I will NEVER accept any "common ground" that includes a proviso that essentially says, "and then you can kill the baby."
1 posted on
07/16/2009 12:45:10 PM PDT by
wagglebee
To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
2 posted on
07/16/2009 12:45:51 PM PDT by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
3 posted on
07/16/2009 12:46:37 PM PDT by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
What was it that Jesus said about a bit of leaven leavening the whole loaf?
4 posted on
07/16/2009 12:51:21 PM PDT by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: wagglebee
The problem for pro-lifers goes back to one question: is the fetus a human being? Most pro-lifers answer that question yes. So compromise for them is agreeing to end the life of a human being.
Pro-choicers dodge the question (”above my pay grade”). If they would answer that one question honestly, we could have an honest debate.
Is the fetus a human being?
5 posted on
07/16/2009 12:55:26 PM PDT by
Brookhaven
(Obama hasn't just open Pandora's box, he has thrown us inside and closed the lid.)
To: wagglebee
... tough questions come up more frequently than they did in the first years after Roe, as more is known about the choices some women and couples make, and fetuses have become as visible as women.Reason No. 1: Some of the reasons mothers abort, such as male gender preference, are becoming harder to defend, even among abortion proponents.Reason No. 2: Post-abortive mothers who regret the choice they made are clarifying there is an aftermath.Reason No. 3: The advancement of ultrasound imagery has gutted the pro-abort "blobs of tissue" line. Everyone now knows it is real babies who are suctioned, sliced, and diced when aborted.
Another excellent reason is that comprehensive legal protections for unwed mothers now exist that did not exist at the time Roe was passed. Some of the arguments used in suing for Roe were due to pregnancy being regarded then as an obstacle to employment. At that time,
* any pregnant woman, married or single, could be fired from a job, or dismissed from school or college,
* young women of childbearing age found it difficult to land a job or get equal pay, since they were expected to leave upon having a child,
* unmarried pregnant women faced a near-total social disapproval and rejection from parents, church and community members in a way that the impregnating male did not;
* teenage unwed mothers were sometimes thrown out of the house or beaten by their parent(s), and
* the impregnating boy or man could often deny paternity and/or elude having to pay support.
The timing of Roe coincided with the onset of civil rights suits for women's employment equality. Today, legislation is in place that provides legal remedies for all of these conditions. Hence, any survival rationale for terminating a pregnancy has been removed.
7 posted on
07/16/2009 1:13:58 PM PDT by
Albion Wilde
( Jim Thompson for President.)
To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
This is like Lucifer trying to find “common ground” with Jesus. Forever impossible.
obozo constantly proves he is a lying demoncrat as he's constantly expanding his machine of death.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
10 posted on
07/16/2009 4:04:18 PM PDT by
cpforlife.org
(A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at KnightsForLife.org)
To: wagglebee
12 posted on
07/16/2009 9:46:48 PM PDT by
Salvation
(With God all things are possible.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson