It’s still a life. There’s adoption. And it’s rare... Now let’s talk about Obama’s economy which is destroying the future of all babies.
What about it? It happens...
simple:if the perpetrator is not elligible for the death penalty, what didi the child do to deserve death?
simple:if the perpetrator is not elligible for the death penalty, what didi the child do to deserve death?
Democrats use rape victims as a means to their end....the deaths of millions of babies.
Whenever anyone questions the bloodbath, they sit on the shoulders of a rape victims and cry crocodile tears.
Should there be exceptions such as the endangerment of the mothers life if pregnancy is allowed to continue? I'll leave that to you folks to decide if it should be included as an exception to my initial statement.
On a personal side, I think all babies should be brought to term if it isn’t likely to kill the mother in the process. But on a political side, I think way too much division is caused over something that affects very few cases and the Left successfully uses it as a wedge between pro-lifers to keep them from seeing the big picture which is the millions of abortions that take place legally each year while we fight about the extreme cases.
I’m willing to accept the “three exceptions” if it will get the ball rolling to stop the other 98% of abortions that don’t fit these categories.
Once we’ve legally stopped the other 98%, THEN we can argue about the rest. Until then, it is a waste of our time.
Actually, we don’t have to answer the question. It is a question that is design to draw one into an argument never designed to be resolved - only to foment dissention and division. It is a question to be resolved when the actual power to do something about it is attained.
Democrats are well-schooled at not discussing certain things - obfuscating, lying and changing the subject.
We could take a page from them on this.
“Under certain circumstances, I think it is a good idea to cold-bloodedly murder an innocent child ...”
“Under certain circumstances, I think it is a good idea to murder the children of men who have violated the law ...”
Nope. Sorry. I just can’t go there. I can’t make those statements. I leave such pronouncements to the Liberals and worshipers of Moloch.
This instantly brings the Hell-hath-no-fury bunch down his throat, because it invalidates "feelings" by implying what few, especially leftists, want to admit:
The tiniest possibility that some of what was indeed reported as 'rape' might have been an instance of 'buyer's remorse, too much alcohol or other judgement impairing substance, or being caught by their spouse, just for a few instances which might become statistically confused or combined with statistics of the brutality of forcible rape--an event which is genuinely traumatic immediately and not just in hung-over or guiltily confronted retrospect.
Any way one considers it, the guy, if he didn't stop when she said 'Stop!" is wrong, the woman may or may not be a contributor to the situation, but the Baby had no say in the matter at all.
Of all, the most undeniably innocent is the child.
So, typical of Liberals who would keep a brutal rapist from death row, they single out the baby to die.
It isn't right, and no parsing of words can excuse the slaughter of innocents, ever.
Talk about your double standards!
There have times when rape was accepted as legitimate and there was scant interest, in fact the issue was quickly settled by one rapist himself..
"Better put some ice on that." Bill Clinton said showing compassion and concern for one of the women he raped..
so rape can be legitimate in the sense of "being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards" of the Demobrat Party (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democratic Party), the MSM, universities, Hollywood, NGOs, U.N., civil rights industry, much of the ruling class, the "nonpartisan" radio and TV, transnationals, and all the Right People.
These Islamist "temporary marriages" also qualify as being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards of the aforementioned pukes.
So you (the pro abortion group) want to kill an innocent unborn child. Why?
How can you be so mean,cruel and selfish?
Answer the question with a question: When is it permissible for one human being to take the life of another?
The correct answer is in self defense. If carrying the baby threatens the LIFE of the mother, then and only then, is an abortion permissible.
How bout it’s not the baby’s fault.
The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape. When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out the same philosophy, it is called rape.
Easy. I'm against both.
Every time an interviewer brings up the words abortion or rape with a Republican, they should answer, “Unemployment is 8.3% and going up, 16 million workers have given up and dropped out of the work force, or the numbers would be worse. We need to grow the economy to provide opportunities for young people. Next question.”
In the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, I support the decision that mother makes.
That is all.
In America we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, starting with the right to live.
Punish the guilty, defend the innocent.
To kill an innocent person for the sin of another is barbarism.