Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Nut Flush
With all due respect, I'm just going to ignore the first half of your post dealing with your God because I don't subscribe to the same religious ideology that you do, so debate on that matter is pointless.

I think I counted 11 responses to 11 excerpts of yours...only two of which addressed "God." A third response section you just responded to dealt with abortion. That leaves about eight responses I gave dealing with porn -- that doesn't cover "God"; are you going to respond to those?

(Also, just because you don't subscribe to what I believe, doesn't mean you have to avoid exposure to the words of Jesus, does it? IOW, can't you separate what Jesus says from "doctrines" of believers in evaluating worldviews?)

If you support abortion in the case of incest, you are effectively in favor of helping the incest perpetrator cover up his crime in cases involving a father/stepfather/family member, etc.[Me]

That's simply your opinion. [You]

Come now. Imagine you're 18. Your young sister has been orphaned & placed into a home. The adopted family has a perpetrator in the midst who gets her pregnant & figures the easiest way to cover it up is abortion. What's so much of a "stretch" about that? Are you trying to lecture us that sex offenders don't cover up the evidence of their crimes? Whoa, what kind of a naive world do you live in?

What's your alternative? Make the girl have the baby that's the product of incest?

There ya go with that "pro-choice" language again...as if what happens after a pregnancy is where all the life-and-death decisions take place. May I remind you that biology teaches that what "makes" a baby is the act of intercourse -- forced or unforced. (It's not some after-decision that does that...and if you believe in this magic "after-decision" then the abortion industry has been your mentors throughout your youth & adult years!)

What you seem to be suggesting is that you want the victim to be violated yet again! The first violation was incest-rape; the second violation is a suction aspirator forced into her. And there she becomes re-victimized all over again -- betrayed yet again!

I assume you'd be opposed to letting the father/grandfather have visitation later on, but maybe he can repent and raise his baby.

Well, ya know, if the incest-perp is incarcerated -- where he needs to be -- any "visitations" that we're talking about are people who go to see him...behind bars!

Turning it around, I'd like to see you go face-to-face with a pregnant rape victim and tell them, "I support forcing you, against your will, to have that child."

Sorry. You can't transfer the guilt of the rapist to those who would protect a rapist's child. On what grounds then, doesn't your argument likewise apply to a 1-day-old newborn?

What do I mean? Let's say a rape victim didn't find out til it was "too late" that she indeed became pregnant from that rape. Let's say she was in denial that she was pregnant; and let's say she lived in a state where late-term abortions were disallowed -- or no late-term abortionist operated; and she lacked resources to travel. So she has the baby, after all.

I'd like to see you go face-to-face to that young mom of a 1-day old and say, "I want you to know that I don't 'support forcing you, against your will, to' allow 'that child' to live...Oh, and I've brought the knife."

If we're in favor of protecting 1-day-old babies whose fathers are rapists, what's so terrible about that? You know as well as I do, that biology tells us that each of us had a gestational age before a "birthday." That 1-day-old baby is the same baby -- simply a "resident" further up the birth canal.

So, are you telling us -- that were the law changed -- if the Supreme Court said that 1-day-old babies of rape victims can have their children killed, you'd be in favor of it? (All because you -- and to quote you with just a few added bold-faced words -- don't "support forcing you, against your will, to have" [to deal with] "that child" [remaining alive]?)

Somehow I think that will be more offensive to most Americans than what you would have me say. I don't support FORCED dismembering of the child, and if a woman who is a victim of rape wants to carry the baby to term, then that's her prerogative. But if she doesn't, I won't fault her for that.

Hmmm...you "don't support FORCED dismembering of the child," eh? Well, then, please Nut Flush -- just please let me know when you see the pre-born lining up and volunteering to be dismembered...then we'll know there's nothin' "forced" goin' on!

177 posted on 01/13/2011 2:03:59 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson