Posted on 11/08/2007 12:03:44 PM PST by coca-cola kid
Who wants to live in a society where the government tells our children that there should not be any penalty for the murder of the innocent babies? Not me.
Exactly. I too believe this should be a states issue and not a federal one. After that, if I end up in a state that would allow abortions the next issue should be whether or not I would be helping to pay for them with my tax dollars. I say no. I should not have to pay for something like that.
For any state that would decide not to allow abortions there would have to be some way to enforce that. This is where there would be a hugh debate.
We will lose this fight talking like that.
We will win the fight when the next flood arrives.
We agree to the point where I think we are redundant.
I’m really sorry, but I’m afraid am going to have to off you...
;)
I think this position is quite short-sighted, and here's why:
Let me propose this as a possible analogy (imperfect, but in a limited way applicable): drug abuse. The law routinely makes a distinction between a user (especially a young, first-time user) and a pusher. Yes. the user is guilty of breaking the law, but he's also in a significant sense a victim who is in the process of ruining his own body and mind for somebody else's profit. Therefore the user can sometimes avoid criminal penalties altogether if he signs himself into rehab: his penalty is therapy + probation. The pusher, by contrast, and rightfully, gets slammed.
Yes, I realize a crucial difference because in abortion, the doctor and the pregnant mother are killing a third party, the child.
However, if the purpose of the law is to improve the security and well-being of infants before birth, the only practical way to do that is by eliciting the support of the mother, since it is impossible to protect an unborn child unless his mother has both the will and the means to protect him. The child's security cannot be produced by pressure on the woman, but it can be significantly helped by the extirpation of the abortion operator and the abortion industry.
On the other, hand, if the purpose of the law is to exact strict penal retribution --- well, that has a certain abstract logic. But it couldn't be done, politically, in the USA, because the prolife movement is vastly Christian-dominated, and the Christians wouldn't support it.
You'd be more successful advocating this in, say, the Islamic community. They don't have to contend with the example of a Savior who shamed and turned away the stone-wielding men, and then said to the woman, "Go now, and sin no more."
(Oh, and P.S.: I notice you left the baby-daddies out of the penalty phase...)
Still, I've never run into a jail-the-girls position anywhere in the prolife movement. One doesn't make the assumption that posters on this topic in the FR forum have any actual connection or experience with the prolife movement.
This was already posted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922663/posts
Do we have to repeat our 268 posts again?
The purpose is to prevent murder of unborn children. Don't over-intellectualize things until you can't see the fundamental issues.
Oh yes, of course we do...
Apparently, only your circle of friends is "the prolife movement". Don't be so sure. I happen to know you are not an authentic member of the pro-life movement because I have seen you advocate the death penalty (CMIIW).
I believe a warning and cataclysm will ensue following the continuing sins of mankind. If you have any opportunity to stop an abortion in the meantime, please do so. However, I would suggest that making the legal code palatable to the libs and atheists isn't the best way to go about that.
Russert - 0
Novak - 0
Fred + 1
As far as cataclysms and such, it is not the way of the God I know anymore, he moved on to a New Testament...
And I am all for prosecuting the father if he coerced the mother into obtaining an abortion (happens all the time).
We will win the fight when the next flood arrives.
______
Not much of a Biblical scholar, eh?
Genesis 9:15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
If socons are philosophically consistent, murder is murder and the girls would be conspirators in that murder.
I agree that there really isn't anything wrong with what Thompson actually said, but from a political point of view, he needs to quit handing out quotes that they can easily spin.
The media and his opponents aren't interested in a fair fight, so he not only needs to say what he means, but he needs to say it in a way that is hard to spin into something else.
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.