Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
quote from the late Dr. William Harrison, Los Angeles abortionist
Abortionist: One of My Patients Had Nine Abortions and There's Nothing Wrong With That
"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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
The very sad fact is; I think they are very much aware that it is Human Life.
The more fundamental problem is that they do not hold it to be sacred.
Absurd. Go to a farmer’s newly planted corn field and pluck up all of the sprouts. Then when he gets upset you can argue that it wasn’t “corn”, just “sprouts”. Ridiculous. Of course they’re human. We have to be the most wicked people in history, systematically killing our own young.
Exodus Ch XXI refers to an unborn child as “yelodehah” literally, her child. Now, the KJV delicately translates that as “her fruit,” but the original Hebrew makes it clear that it ain’t an orange.
Those ‘science minded’ Left will twist into pretzels to never acknowledge what this ‘Godless (L)[’tarian]’ can see as self-evident:
Human egg + human sperm != puppy (no matter what position those two met under) /s
The incubation period neither changes the outcome.
One more pox I lay upon the feet of those that have come before me; ever letting it get this far/bad before my birth.
This is the problem. We have to remove the issue of “Life” from the argument. The central issue is really one of EQUAL RIGHTS. Granting that the pregnancy is the result of a consensual meeting of two people (Sorry we have to allow exceptions for rape and incest) and of course that the pregnancy is healthy ... the key point of interest is at what time do the RIGHTS of the two parties split and become unequal? This must become the argument.
At the moment of conception the rights of the two parties are essentially split and become unequal. The Woman maintains ALL her rights while the Man looses many of his options without consent.
The true issue of “Choice” must focus on the choice to risk pregnancy by engaging in consensual activities. If we are to consider that choice a “Right” then it comes with incumbent “DUTY” attached. Right to choose, Duty to live with the consequences.
I disagree. They know it’s a human being. That’s why they go to such great lengths to dehumanize the baby, like calling it a fetus. I don’t even like the term that the pro-lifers use of unborn. I prefer pre-born. When they argued in favor of partial birth abortion, no one can tell me that they didn’t know that there was a live, fully formed human being that was being ripped apart.
human
1.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
Good article. It can sometimes be difficult to know how to refute the arguments of those who are pro-abortion, particularly because these exchanges are often emotional and hostile.