4
4
0
Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the two most tragic Supreme Court decisions in American history, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Those decisions sparked a contentious debate between those who would deny legal protection for babies in the womb, and those who rightly acknowledge that those babies constitute “life” as understood throughout history and affirmed in our Declaration of Independence. Tragically, that right has been denied to 58 million unborn children sacrificed on the altar of “choice” since 1973.
Honoring the Sanctity of Life
Posted from patriotpost.us
Supreme Court
Abortion
Children
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
I know I'm risking getting put on blast but...
For me, it is and always has been about the CHOICE. I fail to see how in our nation where we raise all kinds of Hell about being told what we can or can't do, some of us still find the time to try and get other people to do what THEY want them to do. I get it. Many of us here say that "it's a life, not a choice" but in case you've forgotten, women were finding ways to abort pregnancies BEFORE they had the choice and many of them died in the process AND many of them didn't get pregnant from promiscuity.
Let's take the abortion topic out of it. Would YOU like it if someone that didn't know you or anything about you MAKE you do something or keep something you didn't want and how far would you go to make sure you have the freedom to have that choice? BLUF, if you feel that having the freedom to make your own choices and no one has the right to tell you how to live your life, then this debate is moot.
For me, it is and always has been about the CHOICE. I fail to see how in our nation where we raise all kinds of Hell about being told what we can or can't do, some of us still find the time to try and get other people to do what THEY want them to do. I get it. Many of us here say that "it's a life, not a choice" but in case you've forgotten, women were finding ways to abort pregnancies BEFORE they had the choice and many of them died in the process AND many of them didn't get pregnant from promiscuity.
Let's take the abortion topic out of it. Would YOU like it if someone that didn't know you or anything about you MAKE you do something or keep something you didn't want and how far would you go to make sure you have the freedom to have that choice? BLUF, if you feel that having the freedom to make your own choices and no one has the right to tell you how to live your life, then this debate is moot.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I think the idea that a woman could be tortured and raped by a deranged monster, and then the government would force her to carry his baby for 9 months to term is one of the greatest obscenities there is. But that's the belief of Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, and many other republicans. A life's a life he says and he doesn't see how the way it started matters. And we have had republican politicians who have actually stated that even though the pregnancy started with a rape, it was still a "gift from god" and "god's will". Well it's not. It's simple biology. And women don't become property of the state to be used as birthing vessels at the moment an egg is fertilzed. Conservatives who criticize Muslims for their treating women as second class people actually want to pass a law that says that if any man on earth comes up to you and impregnates you against your will, that you MUST carry his baby to term. That's disgusting.
Most of those who claim a fertilized egg is a human life are BSing in my opinion. If a hospital were to catch on fire, and a fireman only has time to go in and save those in a single room I wonder which room these "prolife" people would send the fireman to. The room with their single 11 month old baby crying, or the fertility clinic with 5 of her fertilized eggs in test tubes. I suspect it would be the one with the baby crying. But of course, that would mean that they didn't really consider the fertilized egg a human life, or else they would have chosen the 5 lives over the one.
Now, if someone would actually pick the test tubes over the life, I give them credit for really believing what they preach. But I don't care if someones religion tells them to believe that or not. I find it horrific that they want to try and impose their religious beliefs on everyone else in the nation. We are not a theocracy, but there are some who are trying real hard to make us one. Mike Huckabee, as a presidential candidate, said he would change the constitution to match the bible. Don't we have enough trouble with countries that try and rule based upon what their "good book" says? And of course, it has to not only be the "good book" that you believe in versus other "good books", but people will be forced to interpret it exactly as you interpret it, because of course only YOU really know what God was thinking 2-3000 years ago.
And interestingly, many of those same people that say that banning guns won't work because people who want guns will still get them, and banning drugs didn't work because people still get drugs somehow insist that banning abortions will stop people from having abortions. It won't. Everyone knows that. All it will do is turn citizens into criminals for not believing the same religious tenants they do.
Most of those who claim a fertilized egg is a human life are BSing in my opinion. If a hospital were to catch on fire, and a fireman only has time to go in and save those in a single room I wonder which room these "prolife" people would send the fireman to. The room with their single 11 month old baby crying, or the fertility clinic with 5 of her fertilized eggs in test tubes. I suspect it would be the one with the baby crying. But of course, that would mean that they didn't really consider the fertilized egg a human life, or else they would have chosen the 5 lives over the one.
Now, if someone would actually pick the test tubes over the life, I give them credit for really believing what they preach. But I don't care if someones religion tells them to believe that or not. I find it horrific that they want to try and impose their religious beliefs on everyone else in the nation. We are not a theocracy, but there are some who are trying real hard to make us one. Mike Huckabee, as a presidential candidate, said he would change the constitution to match the bible. Don't we have enough trouble with countries that try and rule based upon what their "good book" says? And of course, it has to not only be the "good book" that you believe in versus other "good books", but people will be forced to interpret it exactly as you interpret it, because of course only YOU really know what God was thinking 2-3000 years ago.
And interestingly, many of those same people that say that banning guns won't work because people who want guns will still get them, and banning drugs didn't work because people still get drugs somehow insist that banning abortions will stop people from having abortions. It won't. Everyone knows that. All it will do is turn citizens into criminals for not believing the same religious tenants they do.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - i said there are those who want to pass such a law. And any law that would ban abortions, and make both the people who get them and the doctors that perform them criminals, would do just that. This isn't exactly news.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC (Join to see) - Of course that isn't news. I'm just surprised that you're becoming excited over some candidate's political posturing to appease a segment of their constituency. You are so excited that you tar conservatives with your indignation. Sorry. I'm a conservative who took offense and wanted to clarify that a fanatical anti-abortion stance is not a conservative position. A religious-right position, but not a political conservative position.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - actually the republicans made an abortion ban part of their party platform at their convention. The stated position of the republican party is that the 14th amendment applies to unborn children at any stage of development and they have a right to life that cannot be infringed. And they want to create a constitutional amendment to the constitution that says so. Because right now, the SCOTUS has ruled that under the 14th amendment the woman, not the fertilized egg, is the person with the right to decide whether to get an abortion or not. That's a political position by a political party. And the major candidates for that party have stated their support for that position. There is no space between the religious right's position on abortion and the republican party's position on abortion. You can make the case that some individual republicans might disagree with their party's position, of course. But not only is an abortion ban in the republican platform, it is essentially a litmus test for any republican candidate.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC (Join to see) - The GOP is hardly distinguishable from the DNC in my view. Yes, the DNC has largely favored open access to abortion. However, the position is generally the same among the rank and file of both parties; contentious and confused. Not being a member of either party, I have no obligation to defend either party. Sadly, the GOP establishment does not embrace a conservative ideology. Indeed, they are largely at war with conservatives who are attempting to reclaim the party. When it comes to "litmus tests" for republican candidates, beware of confusing the positions of the GOP establishment and conservatives who are more libertarian than Republican.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
To be fair, the Supreme Court very pointedly commented that they were not legislating for or against abortion. They were merely deciding the cited cases on the basis of their constitutionality. They went on to comment that Congress should address these issues and craft specific remedies. Sadly, Congress has ducked this responsibility. It seems that some of We the People prefer the status quo left in the wake of these court decisions and would rather not craft any policy that would require compromise with the opposition.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google