow the Bible. There’s a section that talks about what would happen to a man if he strikes a pregnant woman and her baby dies as a result. The punishment is less than if the baby were outside of the womb, but it’s still pretty severe, IIRC.
I’m pro life. If a women ever asked me personally what I think she should do, I’m pro life.
If a Journalist ever asked my a hypothetical, I would say as a male, it’s none of my business.
And judging by most of the responses to the OP, you should be voting for the Neolithic Monolith party and not the GOP.
I know a lot of women who voted based on abortion this year. People can deny reality all they want.
The answer is simpler than that. Turn the question back on the Journalist and if female, ask them if their asking for personal advice or political advice. If male Journalist ask them if what they ever raped a women and got them pregnant. Passive aggressive all the way.
Whose God?
Good morning, relativist.
I believe that you are greatly in error. The election was about FAR more than the economy. The case for that “FAR more” was not made. THAT is why we lost.
“Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” ...Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn understood CLEARLY why he ended up in the gulag.
To save a woman’s life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion. Ethically and morally, the loss of the child is an INDIRECT result of the attempt to save the mother.
The goal is not to kill the child, but to preserve the life of the mother, and without treatment, both will most likely die.
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
I am pro-life, but...
_____________________
Either you are or you are NOT pro-life.
The humanity of the unborn isn’t dependent on which side of the state line they stand.
__________________________
Exactly!!! And if that position is termed “extreme” by the liberals, it is only because it is extremely CORRECT and moral. ;-)
“I’m a male, not my decision to make”
_______________________________
Isn’t the male the FATHER of that child? I believe that God will hold many fathers accountable....for many things.
Our pop culture continually attempts to downplay the importance of fathers. Please do NOT buy into that.
Gun control is an issue that appeals to much of the Democrats base. However, they learned that if they try to make it part of their agenda, its main effect was to energize the Republican base so much that the Dems were defeated. Abortion has similar aspects for Republicans.
Republicans need to focus, for now, on things that will damage the ability of the Dem party to win elections. In Wisconsin, Gov Scott Walker did that by focusing on limiting the power of public employee unions. The unions are now experiencing a dramatic shrinkage in membership, and thus dues revenue. They thus have much less money to throw at Dem campaigns.
For now, Republicans need to similarly focus on measures that will reduce Dem power without disproportionately energizing the Dem base.
The democrats successfully tied the attacks on guys like Akin and Mourdock to rape issues.
The fact they are pro life is not necessarily a loser. Dems know that.
I think your ideas in this piece have some merit.
You will just have women deliberately getting pregnant and aborting, several times a year, until they bankrupt your funding source.
Now, a $10K-$20K bounty per welfare recipient who agrees to get sterilized on her 18th birthday would be another story.
Actually it is. Atheists, agnostics, pantheists, and liberal "Christians" (I use the word only a cultural sense), among others, DO NOT ACCEPT the fundamental Judeo-Christian concept that since humans alone are created in the image of God, human life alone is especially sacred--and needs to be protected above everything else.
Acceptance of the sanctity of human life comes from acceptance of God as our Creator--which is a religious tenet, and while not irrational at all, cannot be proven by reason alone.
In an evolution-soaked world, a THOROUGH understanding of human life as inviolably sacred (only to be taken in THE most extreme circumstances, such as self-defense or war...) and owned by God alone....is increasingly rare.
This rot in Western ideals also spreads over into real Christians...who should know better.
The euthanasia debate, health care for the elderly, the environmental movement, and even something like drone-based assassinations (or something as inane as tattoos) ....are all affected by the erosion of the acceptance of sanctity-of-human-life-made-in-the-image-of-God.
Sure, if my wife or my girlfriend was pregnant I would hope that I would be considered, but all I could demand was to demand to be heard.
When it comes down to her choice vs my choice, It’s her choice.
And if it’s some strange woman who’s pregnant and doesn’t ask me for my opinion on what to do? .... well doesn’t matter than does it, it’s her choice.
So what if Abortion was banned in the U.S, but there was a ready market in say Canada or Mexico and legal there?
I do not believe abortion is a good choice for Birth Control but in the end, It’s not my decision to make.
Neither Aiken or Murdoch talked about that. They were shot down simply because they stupidly talked about their philosophy about abortion which was easily twisted and misquoted by the hostile Democrat-Media.
Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine--and that's what those gentlemen did.
Violent rape really does only rarely result in pregnancy--as women are fertile only 3 days a month--and a very traumatized female body in shock...isn't very amenable to conception. It was the term "legitimate rape" (distorted to be "how can ANY rape be legitimate???" question....) by which he meant violent, actual, rape--not a falsely claimed rape (which contra the feminists does, actually happen...).... did the one guy in.
Similarly the other guy spoke in terms only those of a 10th grade education and up would follow--also easily distorted and misquoted by our hostile Democrat-propaganda mills, the Media.
If abortion is wrong at all--it is because the fetus is a human being, made in the image of God. If that is NOT the case--than a fetus as no more moral significance than a tumor. But if it IS the case--that a fetus is a full human being--than all unborn babies deserve to be protected by government.
It may be considered "radical" to want to forbid abortion in the case of rape--but the circumstances of the conception do NOT make those fetuses illegitimate persons... To make exceptions at all according to circumstances (except in the case of the life of the mother) is to say some persons are "more equal than others," a morally indefensibly position. Life of the mother instances too, are so rare as to be statistically insignificant too.
The best policy for pro-life politicians is just to shut up about it--and refuse to explain in detail one's position:
"I'm a Christian who believes in the sanctity of human life." PERIOD.
One must resist the lure of the traps of the Media b*stards.
When it comes down to her choice vs my choice, It’s her choice.
____________________________
You are BOTH parents. Why is she the only one who has a choice? AND, most importantly, are you saying that she SHOULD be able to choose whether an innocent human being lives or dies for the convenience of another human being?
Oh, I agree. But my basic point still stands .... the media dictated the direction of the election and the GOP fell for it ... hook, line, and sinker.
I don’t believe even the ethicists of the Roman Catholic Church think that an ectopic pregnancy should not be remedied by surgery.
__________________________________
The Church teaches that intent to kill the child (primary goal of a procedure)is always wrong:
In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother... the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.
The second method is the administration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion...it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option because the purpose is directly intended to kill the baby...a direct action that is always wrong.
Yes, I agree with this....because many of them are STILL far too motivated by *politics* rather than profound moral principles. AND...I am CONVINCED that people are hungry for sound moral principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.