Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh: Rush Answers Abortion Question
RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 7/8/05 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 07/08/2005 6:06:03 PM PDT by wagglebee

I've saved this and the response to it for today, Open Line Friday, to share with you. This woman is a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com. She said, "Rush..." Her name is Anita. "Rush, I'm a die-hard fan. Though I was raised to support a woman's right to choose, since becoming a mother and listening to you over these many years, I've come to strongly believe that abortion is wrong. But because I'm conservative and believe in property rights, I can't reconcile the government's involvement in the ultimate property right to your own body. Can you help me?"

So I thought about this, and I wrote her back. I said: Dear Anita, perhaps I can. Our Declaration of Independence states that as free human beings, we are entitled to LIFE," and I put that in all caps, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration also says that these rights are "inalienable" and "granted by our Creator," God. If our government does not stand for and protect these basic rights, which are the essence of our creation and humanity, then it will not protect any others. In our history, we've had human beings, members of the Supreme Court, give us the disastrous Dred Scott decision, which established that we as human beings could consider certain of our fellow human beings as our property.

Dred Scott permitted whites in this country to own black slaves and eventually this decision was struck down. So, Anita, your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So she wrote back and she thanked me, said she "hadn't looked at it that way;" she "appreciated that perspective." So I wanted to share that with you. One of the reasons why is because here we've had these Supreme Court decisions on property rights, private property rights, and you can see how some people interpret all of these, and extrapolate them to other issues in what may be the beginning of their education process. So I thought it was a great question that she asked and I was happy to be able to answer it for her.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; cary; dhpl; dittoheads; dredscott; inalienablerights; prolife; roevwade; rush; rushlimbaugh; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last
To: VeritatisSplendor
yeah it does suck, but you wouldn't say the hell with it, I want my living room back now, and shoot the child. Would you?
Time to look up the "Famous Violinist" argument.
51 posted on 07/08/2005 9:21:41 PM PDT by Nonesuch (I want my living room back now, not nine months out, assuming no fatal complications for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

Well, you do own whatever clothes, food, etc. you have paid for (not to mention the hospital bill for their natal day). So unless they're ready to pay back what they owe upon demand, they are your indentured servants. Just in case they read the Constitution. ; )


52 posted on 07/08/2005 9:32:20 PM PDT by skr (Almighty God, thank you for the liberty you have bestowed upon this nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

Even if I didn't, my husband might.


53 posted on 07/08/2005 9:35:25 PM PDT by edweena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nonesuch

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/unstrign.htm

Maybe the violinist needs a new racket, his music isn't as soothing as it once was.


54 posted on 07/08/2005 9:37:58 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Children's classic songs updated for Islam "If you're happy and you know it, Go Kaboom!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: don-o; SittinYonder

I had to stop using the Bill Cosby line, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out."

Like so many other concepts left over from my childhood and youth, abortion has changed the way we must think and speak.

(Can you imagine "When you were nothing but a twinkle in your father's eye?" having meaning in the post abortion world? And then, there's the radicalization of relationships between men and women: I love Dean Martin, but can you imagine "Standin' on the corner, watchin' all the girls" passing PC muster these days?)


55 posted on 07/08/2005 9:44:10 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: paulat

Even these women created the uterine environment and the oocyte which was fertilized.

There's an old law that someone who digs a hole is responsible for harm to anyone who falls into the hole. Even if the hole is out of the way, if someone is harmed, the hole-digger is responsible.

In the case of sexual assault, the assaulter is the one at fault, but there is still a responsibility on the part of the woman not to cause further harm. The loss to the woman of continuing the pregnancy is temporary, part of her natural functioning as a human woman. The loss to the child of being removed from her body is permanent, irreversible and ultimate - "death." The only exception is to save the woman's life or prevent significant permanent harm to her life.


56 posted on 07/08/2005 9:50:06 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Exactly. Everything else is a euphemism used to justify the morally indefensible. Any one who has seen the famous exchange between Guinan and Captain Picard in Ten Forward in "The Measure Of A Man" knows what I'm talking about. We don't call owning another human being property but the more correct term is slavery. And its still wrong in any age, whether the present or the 24th Century. ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS. A woman has the right to her own life but she doesn't have the right to decide whether her child lives or dies. Her child is a distinct human being and is NOT her property to do with as she pleases. Ultimately when you get down to it, that's what makes the abortion debate so heated. Unlike the Left, we believe there is a fundamental right to life we all have.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
57 posted on 07/08/2005 9:55:23 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Even these women created the uterine environment and the oocyte which was fertilized.

You are totally sick...what do you mean "these women created the uterine encironment"

You are sick, sick, sick....

58 posted on 07/08/2005 10:02:49 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: paulat

I'm sorry, but it's true. As normal, functioning human women, their own bodies function to create the uterine environment and the oocyte. There is no blame or fault, here - it just is.

The wrong was in the rape. The child did not even exist at that time, and so can not be held responsible for the fact that he now exists. The woman is not at fault for being fertile, either.

However, in considering or acting to kill the child by removing him, she commits a new, additional wrong. She cannot kill the child except in self defense, and then only if there is no other option.

There must be "bright lines" of right and wrong which we will not cross. Intentional acts to end the life of any human being except in defense of life is one of these lines.


59 posted on 07/08/2005 10:13:10 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Dred Scott permitted whites in this country to own black slaves and eventually this decision was struck down. So, Anita, your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So she wrote back and she thanked me, said she "hadn't looked at it that way;" she "appreciated that perspective." So I wanted to share that with you. One of the reasons why is because here we've had these Supreme Court decisions on property rights, private property rights, and you can see how some people interpret all of these, and extrapolate them to other issues in what may be the beginning of their education process. So I thought it was a great question that she asked and I was happy to be able to answer it for her.

That's encouraging, and lends support to the notion that support for abortion (for the dwindling minority who support unconditional abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy) is pedicated on ignorace and not merely selfishness/malice. This should be an encouragement to the pro-life community. What it means: through education about A) the ramifications of the Bill of Rights as applied to all, and B) what the unborn baby really is, does, and looks like.

60 posted on 07/08/2005 10:18:39 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paulat

Friend, what's sick is telling a bruised, traumatized young lady that brutally ripping out and killing the little person growing inside her will make everything well.


61 posted on 07/08/2005 10:21:15 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

You are completely missing the point...I am in no more in favor of killing babies WHATEVER their conception.

It was his implication that women were responsible for rape or incest because they "made their wombs."

We are no more responsible than he is for creating his d*ck...no matter how small it may be.

I would NEVER abort a baby...no matte what it's conception.

It's his Islamic thinking that has me steamed.


62 posted on 07/08/2005 10:30:23 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It's also 'endowed by their Creator', not 'granted by our Creator'. Very sloppy piece of work.


63 posted on 07/08/2005 10:30:52 PM PDT by toadthesecond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Fruitbat

excellent remarks both yours and the preceding.

"Verbal Preemption"; commandeering of the language, defining the discussion... tried, tested and unfortunately very effective tactics of the left. Thomas Sowell magnificently displays this sophistry in his book, "VISION OF THE SELF-ANOINTED".

The irony of it all, the left - in setting it's foundation upon the cornerstone of the death-culture (abortion and euthanasia) - literally and figuratively "sows the seeds" of it's own destruction (pun intended) with their beliefs. And their declining numbers (fastest growing states/counties are voting republican) bears this out.

Sort of an internal version of the demographic crisis that dooms Europe - and no surprise either, considering the secular/socialist stamp of that continent.

For my part, I've no problem with proponents of the death-cult continueing their chosen path... in the end, it means less leftists, less dhimmicrats (not like the good, Zell-Miller Democrats; we need those...). They choose their fate, they reap the rewards of what they sow.

In the end, the Bell Tolls for us All... but for your lurkers/DUers reading this mini-rant, I gladly say, "you first!".


64 posted on 07/08/2005 11:29:42 PM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CGVet58

boy, uncharacteristic grammatical/spelling errors in my last. It's late; go to sleep.


65 posted on 07/08/2005 11:36:34 PM PDT by CGVet58 (God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: paulat
Mea culpa, I misunderstood. I think, if I read his response aright, he was speaking in merely scientific terms, ergo the body generates this, that, and the other to accomodate pregnancy. Obviously there is no way an innocent lady can be ethically culpable for an act of violence committed against her person, such as rape.
66 posted on 07/09/2005 12:46:24 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: paulat

"He's" a she.

And, if you read the post in question, I never said or implied that the rape was the responsibility of the mother, but she naturally has something to do with creating the child.


67 posted on 07/09/2005 12:55:20 AM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: paulat

As an aside, I think we (pro-lifers) ought to choose our battles wisely. The "rape/incest" argument is a red-herring thrown out by the Left which, in reality, is responsible for a very small percentage (I cannot find the number but I think it's <= 3%). The vast majority are first trimester and for purely elective reasons.


68 posted on 07/09/2005 1:00:18 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: The Phantom FReeper
"Not to mention that the body inside the woman is not actually her body. Therefore, as the child is merely within her temporarily and not part of her, she has no right to destroy it."

I completely agree. If you believe in the Bible, you know that your body is not even your own.

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- I Corinthians 6:19-20

69 posted on 07/09/2005 2:08:31 AM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender ("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

A couple quotes as a PING:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority ... to defend the lives of the innocent ... among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates ... do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven" (Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii No. 67).


"Every human being, even the infant in the mother's womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic , social, economic or moral "indication" that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life - which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit in itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit..." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951)


70 posted on 07/09/2005 5:22:10 AM PDT by cpforlife.org (Abortion is the Choice of Satan, the father of lies and a MURDERER from the beginning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Life is the standard of all value.

Abortion is the horrific culmination to a series of irrational choices.


71 posted on 07/09/2005 5:46:14 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

"And the answer is, the baby didn't "invade" you. You in effect invited the baby to come, by allowing somebody to deposit 100 million live sperm into your genital tract. (News Flash: Now known to be the leading cause of pregnancy.) Even if you tried contracpetion, you knew, or should hve known, the risk, and so there's strict liability here."

You say one thing here which I think causes women to "circle the wagons" when it comes to abortion. We as men have a duty to be fathers when it comes to that. We've abrogated that responsibility lately. When I was a little boy the unwanted pregnancy usually meant disaster for little Suzy, but it also meant her sex partner little Johney could forget all about his bright future as well. (Since he had to forget about that football scholarship now and settle down to his life in the windshield wiper factory to support Suzy and baby Johney or Jeannie).

We need to see a revival of strong dominant honorable men again. That will go along way to solving the abortion fiasco. And that without a lot of socialistic laws.


72 posted on 07/09/2005 6:04:57 AM PDT by samm1148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I've repeated that clause for years to those who supported abortion.

So how did they get around this. They decided to re classify a human baby into a fetus. In other words it's not alive yet therefore it has no rights.

73 posted on 07/09/2005 6:06:16 AM PDT by hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

I'm glad I'm on your ping list. FRegards....


74 posted on 07/09/2005 8:07:03 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (<<< Ad Campaign for Durbin the Turban in profile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: The Phantom FReeper

Yep. The whole "it's just a piece of flesh" argument is ridiculous. If it's just a piece of her flesh, why does it have different DNA?


75 posted on 07/09/2005 8:08:34 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Thanks. Good article.


76 posted on 07/09/2005 8:10:53 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: The Phantom FReeper

Correct you only have 2 arms 2 legs. Not 4 arms 4 legs.


77 posted on 07/09/2005 8:36:58 AM PDT by since1868
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Indeed. And "incest" is really just padding the excuses. Non-consensual incest is "rape" and should be classified as such. Consensual incest is as consensual as non-incestuous relations. Heaven forbid a baby is destroyed for the sins of one or both parents.
78 posted on 07/09/2005 8:42:45 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (Abortion is a weapon of mass destruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Yes, of course we understand that this is both Biblical and historically orthodox doctrine. My point is that very often I read such gross ridicule of Biblical Christian doctrine and thought on Free Republic. It does seem that there are more a-moral Libertarians than Bible-respecting Conservatives that comment on Free Republic
79 posted on 07/09/2005 8:54:29 AM PDT by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wingman1
"There are some who would follow up with the question, "Well, granted that the baby is not part of my body, still my womb definitely is: so why can't I eject an embryo or fetus from my womb, just as I would eject an invader from my property?"

You know, I've never heard it phrased like this before. Are there really people who think along these lines?

Yeah. there sure are. They are generally professional philosophers or medical ethicists.

As George Orwell once noted, some things are so preposterous that only "intellectuals" could believe in them.

Here's another Orwell quote I like: "We have now sunk to a depth at which re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

80 posted on 07/09/2005 9:15:33 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Play fair, play hard, nobody hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

I'd not considered that point about incest before. Thanks.


81 posted on 07/09/2005 10:04:33 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist
eem that there are more a-moral Libertarians than Bible-respecting Conservatives that comment on Free Republic

Through common grace Christians and non-Christians can work together for a common cause. Common grace does not save, but does preserve man from full expression of his own depravity (Jer. 17:9).

For example, I've known liberals who oppose abortion, and there's a gay/lesbian group called PLAGAL: Pro-Life Alliance of Gay and Lesbians. Even though I would take issue with their personal lives I would be loathe to reject their work for the protection of the unborn regardless of motives. The pro-life movement is not a monolithic, well-funded bloc but a rather rag-tag melange united by a common sense of justice.

Remember the prostitute Rahab and her works.

82 posted on 07/09/2005 10:12:46 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Anyway you explain it, killing babies is WRONG.

Some won't hear no matter how good you explain it.
83 posted on 07/09/2005 10:15:27 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The tacit assumption is that the embryo just popped in there ex nihilo. All of the arguments on the other side seem to assume this, never questioning whether maybe, just maybe, the woman might, just might bear some of the responsibility for becoming pregnant in the first place. The arguments on both sides seem to overlook the father's responsibility in the matter.
84 posted on 07/09/2005 10:17:33 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Getting an abortion would be the equivalent of inviting a child onto your property-- in fact, bringing him onto your property (since he does not even have the power of independent locomotion) --- and then saying he was a trespasser and shooting him.

I have actually heard this ridicules argument.
85 posted on 07/09/2005 10:18:48 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Another way of expressing it is thus: the right to life of another human being ABROGATES, EVACUATES, TRUMPS all other premises. Likewise, for many of us the present situation - 4,000 innocent human beings executed each day in the most brutal manner imagineable - pre-empts all other contemporary issues. NPR is living in a fantasy world when they say "We at National Public Radio just do not cover this issue because we think it has been decided."

As an aside, check out what NARAL is doing in my state.

BTW how is the weather out your way (Orofino?)

86 posted on 07/09/2005 10:26:09 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

Sounds like the Hegelian Dialectic to me. (Simply compromise on the slip...downward...downward..downward.) Consider me a speed bump on this road.


87 posted on 07/09/2005 10:33:33 AM PDT by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
I cannot find the number but I think it's <= 3%)

I think that 3% includes all of the hard cases, rape, incest, life of mother, 13 year olds etc..

97% of abortions are for convenience sake only, and 50% of that 97% of convenience only have had multiple abortions.

Of all,(many) the women I have known who have had an abortions, have had 2, 3, and even more abortions.

Of these many women I have known, most have had atleast one abortions after the 6th month.

And most of them proudly tell you, with no shame.
88 posted on 07/09/2005 10:38:29 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist
Any similarity to Hegel's thesis-antithesis dialectic is incidental. All people live in the same world. Christians must live in the world yet not be of it. The Holy Spirit has the power to protect the Christian believer - sin comes from the inside, from the heart (cf Ps. 51), not from the outside.

The Anabaptist tendancy to try to construct a completely separate Christian culture finds no support in Scripture. Transformation of the existing culture, through lives, however is the duty of every believer within his sphere of influence.

As applied to abortion, if it pleases the Lord to remove this scourge from the land who are we to question His means?

89 posted on 07/09/2005 11:34:47 AM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
We are not Anabaptists, just Baptists. We don't isolate ourselves (as might Amish, some Mennonites, or others who claim the Anabaptist handle). Our children, fully clothed, have played stick ball with naked Filipino children. But we don't preach with any pleasant tones toward those who just WANT to be naked. Some Filipino children don't really want to be naked out of vile desire, they just don't have any clothes, and would love to wear some if they were given any. Some Filipino young people, on the other hand (like American young people), after watching American Hollywood productions and pornography on the Internet at the local Internet cafe, desire a VILE and LICENTIOUS and VULGAR course of life. Sodomy is so flaunted on Filipino streets and in the markets that Sodom and Gomorrah residents would blush. We don't use such tones of voice that make us seem to others as though we can just tolerate sodomy or other reprobation. We firmly preach against what God says is sin and debauchery. We would not be interested in appearing to legitimize what God says is reprobate by buddying with them just because they happen to be able to articulate a position that might be reasonable in one or two issues. "Transformation of existing culture" in a Godward direction would only happen if sufficient numbers of people see themselves offensive to God's holiness, condemned by sin, on their way to judgment before a Holy God, on their way to Hell, and if they see the Cross of Christ as the only remedy for their sin nature and sinful acts, if they repent toward God and place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; if they experience the New Birth, Regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The world is a ship that is SUNK. Judgment is on the way, and the Christian's duty is to preach the gospel of the Grace of God that He may rescue the perishing that are on the open sea watching the the bow slip underneath the surface. There will be NO restoration, the ship is sunk, this dispensation will end in apostasy and under judgment.
90 posted on 07/09/2005 12:28:44 PM PDT by Free Baptist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Its rainy, and overcast in Orofino. What about Seattle?

The only way I can explain people who not only believe it is okay to kill babies, but fervently fight for the right to kill babies, is they are driven by a demonic force.
91 posted on 07/09/2005 12:30:08 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

Same here. A great to stay indoors and practice a new Poulenc piece I'm learning.


92 posted on 07/09/2005 12:36:33 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Poulenc

What is that?

I am trying to get motivated to pack stuff for moving into the new log home we are building.

I have 4 grandkids here to help, course the 2 year old isn't much help.
93 posted on 07/09/2005 12:40:20 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

Pingable?


94 posted on 07/09/2005 12:42:36 PM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist
I do share your pessimism for this world long-term. Living as we do in this culture it is necessary to return to the Word which reminds us all how bad it really is. It also reminds each child of God of his own sin, and drives him to the cross.

No question about it, this world is dying and the Christian is a pilgrim and wanderer. However, Proverbs 24:11 is very clear about speaking for those with no voice. I cannot, in good conscience, withdraw from the battle. If we can save one baby from the knife, offer food, clothes, and Christian love to the mother, that is a little contribution to cultural transformation - not trumpeted, just obedient.

I fully concur with your comments on transformation requiring a mssive Spirit-wrought revival beginning with true sorrow and repentence, and almost certainly beginning with reformation in the popular evangelical church and doing away with man-centeredness.

95 posted on 07/09/2005 12:47:16 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
Music.

Moving is a great way to get the blood flowing. Congrats on the new home!

96 posted on 07/09/2005 12:49:13 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Seems like Rush should invite Hillary Clinton on his show to debate this issue. This would shoot down in flames any chances for her in 2008. On the other hand, if she denies the request to be on the show, then it should be stated that she is a "coward to explain her position on abortion and the EXTREMELY STRONG SUPPORT SHE ENJOYS FROM NARAL and Planned Parenthood."

Maybe the next US Supreme Court Nominee should be all about abortion and the right of a Human Being to exist -- the most fundamental right in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

My opinion only.

97 posted on 07/09/2005 4:00:59 PM PDT by topher (One Nation under God -- God bless and protect our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Individualism isn't the problem here, its the denial of individualism that's at issue. The child in the womb is a separate distinct individual living inside the body of another individual. The child is jointly conceived. The child has its own body and soul from conception. It is a complete individual from that point on. No one, especially the mother has a right to control that individual living within her. If a woman wants choice and the control of her own body, she should start by controlling her sexual appetites and/or practices to ensure she doesn't accidentally conspire to create a new individual!
98 posted on 07/09/2005 4:14:59 PM PDT by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: photodawg

I was thinking of the particular kind of individualism promoted by Locke, which tends to lead to viewing persons as property. What you say is correct. There are two separate individuals, or persons, mother and child. A child is not the mother's property, and for that matter her body is not her property either.

Private property is an important property, but unless you believe in slavery property cannot be extended to persons. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence speaks of an inalienable right to life and liberty, which means we cannot sell ourselves even if we choose to.


99 posted on 07/09/2005 4:55:43 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late; Recovering_Democrat; Alissa; Pan_Yans Wife; LADY J; mathluv; browardchad; cardinal4; ...

100 posted on 07/09/2005 5:51:10 PM PDT by Born Conservative ("If not us, who? And if not now, when? - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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