-
-
I like to quote the words of the late Professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese:
"By declaring reproductive freedom to be women's exclusive right, it dismisses the claims of men and cancels their obligations to the next generation."
One of the great unaddressed issues of our time is the widespread rejection by men of the role of protector and provider.Last edited by blackhawknj; 02-20-2020, 02:54.Comment
-
First trimester has most of the miscarriages. Each one a possible crime scene according to your view. It's your own logic that is dangerous (and ridiculous). You can't argue that it's murder without it following that police should be notified following every terminated pregnancy. The miscarriage is now evidence, the womb a possible crime scene. No wonder women fight tooth and nail against your vision for the world. Good for them. And: that kind of intrusion into private lives cannot be confined strictly to pregnant women. Coercion is a blunt instrument.
- - - Updated - - -
David Brooks has a long column on it in the current issue of The Atlantic if you feel like reading.Last edited by togor; 02-20-2020, 05:55.Comment
-
A miscarriage and an abortion are two completely different things. One is natural occurring, one is done for the express reason of killing someone unwanted. The same as an old person dying and someone killing them. As has been stated earlier, if you are pro-abortion, you are against life, and that is something given from God, not man.Comment
-
In the 1960s Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that having a generation-several generations- of young males raised solely by women would have long term harmful consequences, now we're finding out growing up fatherless is none too healthy for girls.
But Roe has given us a generation-several generations of men who could care less about "their" children, resent having them, resent being excluded from the reproductive decision making process except when it comes time to pay the bills, and whose attitudes toward and expectations for "their" children are best summed up by the one "deadbeat dad" interviewed by Newsweek in 1992, who, when asked what sort of relationship he expected to have with his sons if he refused to pay child
support, replied simply-"None".Last edited by blackhawknj; 02-20-2020, 07:20.Comment
-
What if a woman swallows something to induce miscarriage?
If someone is confident of how God will rule (never a recommended wager IMO) then leave it to God and the woman to figure out. Otherwise it's using a definition of life as a cover to keep woman and reproduction under control. As I said, such coercion will be a blunt instrument used on others as well.Comment
-
The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?
The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.
There are those who say that "society" or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people -- perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics -- never get the right to life.
If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.
• Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!
• Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.
• But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother's DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being -- a separate and distinct human life.
Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.Comment
-
Self contradictory post that argues it is bad for the government decide who lives and dies but then argues to get the government to do just that with a ban. Don't want the government involved then leave it to the people. Protects their rights and keeps the government out of the decision. Also notice avoidance of discussing actions to enforce the ban. That is strategy not accident.Comment
-
You people try to dance around it not being murder. To kill a child in the womb is just that. It's a human being not a non being you are terminating. Personally I don't care what you do, it's your choice, but don't try to justify it, it is what it is... Have you ever see an aborted baby, tell me it's not human.This crap of not being able to afford it, or the dead beat farther', are just excuses to ease your conscience or to support your opinion...Last edited by rayg; 02-21-2020, 08:56.Comment
-
Semantics aside, the uterus expels the fetus. Spontaneous or medically induced? They look the same without close investigation. If the law says that one is murder and the other is just one of those things, then there is no way miscarriages don't become police investigations.
How far should police be asked/expected/allowed to go in the investigation of reported first-trimester miscarriages? You going to put parents in prison if they choose not to start a second family because they're in their late 40's? Having cast the die that abortion is murder, tell us how far the pursuit of justice should go.Comment
-
Tweet
Comment