Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 27, 2019 22:42:13 GMT -8
not4u13, We disagree on this issue but different voices are always appreciated.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 28, 2019 7:05:42 GMT -8
Yeah, just ignore the fact that there is a 2nd life involved. That is exactly why the left refuses... steadfastly refuses to call the unborn a “child.” In all the years since Roe v. Wade, I have tried countless times to get even one of them to refer to the unborn as a child. They will not do it. it is like they believe, if they humanize the child, they will have to accept the pro-life position. So they refer to it as a fetus (or, in Fordama’s case, a “zygote”). |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 28, 2019 21:10:09 GMT -8
Can we also finally bury the canard that abortion is about women's "healthcare?" Short-circuiting a perfectly normal and healthy function of the body--which is what pregnancy is--by violence is in no way "healthcare." Abortion has a much to do with healthcare as does a face-lift, a boob job, taking puberty blocking hormones, or binging and purging.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 28, 2019 21:36:58 GMT -8
While we're at it, let's not forget the racist and eugenics foundations of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's efforts to promote birth control and abortion as far back as the 1920's. Abortion is the leading killer (by far) of blacks in the United States, among whom there are as many abortions annually as live births. This self-inflicted racial genocide is, ironically, promoted with relentless ferocity by that champion of the downtrodden--the Democratic Party.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on May 29, 2019 7:22:15 GMT -8
Very interesting read here..., Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Margaret Sanger Walk Into a Segregated Bar…Justice Thomas has set two bad leftist legal principles on a collision course.
stream.org/clarence-thomas-ruth-bader-ginsburg-margaret-sanger-walk-segregated-bar/
By JOHN ZMIRAK Published on May 29, 2019 "Justice Clarence Thomas made history this week. He used a routine Supreme Court decision not to review an abortion law to force us to face the truth. An ugly truth, which our elites don’t want to face. A stark truth, attested by documents and facts. An inconvenient truth, which belongs in the Memory Hole. Margaret Sanger was a violent, passionate racist. Her whole crusade for birth control was fueled by racist contempt. That’s how it succeeded. That same sick passion drove her successors at Planned Parenthood in their fight for legal abortion. Oh yes, and one of the reasons a white majority on the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion was eugenic panic." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that, in a lucid moment: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." ~ RBG |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 29, 2019 7:51:36 GMT -8
Bishop Robert Barron references that Ginsburg quote about certain "populations" in regard to Roe v. Wade in the following video about some shockingly high abortion statistics out of New York City in 2011.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on May 29, 2019 10:07:29 GMT -8
Whatever the initial intent of Roe v. Wade was, seems to have clearly morphed into a birth control mechanism that's led to a pretty unhealthy sex culture. We've touched briefly on the consequences of that culture, but my sense is that it's at the core of so many issues facing minorities - especially blacks - today.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on May 29, 2019 10:50:13 GMT -8
Will be interesting now to see if Republican politicians in 2020 use this as does the left and their race this race that political campaign pilgrimage. Surprised this entire fact of the past has been under wraps for so long, or should I say suppressed or out of sight.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jun 4, 2019 18:26:52 GMT -8
Will be interesting now to see if Republican politicians in 2020 use this as does the left and their race this race that political campaign pilgrimage. Surprised this entire fact of the past has been under wraps for so long, or should I say suppressed or out of sight. I'm pretty sure Candace Owens is all over this currently with her Blexit movement. Another strong voice has been Alveda King, niece of MLK and a prominent pro-life conservative (though most don't know this due to the media "blackout"). |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jun 14, 2019 18:13:31 GMT -8
Liberals: Keep the government out of my bedroom!
Also liberals: If you don't want the government to pay for me to "terminate" the results of what I do in the bedroom you hate women and are probably a racist.
Liberals, Part II: Keep out of my bedroom!
Also liberals: If you refuse to celebrate what I do in my bedroom with a member of the same sex you are a bigot.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 15, 2019 3:16:01 GMT -8
Will be interesting now to see if Republican politicians in 2020 use this as does the left and their race this race that political campaign pilgrimage. Surprised this entire fact of the past has been under wraps for so long, or should I say suppressed or out of sight. I expect the politicians will stay away from it. this issue is too hotbed for all but the most conservative and pro-life (who won’t be elected). |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Jun 16, 2019 5:02:27 GMT -8
You are also continuing to victimize the women by forcing her to continue to carry the baby to term. Every day a reminder of the violent crime perpetrated on her and continuing to be perpetrated on her. Remember that a woman's body changes forever after childbirth. She is already traumatized by the event and now to have permanent physical scars all because she was not allowed to have a perfectly safe (for her) medical procedure. Furthermore, you are now spreading the DNA of a violent criminal back into society. That's not something we should want, especially if we believe there are any genetic ties to violent behaviors. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Jun 16, 2019 5:12:10 GMT -8
... Yet, we expect a woman who has become pregnant (for whatever the reason and there are MANY) to be forced to carry the baby to term... I think this is the defining portion of your post for it ignores whatever decisions were made prior to the pregnancy and disregards a human life that can't speak for itself. If pregnancy was an affliction, something that happened spontaneously, then saying that making abortion was forcing something on woman could be justified. However, since in most cases (rape & incest excluded of course) pregnancy occurs based on the decisions & actions of the individuals involved, it then becomes the result of a choice. If you choose to engage in an activity that may or may not lead to certain results, killing someone to later alter those results goes against all moral codes. When my wife & I chose to have children, it was understood that part of that process was we were responsible for them, to feed, clothe & house them until they too were adults. If we had decided later that raising kids was just too hard or that one of them was too much of a burden for us, no one would say it would have been okay to just kill them because we don't want to be "forced" to raise them. There are ways to wiggle out of the responsibility through adoption or other family members, but ending the child's life is not an acceptable option. The analogy holds true in the abortion debate. Choosing to have intercourse means you are choosing to take a chance at becoming pregnant. You may not want to become pregnant or make someone pregnant, but by having intercourse, you are choosing to at least roll the dice. IF pregnancy is an absolute no-go for you or your partner, there are plenty of other sexual things you can do other than intercourse that NEVER lead to pregnancy. No one is forcing a couple to do things that can lead to a pregnancy, so therefore it is in error to claim that one is forced to then live with the results of doing the thing that lead to pregnancy. Except in the rarest of cases (incest, rape, life of the mother), abortion is about convenience and asking for a mulligan on making a bad decision. The problem is that mulligan ends the life of an individual who can't plead his or her case not to kill them. Life is about playing the ball where it lies. There are countless scenarios where a woman does not intend to get pregnant but does. Failed contraceptives (lots of different examples), forcible sex (even by a husband) and intoxication (unable to make a reasoned judgement) are just a few of the categories where the woman have have even taken precautions to not become pregnant. I am sure it is possible to argue that ANY time sex occurs a woman should understand that pregnancy is possible and therefore simply abstain altogether unless she wants a baby. In fact, I think that's the very argument you are making. Women are not simply vessels for human life. They are also a human life and their health and well being MUST be taken into consideration first. That's where we differ. It's her body, not anyone else's. She should have the option of an abortion, whether you define it as a mulligan or not. We have a LOT of unwanted children in this world. They are all over in our foster care system and they often end up homeless when they age out. Unless we, as a society, agree to make them wards of the state for their entire lives, then we don't have a right to force them into this world, no matter how they were conceived. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Jun 16, 2019 5:14:15 GMT -8
Yeah, just ignore the fact that there is a 2nd life involved. That is exactly why the left refuses... steadfastly refuses to call the unborn a “child.” In all the years since Roe v. Wade, I have tried countless times to get even one of them to refer to the unborn as a child. They will not do it. it is like they believe, if they humanize the child, they will have to accept the pro-life position. So they refer to it as a fetus (or, in Fordama’s case, a “zygote”). It's not just the left. It's a whole lot of people on the "right" as well. I frankly don't care what you call it. I believe firmly that the woman has the primary right in the relationship. We have legal precedent that some lives are worth more than others. This is one of them. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Jun 16, 2019 5:18:25 GMT -8
Whatever the initial intent of Roe v. Wade was, seems to have clearly morphed into a birth control mechanism that's led to a pretty unhealthy sex culture. We've touched briefly on the consequences of that culture, but my sense is that it's at the core of so many issues facing minorities - especially blacks - today. I really don't understand where you are going with this. The "sex culture" has existed since Adam and Eve. It's why there are so many references to venereal diseases and homosexuality in the old testament. Prostitution is the oldest continuing profession I know of. The culture that needs adjusting is the one that puts men ahead of women on the food chain. Machismo in the Hispanic culture (for example). Further, I don't know what this has to do with the abortion debate when low income women (most often minority) are routinely accused of having children to increase their welfare payments. They most certainly DON'T want an abortion. That child represents a check. |
|
