Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Well, if you need a list of who are the whores for the abortion lobby

by giving him a life of....death? which do you think the baby would prefer?

Just a word to the wise...

If you are pro-life and regularly support large non-profits such as the American Cancer Society, or the Susan G. Koman foundation, you may want to re-think that. I am discovering that many of these outfits that collect money for charitable causes are run by progressives of the same ilk as Planned Parenthood. They spread their contributions around to some surprising places.

Yes, the Founders were striving for guarantees....

Of course social acceptance for outright murder by scientifically and politically espousing "non human" has worked for many agendas throughout history.

Depends on if their future was forecast-able.

To cut to the short of it, you ever heard the anti abortion slogan sometimes used "You've never hear anyone say they wish they'd been aborted"....

After 27 years of counseling with youth,
I could testify to the fact that the slogan isn't true.

The baby can decide whether it wants to live or die after it gets old enough to determine whether life is worth living. Why should someone else decide that its life may not be worth living?

Why just kill the unborn that may lead bad lives? Why not go into depressed areas and kill children and adults who have unfortunate lives?

Women will die and still kill their unborn whether it is legal or not. Does that mean we should promote the killing of the innocent unborn just to keep someone from suffering from the consequences of their bad choices?

Wouldn't universal access to "The-morning-after-pill" end the vast majority of abortions? From what I've seen (and heard) it seems to - at least for most people.

I know that won't totally satisfy those who believe that a zygote is a baby - but I'd guess that most people who are against abortion - are more concerned about the termination of life on fetuses that have developed bones, a spine, a brain, a heart, skin etc. Correct?

I mean, that in the world of compromise that we live in - and in a world where we don't necessarily get everything we want, legally speaking, if a fetus is going to be terminated - wouldn't it be preferable to terminate the fetus's life while it was still a tiny collection of individual cells, smaller than the period under the question mark that ends this sentence? While it had no bones, no brain, no heart, no skin, - just a collection of identical cells? That is - IF it is going to be terminated?

I say this, knowing that there is a small minority of hard-core woman's rightists, want to be able to terminate pregnancies right up until birth - whenever a woman so chooses - a position the vast amount of other people in society find untenable. I also know that there are hard-core anti-abortionists want every pregnancy carried to term, regardless of woman's physical or mental health, regardless of whether she was raped etc. I think that these people are also in a small minority.

Since those two ideas are totally mutually incompatible - and knowing that those two ideas will always be two total solitudes - wouldn't most people in society be better served by going after laws that actually have a chance of passing in the society that we live in today? Perfection is nice - but real politics is concerned not with the achievement of ideals - but rather, the achievement of the possible.

Up here, in the community that I live in, girls can get free birth control at the family planning clinic, located a block from the school. If a girl has a reason to think that that may have failed, they can get a free pregnancy test (with total confidentiality guaranteed), then she can get the so-called "morning-after-pill" if she should so choose - and only if that route also fails - do they even consider abortion - and if that is the route they choose - at least here that will happen at a much earlier stage of fetal development.

As a high school teacher, and as a parent of three young daughters (two of which attend the school, I teach at) - I'd like to think I'm "in the loop" as to what is happening with lots of the kids I teach. I tend to know which of my daughters friends are having sex, what protection they are using, and the consequences of any lapses in judgement. Around here, the "mistakes" are almost inevitably "dealt-with" - within days of the of "the original act". Even if that doesn't happen - other options usually are looked at, within weeks after the act, as the norm. In this town it is very very rare for a young girl to be visibly pregnant. Things are decided at a very early stage - thanks to so many options being on the table.

To those who resent paying for others mistakes - I hear you. I understand - but, to my mind, the societal cost of unwanted children greatly exceeds the cost of supplying young girls with options - at the first sign of pregnancy. You will all end up paying for unwanted children being brought into the world. You will pay for them being born, you will pay for the havoc they will wreck within the school system, you will pay for their own abortions - and for many, sadly, you will pay for the crimes they commit in your cities and towns and eventually - you will pay for their incarceration in prisons - and their own spawn's inprisonment.

I might also add we spend a lot of money in our school system by hiring professional nurses, who do all of the teaching of the school sex-ed classes, in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11 - with the emphasis on celibacy as being the only truly safe choice, but with all methods of birth-control studied - in age-appropriate detail. No questions go unanswered.

This method isn't perfect - and totally pleases no one. But, to my mind - what we do up here - seems to be the best option - in an area where no option is totally satisfying to all of the interested parties.

It's a long way from perfect - but it's the best method I've ever come across.

It's an area I won't debate - as I know I can never change anyone else's mind in matters that go to the very core of the things we all, as individuals, believe in.

I just presented this information - as another point of view - for what that's worth.

Even the Bible prescribes different penalties for killing a women with an infant - than killing a pregnant woman. Even back then, they had to wrestle with the idea of prescribing the appropriate penalty - for the act of destroying something having the potential to become a human - while knowing that it wasn't yet - a human.

People are going to have to understand if you get rid of abortion you're going to have to increase entitlements. There's no way in hell our country would ever let politicians cut both and if they did, it would be political suicide.

You Scott Peterson's lawyer, cause even Cali ain't buying that one?

If they really believe that, nothing stopping them from doing it retroactively. But that doesn't give you the right to kill them all on spec.

rrroae, Why is the government responsible for raising children? Why should we continue to encourage people to have children they can not support? We should be going in the opposite direction. It would only be considered to be political suicide if you are a liberal, and liberalism is what caused the problem in the first place.

How much is your life worth?

At what point do you take responsibility for your actions?

At what point do you hold others responsible for their actions?

They're not. Just talking political reality.


Of course maybe some have had luck convincing liberals to change their position.

That post is an interesting series of statements by a school teacher and parent, and may be indicative of how our society got into what, to many, seems like an insoluble dilemma. The post is long on seemingly practical logic and short on (devoid?) of morality.

In order to view such a modern societal tragedy (how many millions killed in this abortion Holocaust?) as a problem to be solved by the most practical technical and sociological means, and to quote current practices and results as evidence of the logical solutions, the person must first abandon the applicable and basic moral precepts. In doing so, one frees oneself from the restraints of moral law, which enables free-form thinking and posturing about what is most "logical".

Concomitantly, those who abuse and ignore moral principles lose the most valuable base and are forced to resort to practical logic in addressing issues far beyond cure or correction by logical means.

Who can argue the logic presented above - or rather - who even wants to argue it? Those seeking to kill Moses knew the logic, the Nazis knew the logic, Stalin was very logical - and on and on. All were long on logic and short on morality.

Many of us enjoy logical discourse and sensible/honest argument, but many will not enjoy or even engage if they have to abandon a basic moral premise in order to clear the playing field.

If we now "live in a world of compromise" as stated by the poster, it would be because we have taken the easy and cowardly way out of important moral strictures. Freedom (to base our solutions purely on logic) that is gained in such fashion seems to be a false and empty freedom.

Do I want to give up to the moral relativists? On what do we stand, to what extent do we value it, and to what extent are we teaching that foundation to our young ones? What are we giving them as a basis for thought and decisions? Are we promoting the god of logical practicality?? Not I.

You may not want moral relativists - but they are - by ALL accounts - the majority of the people who are presently living in North America.

It's why we have the present laws that we do.

You might be willing live in a society where a MINORITY can enforce its beliefs on the majority - but that is not a place I'd ever want to live.

That seems to be a very logical series of statements. Also seems like you choose to dodge or hide from the critical point. The comments had nothing to do with any minority enforcing anything. The comments had to do with people who look for reasons and excuses to abandon moral principles, and thus free themselves to use their relativist logic. And, in the process, promote their weaknesses to the young. Please read again.

rrroae, never say never in politics. Liberals are, indeed, tough because they have no shame and very little sense of reality.

You guys are arguing over the government being wrong about something. That is like arguing over which tequila gives you the worst hangover...

Abortion is wrong. You cannot argue that point. Period. Your government @#^@^#^ up everything about it and has included it in womens rights somehow and financed it by doing what they do best. Circle jerk. JMO

woofer

If anyone ever needed an abortion it would be a whore.
You should know that being from N.O.

An excellent, thoughtful, and reasonable post. Thank you, sir.

So you are suggesting that someone's male genitalia somehow disqualifies the person from making certain rational moral judgments? I think not.

Or maybe you are suggesting that pro-life arguments have penises? I don't think so either.