Posted on 08/20/2012 7:55:26 PM PDT by sagar
Please ignore this if you are so "outraged" about Akin that you cannot dissect things more rationally and logically.
Akin made a legitimate mistake, in his choice of words. There are no legitimate rapes. A rape is a rape, whether it was legitimate or statutory. A rape destroys life -- the life of the victim. If the rape inadvertently creates life, then that should be cherished as a sign of something good out of something horrible.
So, murdering a child conceived via rape is still worth saving. By turning the rape into murder is evil. The grieving victim of the rape has no right to turn her grief on an innocent child who has absolutely no fault. The child is blessed like all children conceived.
If conservatives back now from this, they will give tremendous ammunition to the abortionists (including the Obomney wing of the GOP). Axing of Akin might be a short term victory, but it will damage the pro life movement by altering the PRINCIPLES that actually matter!
Your statement about giving women the right to vote makes you seem like a good running mate for president, if Akin is ever at the top of the ticket.
Your statement about giving women the right to vote makes you seem like a good running mate for president, if Akin is ever at the top of the ticket.
It's like complaining about literally 0.1% to justify the remaining 99.9% of baby murders.
Akin could have framed it better, but he was probably stressed, however you are right -- a woman who has been violated this way and then aborts gets a double crime perpetrated on HER. She will feel guilty and almost feel a partner in the crime perpetrated on her (the rape).
Well said.
Putting prayer back into the government schools is like fighting a forest fire with a water pistol.
The biggest problem is that by **law** government schools are godless. If some of the teachers are sneaking in a little bit of Christianity then they are teaching a lesson. Lesson: Christians are SNEAKY!
The biggest problem is that by **law** teachers must teach all subjects from a godlessly secular humanist point of view. The children must think and reason godlessly just to cooperate in the classroom, read the godless texts, and do their godless homework.
The biggest problem is that as the children grow older they will eventually realize that this is in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to any Christian belief to teach children to think and reason godlessly. Lesson taught: Christians will prostitute their most sacred beliefs for a paycheck, pension, and generous vacations.
The biggest problem is that every textbook is written from a godless;y secular humanist worldview. Progressives have **always** controlled curriculum development and teacher training. ( Read Gatto )
The biggest problem is likely every one of the teachers was indoctrinated by their colleges of education into the Marxist, globalist, and secular humanist worldview. That **will** bleed into the classroom even if Mrs. Honey Bun ( the 7th grade “social studies” teacher) is choir director of your local church.
Question: So?....Will the work of **real** missionaries be harder or easier as these children grow to adulthood? Who in their right mind would join a religion filled with sneaky hypocrites?
Exactly!
I am disgusted with how the careers of Republicans are crushed because of one **”legitimate”** misstatement but Democrats can say and **do** the most vile things throughout their miserable lives and are honored, not only in life, but given spectacular funerals.
Easy for you to say - you've already been born. Look at the post immediately before yours, by OneVike. Look at OneVike in the eye and tell him/her that and see how it flies.
It’s not all happy endings and sunshine when a rape victim carries a baby to term.
Carries a what to term?
Since when is it an acceptable moral principle to kill a child for the crime of his father?
The abortion killing is just a second act of violence against an innocent victim; the rape being the first act of violence against an innocent victim.
"The life of the mother" exception is the only legitimate exception in those extremely rare cases in which it might occur, because it would be in defense of one's own physical life. The law has always recognized the right of self defense of one's life, but since when is it permissible to kill one where both would otherwise live?
Cordially,
Why include “incest”? Either incest is rape, or it isn’t.
They're not "clinics". And yes, I have seen him outside the slaughterhouses, numerous times. I personally spent a night in jail with him and some others for non-violently attempting to rescue those being about to be killed.
Cordially,
Cold, hard, ugly reality is that some cultures will use rape as a weapon of genocide, and killing the fetus denies them the effective use of that weapon.
Because of the potentially worst case (genetically) scenario of sibling impregnation. It's entirely possible for a 13 year old boy to impregnate a 12 year old girl. It's not rape, as neither child was able to legally consent, however it is incest. Siblings are the closest genetic relations you can have, and pregnancy between sibs is bad mojo.
” My argument is based on the right of an innocent human to life and nobody has the right to take that away, not even the mother-to-be...”
Possibly of interest to you may be the fact that the question of “To whom does the child belong?” has always been considered to correctly be answered by “The child belongs to the parents.” Then communism/Liberalism/statism changed the answer to “The State owns the child.”
This began in Florida when a child was forced to have a medical procedure the parents resisted because of religious beliefs. The State argued that the “Rights of the Child” trumped the age old “The parents decide because the child is theirs as long as it is a child.” Note that a common subtrefuge used by commies and their UN pawns is the UN “Rights of the Child” manifesto”.
Allow me to state a few medically well known fact, that rape results in pregnancy in only a few cases due to the extreme emotional trauma of the violent rape, and than allow me to suggest that you consider the fact that society has many years and much effort/resources invested in an more or less adult female capable of reproduction.
To value this adult female less than the fetus started within her body by a violent rape, is not a position which I can support. The adult female of reproductive age has always been protected by civilized men because since the dawn of human awareness it has been obvious that such females were what the very survival of mankind depended upon.
I am unable to find your argument sufficient to justify forcing more trauma upon an already traumatized female.
Also, I do not find the birthing of genetically deficient babies to be a good thing. Incest was banned for valid genetic reasons. Those who support violating the most basic of genetic truths of human reproduction pay a high price. Muslims are a case in point. 1,400 years of incest results in an amazing array of genetic diseases, as the Saudi Royal Family demonstrated.
I hope the above may help your understanding of the reasons most of America supports aborting rape or incest fetuses.
Lastly, I do not support recreational abortion, as allowing that degrades the female to a mere semen sump as the “Sexual Revolution” demonstrated. However, rape is not recreational sex, despite all that Bill Clinton got away with. And, incest does pose unavoidable genetic damage issues.
Another question is raised by your “Taking an innocent life is simply not an option.” Taking that as an absolute is what lawyers and philosophers call “Legal Perfectionism”, the idea that a law can be written so wisely that it can be applied to all, in all situations, and result in justice.
As the Greeks knew, society was then too large and too complex for such a law to be possible. They accepted Legal Perfectionism as a goal but realized it was impossible to be attained because they had societies of 40,000 voters and the possibilities of conflict were too great for any one law. They thus decided to rely on judgement instead of “One size fits all” laws.
Absolute abortion bans are an excellent case of the inadequacies of any absolute law.
I do prefer the diffused, non-centralized decision making process over centralized, absolutist decision making. Therefore, I support allowing a mother to have available the option of abortion in cases of violent rape and incest.
Thanks for your exchange of ideas on these questions. You have helped me review ideas I have not needed to make decisions on for years.
America will never have rape panels where we have a bunch of old people and men putting the raped woman and young girls on trial, to get some sort of stamp of approval. The victims get put on trial and have to prove they aren’t liars. It’s total lunacy and a waste of time. It would turn into a political nightmare. It’s just that simple.
Thanks my life, but the only trouble was the trouble my mother had to endure. However, through the years she came to understand that it is God who gives life, and NO one has the right to take it away from the innocent.
Mel A, when God handed down the The Commandments, He told us that murder is one of the things we are not to do. God not Ronaldus Maximus gave us that commandment. Ronald was a great president, but he was wrong on the issue of abortion for the cases of rape or incest. Remember, it is God you will answer to on judgement day, not Reagan.
We can, and do have the right to kill in time of war, and for punishment in certain cases. However, there is not one thing an unborn child has done that deserves it’s premeditated death.
I have always liked the analogy of growing produce on a farm. Any man can sow a seed, but it takes a real man to raise a child. As far as things not always ending happy with sunshine when a rape victim carries a baby to term. You could say the same thing about life in general, life is not always going to turn out with happiness and sunshine when a baby is carried to term and allowed to live either, but who are you, me, or anyone else to decide whether or not a child has the chance to find out?
How do we know that the person who could cure cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer, or any of a number of life threatening and debilitating diseases and sicknesses has not been aborted. When you consider that since Roe vs Wade became law in America, over 500 million humans have been murdered in the womb around the world, I would think that the world has missed out on some great minds.
It is so much easier to get rid of a problem these days, but the goodness of ones heart, and the character of humans are not determined by the easy outs in life we take.
Finally, the undeniable truth of Scripture tells us plainly that God alone has the power to open and close the womb. If a child is conceived and born it is because God has created that life, formed that baby, and even caused the delivery of the child. So let us leave the decision of who gets to survive the womb to God.
Here are some scriptures that you should read, and then tell me that Reagan is the one whom we should be following on this subject.
Isaiah 44:2
Isaiah 44:24
Genesis 20:18
Genesis 29:31
Genesis 30:2
Genesis 30:22
Genesis 49:25
1 Samuel 1:5-6
Job 31:15
Psalm 139:13;
Isaiah 66:9
Jeremiah 1:5
Exodus 23:26
Deuteronomy 7:14
God bless you and yours my FRiends,
OV (Chuck)
Cordially,
Ohm!
It's just a shot away It's just a shot away
No, father-daughter is closer and more common. And 90% of offspring are healthy enough to live normally. The inclussion of incest is unnecessary.
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.