Posted on 01/27/2019 5:01:36 AM PST by Tax-chick
No, I don’t believe we can assume that. Articles at the source website, “The Public Discourse,” are generally entirely opposed to abortion.
I see what you mean. However, that didn’t cross my mind at all. It shows how we can have intellectual “silos,” and not realize the people with other experiences and reading environments (as it were) can see the same words and understand them in very different ways.
I consider this a worthwhile life lesson!
It never was about the wellbeing of children.
IF you care about children keep the government the heck out of the picture, period.
It never was about the wellbeing of children.
IF you care about children keep the government the heck out of the picture, period.
Very true.
The problem is, the Left understands this human characteristic regarding intellectual silos all too well and exploits it for its own advantage.
The article is hardly at all about the government. It is much more about moral observations about the impact on children of various adult choices.
If keeping the government out of it involves not using government funds and resources to encourage single motherhood or promote homosexual parenting, then we agree.
Or the government’s not requiring adoption agencies to place children with homosexuals or single people, when there are background-checked, home-studied, married couples waiting to adopt children.
Or not making laws requiring insurance companies to cover the costs of artificial reproduction for insureds.
I don’t have an issue with insurers paying for usage of artificial means of impregnation and reproduction for people who have a biological situation that prevents conception.
I don’t agree with it for people who want to conceive and freeze it because it gets in the way of their career. Or people who are biologically not meant to have children, such as two men or two women. Or people who do it as a revenue enhancer or for convenience’s sake.
However, it is not unusual in that situation to use eggs and/or sperm that are not those of the original couple. That cuts the resulting child off from one or both of his biological parents.
Also, on this point: I don’t have an issue with insurers paying ..., I think one should emphasize the difference between "insurers paying" and "government's mandating that insurers pay." That's the whole issue with Obamacare's mandating that contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations be cost-free to the insured in all contracts.
Children’s Rights now means Child Abuse:
The state actively instructing vuknerable, innocent children to adopt perverted behaviors without parental permission - if even knowledge.
That’s not the topic of this article at all. We have already discussed the likelihood that the author didn’t realize that many people understood “children’s rights” in that context.
Unassuming if you’re against the wall, and support the invasion of the USA then why don’t you leave here. Go to their countries and help them fix their countries.
Okay, thanks. Now I understand.
Tell that to New Yotkers with their new infantacide law!
Are there any other current events about which you’d like to express a feeling? We’re not paying by the word here, after all.
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.