Satan does not have horns and a pointed tail. He disguises himself much more effectively than that.
Posted on 10/10/2005 9:48:46 AM PDT by curtisgardner
Honestly, I do not care what a woman's reason is for having an abortion
Huh?
Well, in 15 years, she'll no doubt be back on your campus as a fully tenured professor..head of the "Women's Studies Dept"
Well, in 15 years, she'll no doubt be back on your campus as a fully tenured professor..head of the "Women's Studies Dept"
Oh well, at least she's probably not going to reproduce.
She has a terminal case of PMS..Permanent Moral Shutdown...
Is there any cure for Baby Bulimia?
Satan does not have horns and a pointed tail. He disguises himself much more effectively than that.
In the warped world of this "woman's" mind, anything can be rationalized. Her thinking is sick and demented but in a sick and demented world it seems...well...reasonable.
When men can offer a woman half the cost of an abortion and not have their economic decisions debated by a woman and the courts with respect to child support, there might be some equality in abortion. As it stands now, there isn't. Only the woman has any "choices" after sex. If the pro-abortion feminists supported that sort of thing, I'd believe that equality was actually their concern.
Honestly, I do not care what a woman's reason is for having an abortion, as I am not in a place to judge. Economics, family, sex abuse, power disparities in relationships, education and many other factors I have no ability to begin to understand, play into a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I do not care how many abortions a woman has or for what reason; it is her body and her choice, bottom line.
A few years ago, a woman in Patterson, NJ wanted to go out and party but was stuck with an infant child. After several failed attempts to find someone to take care of the child, she decided that it was her body and her choice and tossed her child into a river where he died. What I want to know is whether this author feels that a parent should have their choices restricted to take care of a born child or not if nobody else is available to take care of that child. Do adults have an obligation to take care of born infants or not?
Typical "it's all about me" rhetoric. If you don't want the public in your uterus, then you should think about keeping something else out of another part of your anatomy first.
Does anyone out there in cyberspace know of one kid named "Zoe" who's worth a hoot?
My experience is this: They're all whackjobs.
Oh well.
Back to the markets.
I have no ability to begin to understand
Mamma Mia, such a beauty!
Oh wait, I'm thinking of that cute Sicilian babe in The Godfather.
If this is the real headline, then the appropriate rejoinder would be, "Lady, given the moral situation, then be careful what you allow to be put in your uterus."
Hmmmmmmmmm....what this author is missing is the fact that if she does NOT WANT anyone interested in what is growing in her uterus, that being a 'human being', then she should keep the start of a life that may go 100 plus years in today's world from EVER ENTERING HER UTERUS if she intends to MURDER THE GROWING CHILD.
What she needs to keep OUT OF HER UTERUS is an UNWANTED BABY that is growing furiously according to the roadmap she and her sperm donor contributed.
"We will break any law and violate any social norm . ."
I've already called the fashion police. They're on their way with roll-on, razors and sensible shoes.
Yes, it's been a part of American political thought going all the way back to Jefferson:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern them? Let history answer this question." -- Thomas Jefferson (First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801)
Of course it has limits. Each individual doesn't get to write his own criminal code. But the basic idea, that we should err on the side of individual liberty, is sound. Where that line breaks down in this argument of abortion is that there is more than one life involved.
Re my #34, I hadn't earlier read #30, which words it much better.
"What she needs to keep OUT OF HER UTERUS is an UNWANTED BABY that is growing furiously according to the roadmap she and her sperm donor contributed."
Come on now, you don't want to take away her constitutional right to have as much sex as she wants and as irresponsibly as she chooses with absolutely no repercussions do ya?
She wants a doctor to put her under an anaesthetic and get into her uterus with metal and plastic tools, scar her uterus, and possibly traumatize her cervix in the process. How is that "controlling your own body," much less staying out of it?
Do they really expect us to believe this crap? Liberals are such stupid people.
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.