The Republicans are up to their un-compassionate selves again. This time they have no compassion for rape victims! They don't believe that women who are date-raped, drugged-raped, incest-raped are real rape victims. Those women apparently chose their destiny and therefore the government shouldn't fund a possible abortion. This is a shining example of how Republicans think (or rather don't think) - and it is truly revolting.
Rape is Rape - period. There is no rape that is better or worse than another version.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
A LIFE IS A LIFE.
WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO OUR OWN OPINIONS.
DEMOCRATS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT IN THEIR THINKING AS ARE REPUBLICANS.
Denbec
They don't believe that women who are date-raped, drugged-raped, incest-raped are real rape victims
Andre
No, that is NOT what they believe, and you know it.
Denbec
Rape is Rape - period. There is no rape that is better or worse than another version.
Andre
THAT is what they believe.
The piece of the puzzle that you are missing is that not only do they believe that ALL rape is morally wrong, they also believe that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life.
That includes ALL innocent human life, regardless of how it was conceived.
Now, you may or may not also believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life, but at least make an effort to think clearly, and present the issue in an honest and non-misleading manner.
It's really not that difficult if you try.
I think it's morally wrong to force a rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term; Not provide health insurance for the mother; prevent same-sex couples from raising that child; cut educational funding so that child doesn't get an adequate education.
I also think it's hypocritical to be pro-war, pro-capital punishment, pro-NRA....and pro-life.
Thohea has summed up my rebuttal perfectly. Thank you.
Andre - if Republicans need to define the phrase "forcible rape" then they do not believe rape is rape.
It should be noted that I have rather conservative views on abortion - just do a search on the word in this blog. However, Democrats understand there are extreme circumstances that happen - to other people less fortunate. We have compassion for them.
Thohea,
I think it's morally wrong to force a rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term...
Andre
Translation: "I think it is morally acceptable, in certain "extreme circumstances" to murder a completely innocent human life."
I understand that way of thinking. I thought that way myself for many years. I now realize that it is illogical and morally inconsistent.
Millions of other people in this country (many Democrats too) also realize this. The fact that you feel the need to constantly demonize these people, and reflexively attribute only the worst of motivations to them, tells me that on some deeper level you also realize the illogic and moral inconsistency of your position. That is an encouraging sign.
Thohea
I also think it's hypocritical to be pro-war, pro-capital punishment, pro-NRA....and pro-life.
Andre
Of course you do. That's all part of the confused thinking that your position on abortion forces you to adopt.
The issue is the protection of "innocent" human life. In theory, when you are dealing with issues of capital punishment and just war, then by definition, you are not dealing with the innocent. I say "in theory" because the Church recognizes that in practice the distinctions between innocent and guilty are easily clouded and are subject to human error. That is why Catholics, while recognizing that there can be legitimate moral justification for both capital punishment and war, under very specific conditions, in practice takes a much more anti-capital punishment and anti-war position.
Consider the illogic of what you have said: you consider it morally wrong to provide a child with the educational funding of a few years ago (which at the time was the highest in human history), while at the same time thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to allow that child to be murdered in it's mother's womb!
Huh?
Actually Andre - the subject here is the protection of women from the consequences of rape - any rape.
And - you call Thohea illogical but then say the Catholic Church might find an extreme circumstance for capital punishment or war but rape is not an extreme circumstance for an innocent woman?!
Den
..you call Thohea illogical..
Andre
Actually, I was calling both of you illogical since, as you said: "Thohea has summed up my rebuttal perfectly."
Den
...the Catholic Church might find an extreme circumstance for capital punishment or war but rape is not an extreme circumstance for an innocent woman?!
Andre
Rape is, of course, an extreme circumstance for a woman (most men too, I would imagine), but it does not justify the killing of an innocent human life ("Two wrongs do not make a right").
Taking a non-innocent life in self-defense, can be morally justified (assuming that deadly force was the only option available). "Just War" theory logically extends that principle from the individual to the collective (within very strict guidelines).
Pretty basic and straightforward.
I'd love to hear a woman's point of view on this, one with first hand knowledge on the subject.
Being a man, I dare not profess to know what's best for a woman or her baby in a circumstance such as this. I do know that as an individual, I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do with my body or anything that may be in it.
My personal belief is until a child is born it is part of the mother's body and her rights come first. She is the only one that has to answer to God for the choices she makes but I believe it is HER choice. I realize this is a very liberal view and a politically unpopular one but that's how I feel.
Andre, I'd appreciate it if you let my posts speak for themselves. I don't need you to translate for me.
Thohea,
I realize this is a very liberal view and a politically unpopular one but that's how I feel.
Andre
I don't think that your view is that unpopular. It might even be the majority view. It certainly was some years ago...some recent polls do seem to indicate that things may have shifted a bit back the other way in recent years, but at the very least, it would still be the view of a very large and significant minority. I wish I could say that it was a fringe view, but it's not.
Thohea
I do know that as an individual, I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do with my body or anything that may be in it.
Andre
I don't either. And I don't want any church or religious leader telling me what I can or can't do. For that matter, I don't want God telling me what I can or can't do. I want to be a completely free and unencumbered being. I want my own self-will to rule my destiny, not the will of any other. I want to pursue the gratification of all my natural desires completely unhindered. Basically, I want to be my own God.
That is a fundamental, basic, impulse of our human nature. It was to that most "natural" impulse,in the highly symbolic and poetical language of the Book of Genesis, to which the Serpent appealed so successfully in his temptation of Adam & Eve. They succumbed, to their (and our) ruin, for it is one of the great ironies of our Natures that in so much as we are able to indulge our natural impulses so completely, we are led ultimately not to happiness, but to despair. We become not Gods, but Monsters and Demons.
Even to the point where we can rip our own children out of their mother's wombs, and conceive of it as only a matter of "rights" and not for the horrible, monstrous, abomination that it is.
Sorry Thohea, I didn't mean to go all Old Testament on you.
That wasn't even aimed at you; it was aimed at all of us.
Remember Andre - the Bible is the document you choose to believe. It doesn't apply to everyone - however most religious documents do forbid the taking of innocent lives.
How does your Old Testament translate the hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT LIVES that were MURDERED in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 10 years? Justified because a handful of bad people brought harm to this country? Oh wait - that would only possibly apply to Afghanistan.
Are all those innocent lives taken justified in God's eyes?
Thohea,
How does your Old Testament translate the hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT LIVES that were MURDERED in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 10 years?
Andre
I would think that the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments (and elsewhere) are pretty clear.
But since the policy of intentionally targeting innocents for slaughter is only held by the jihadi Muslims, you should probably direct that question to them.
I notice that you are changing the subject.
Sorry, I accidentally addressed that last post to Thohea...I get you guys confused sometimes.
Denbec, apparently you and I are now interchangeable. HA!
denbec
Remember Andre - the Bible is the document you choose to believe. It doesn't apply to everyone -
Andre
Well, logically that would depend on whether or not the claims it makes are true or not, wouldn't it? If they are true, then it would apply to everyone. If false, it wouldn't apply to anyone.
Happily, we don't have to try to solve that question here, because that's really not what this discussion is about. This discussion begins with the empirical observation that there are two groups of people in this country: those that believe that a human life conceived through rape is no less worthy of protection than any other human life (at least some of whom are also atheists and agnostics), and those who disagree with that belief (a group which, sadly, includes many morally confused "Christians").
That's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about this.
What I took objection to was your knee-jerk assumption that anyone who disagreed with you on this issue was obviously just being "un-compassionate". The idea that they my be acting from a well thought out set of basic moral principals seems simply unimaginable to you.
That, I propose, is an unwarranted, and ill-informed, prejudice and bigotry on your part.
denbec
This is a shining example of how Republicans think (or rather don't think) -
Andre
I would just ask you to entertain the possibility...just the possibility... that they may have actually thought about this with considerably more depth, sophistication, and moral consistency than you have given them credit for.
I believe - as do most Democrats - that an innocent life is the same born or not. You seem to avoid the question of the innocent lives slaughtered in war while defending innocent lives of the unborn without consideration of the circumstances that may be involved. That shows a lack of compassion not only for the thousands of war dead but also for the situation of the rape victim. That seems very representative of the Republican party in general.
denbec
I believe - as do most Democrats - that an innocent life is the same born or not.
Andre
Are you smoking Crack?
Nope - we believe all life is precious - including those of unborn children, those caught in war, those that made bad choices and even those we don't agree with. We also understand there are sometimes terrible circumstances in life and it isn't as cut and dried as Republicans like to believe. We have compassion for those dealing with very difficult life events.
denbec
...we believe all life is precious - including those of unborn children...
Andre
Show me a single poll, from anytime in the last 20 years, that shows that a majority of Democrats are anti-abortion.
Just one.
(You ARE smoking Crack, aren't you?)
Bingo Andre. We are not anti-abortion. We are pro-compassion. Republicans think we support abortion as a means of birth control. That is very incorrect. We support adoption (yes - even by gays) as an alternative. But we understand sometimes the circumstances can be dire. We understand an extremely difficult decision must be made sometimes by rape and incest victims and those dealing with life threatening situations. We have compassion for those people - we support their difficult choice.
At the same time we are also very anti-war, anti-gun and anti-capital punishment. Lots of lives saved there that Republicans don't think twice about.
OK..now I understand...when you use the word "precious", you do not mean what everyone else means by that word.
So when you say "all life is precious", what you really mean is "all CONVENIENT life is precious; all the rest can just go in the garbage can."
Glad we cleared that up.
Geez Andre, you love to twist words around to suit your argument. You have a long track record of doing that on "The Public is Revolting".
I didn't twist anything around...I merely followed through on the logical implications that the plain meaning of your words conveyed.
Just because you lack either the courage or the wisdom to face the obvious implications of your own beliefs, I don't see how it then becomes my obligation to insulate you from them.
The compassionate thing for me to do in that situation is to at least make the attempt to steer you towards a fuller self-awareness, not to be just another enabler of your error.
I'm sure you already have plenty of people to fulfill that role in your life (Ouch! Gratuitous shot at Thohea!)
Andre - we know the Republicans are not very scientific - but you really need to look up the meaning of the word Logic. I agree with thohea - you twist things around and then say you do it because its your logical conclusion . This does not logically lead to that they way you present it.
denhea (it's simpler that way)
you twist things around and then say you do it because its your logical conclusion .
Andre
If that's true, then it should be a very simple task for you to prove it.
Be specific.
I said: So when you say "all life is precious", what you really mean is "all CONVENIENT life is precious; all the rest can just go in the garbage can."
What is inaccurate about that statement? What meaning have I "twisted"?
As I read your own words, did you or did you not say that you support a mothers right to abort her unborn child? Where do the remains of that child's body go? To the nursery?
Obviously, if some unborn children are considered such a burden that it's OK to kill them, then they are not really all that "precious", are they? (perhaps you are the ones who need a Dictionary)
Why do you state a position and then immediately run away from it when it's held up to your face?
Take your stand. State what you believe, and then man-up, and defend it.
I have stated what I believe - and that clearly is that more bodies are pulverized by bombs than aborted. You only care about the aborted ones and not the pulverized ones. I guess it's because those pulverized bodies are "over there". They are still precious lives. As are the ones in capital punishment and those killed by legalized guns - many of whom are also children.
My other point was that there are compassionate reasons that support SOME abortions. If you can't see that then you support my claim that you have no compassion.
Can I be any more clear for you??
Denbec
You only care about the aborted ones and not the pulverized ones.
Andre
That is a unwarranted statement, a projection of your own creation, and one for which I would challenge you to provide a shred of evidence. It is also irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is the morality of abortion.
Denbec
...more bodies are pulverized by bombs than aborted.
Andre
False. There have been between 40 to 50 millions abortion killings in the US alone since Roe vs. Wade. That is more than have been killed by all the bombs ever detonated in all of human history, (and that doesn't even include all the other abortion killings world-wide).
Denbec
there are compassionate reasons that support SOME abortions.
Andre
Name some.
Denbec
If you can't see that then you support my claim that you have no compassion.
Andre
OR...it's because I take a principled and morally consistent position that differs from yours. Which , come to think of it, again illustrates your fundamental inability to even conceive that someone could disagree with you for any reason other than a lack of compassion on their part.
What a monumental vanity!
Denbec
Can I be any more clear for you??
Andre
No. You are quite clear. Transparently so.
Andre, let me try speaking to you on a level you may understand...
Andre
The piece of the puzzle that you are missing is that not only do they (republicans) believe that ALL rape is morally wrong, they also believe that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life. That includes ALL innocent human life, regardless of how it was conceived.
Thohea
Andre, does that include the hundreds of thousands of innocent children, families and soldiers killed by war? If you're pro-war (most republicans), you allow for those casualties... the murdering of innocents.
Andre
The issue is the protection of "innocent" human life. In theory, when you are dealing with issues of capital punishment and just war, then by definition, you are not dealing with the innocent. I say "in theory" because the Church recognizes that in practice the distinctions between innocent and guilty are easily clouded and are subject to human error. That is why Catholics, while recognizing that there can be legitimate moral justification for both capital punishment and war, under very specific conditions, in practice takes a much more anti-capital punishment and anti-war position.
Thohea
It seems to me the "in theory" and "in practice" statements you provide are contradictions, thereby giving the church a 'cake and eat it too' scenerio. They justify killing but only under "specific conditions". It's ok for the church to take this stance but not DENBEC, huh?
Show some consistancy Andre
Just for the record, the catholic church, nor any church for that matter, governs my life. I don't live my life according to biblical scripture and follow my own moral compass. But again, for sake of argument...
I'm going way out on a limb here and assuming by innocent and guilty, you're talking about sin, is that correct? As in, according to the catholic church, someone on death row or an evil dictator may deserve to die because they have committed some heinous crime (sin). If that's your measurement of justification ("special conditions") for taking another human life (sin) then according to the bible, none of us are innocent as we're born into sin in this world. So on that level the "guilty" and "innocent" argument that you provide doesn't make sense to me.
Now, I go one step further than DENBEC and say it should be a woman's choice to abort her pregnancy in, say, the first trimester - rape, incest or not. I may not support the mother's reasons for doing it but it should be her choice. I don't believe that when sperm meets the egg a soul is instantly formed. I don't have any religious or moral dilemas about this. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice, there is a difference.
DENBEC and I differ some here, I believe, when it comes to the bible and certain religious beliefs but are still able to come to a harmonious agreement on this issue.
There Andre, this should keep you busy for the rest of the day.
Part I
Andre
they (republicans)....believe that it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life.
Thohea
Andre, does that include the hundreds of thousands of innocent children, families and soldiers killed by war?
Andre
Of course it does. What a ridiculous question. I am not aware of even a single Republican officeholder anywhere who advocates the killing of innocents in war-time!
If you believe such Republicans exist, please provide some evidence to back up such an absurd, over-the-top,statement. (I won't hold my breath; long experience has taught me that Liberals love to throw out wild absurd accusations, without ever feeling any need to back them up later, when challenged, with any actual evidence. They are very like little children in that way, only not as cute).
The intentional targeting of innocents in wartime is a violation of the moral law, Natural Law, U.S. law (both Criminal and Military), the laws of most other nations, and numerous International treaties and Conventions.
The last historical example that I can think of in which Republicans supported the intentional targeting of innocents during wartime would have been the Allied Saturation Bombing of German cities during the Second World War. Unfortunately, that example is of little use to you in this context because all the Democrats were on board with that too...as a matter of fact, it could accurately be referred to as a Democrat Policy since the Commander-In-Chief at that time was the great Liberal Democrat icon FDR (and later Truman with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
BTW, check out the link below for a very interesting evaluation, from the Catholic perspective, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the arguments would also apply to the conventional bombing of the German cities). It may be an eye-opener for you.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/commemorating-a-major-u.s.-war-crime/
Thohea,
If you're pro-war (most republicans), you allow for those casualties... the murdering of innocents.
Andre
"pro-war" is a meaningless spit-ball, for people who are too lazy to unpack complicated situations.
I read that the use of Predator drone missile attacks to target Taliban leaders (often killing many bystanders, including children), has skyrocketed during this administration as compared to the previous. Does that make Obama more"pro-war" than Bush? Wouldn't that also make any Democrat who supports the President also "pro-war"? Silliness.
It's would be a stupid, meaningless term even if used in a discussion of any particular armed conflict, it's even more stupid and meaningless to use in a discussion about abortion.
Part II
Thohea
They justify killing but only under "specific conditions". It's ok for the church to take this stance but not DENBEC, huh?
Andre
In so much as DENBEC takes the stance that "killing, but only under "specific conditions" " can be morally justified, he would be correct. Where he falls into error is when he defines "specific conditions" to include the intentional taking of an innocent human life. That, according to Church teaching, is everywhere and always, morally wrong.
Thohea
I'm going way out on a limb here and assuming by innocent and guilty, you're talking about sin, is that correct? As in, according to the catholic church, someone on death row or an evil dictator may deserve to die because they have committed some heinous crime (sin).
Andre
Those might be a legitimate examples, but what I actually had in mind was something even more clear cut than that, such as killing someone in self-defense, or in the defense of your family and children. That type of thing.
Thohea
If that's your measurement of justification ("special conditions") for taking another human life (sin) then according to the bible, none of us are innocent as we're born into sin in this world. So on that level the "guilty" and "innocent" argument that you provide doesn't make sense to me.
Andre
I'm not sure if I fully understand the point you making here, so let me just respond thus: Yes, it true that none of us are truly "innocent" ,in the sense that we are all born with the stain of Original Sin. In that highly abstract theological sense it might thus be true to say that there is no such thing as completely "innocent human life", but I hardly see how a more cumbersome, if technically accurate, terminology would assist your argument. Would it sound any less egregious if we were to say that, rather than killing an "innocent" human life, abortion merely kills a life that is as "innocent as it is possible for a normal human life to be"?
Thohea,
...it should be a woman's choice to abort her pregnancy in, say, the first trimester - rape, incest or not. I may not support the mother's reasons for doing it but it should be her choice.
Andre
Fine..that is a fairly common, "moderate" main stream position to take. Millions of people agree with it. It is one that I myself held for many, many years (that you appear to be inclined towards limiting it to the first trimester is a pleasant surprise - I would not have expected that). I am almost tempted to describe it as "reasonable" (it's not, but for reasons which we don't need to explore here right now). I do not even have any particular interest in trying to convince you that it is wrong (although I clearly believe that it is).
Remember, as I have repeated more than once, my original objection to Denbecs post was not that he was "pro-choice". I would hardly have ever assumed otherwise. No, my objection was merely to his mean-spirited and uncharitable demonization of people who disagreed with him on this issue.
I believe that the reason that he feels the need to demonize millions of people that he has never met, is that intuitively, deep down, he knows they are probably right on this issue, and that he is wrong, but for complicated personal/social/psychological reasons, he can't admit that to himself. And since he can't defeat them with reasoned arguments, his only option is to demonize them. But that's just my personal theory; I think it's likely true, bit I can't prove it.
Not "the rest of the day", but fucking close enough! (lucky for me that I'm currently unemployed...if you can call that luck).
I've moved on to new topics. But Andre - thanks for demonizing me even though you don't know me. :)
@denbec
Don't be so hard on yourself.
While it is technically true that abortion is "demonic", the fact that you obviously struggle with that truth (as evidenced by the confused and tortured logic that you are forced to resort to in the vain attempt to hide that truth from yourself), shows that the Natural Law is still clearly written on your heart, and it speaks to you.
You just need to listen to it and then find courage.
James?
No idea.
Thohea
I'd love to hear a woman's point of view on this, one with first hand knowledge on the subject.
Andre
An excellent suggestion! You should start here:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
I know women who have had abortions with much regret. But they were not cases I would consider extreme circumstances. Here is where my views show conservative values. I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. Birth control needs to occur before the conception. Even still - it is not my place to put laws on other people's bodies. I will not be the one carrying the child or supporting it for 18 years.
We have seen first hand the horror cause by banned abortions. We must not go back there.
However, one opinion I stand firm on though - partial birth abortion is indeed murder. It is truly horrific. I do believe this particular type of abortion should be outlawed. But that is my personal opinion.
Just going back to a point from earlier in this conversation (for whatever it's worth), here is a small excerpt from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, regarding Capital Punishment;
"The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, given the means at the state’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today . . . are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (CCC 2267)
Seems quite reasonable...
Just one more from the Catechism, on rape:
"Anyone who treats victims of rape with anything other than profound compassion and understanding is acting against the teachings of the Church and needs to be corrected."
So why are these good "Christians" even Catholics trying to define what is forcible rape? The definition is clear.
You neglected to specify, or provide a link to the particular story that prompted your initial post, so I really have no way of knowing what exactly you might be referring to.
Andre - You had a lot of commentary on a subject you don't seem to know about. Since your Google isn't working here is at least one story on it. Thankfully it looks like the GOP are losing this battle. It's time for them to take their small government out of people's bedrooms and off our bodies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/republicans-forcible-rape-abortion-bill_n_818014.html
Denbec
You had a lot of commentary on a subject you don't seem to know about.
Andre
When has that ever stopped me before?
Seriously though, I already know enough about the quality of most of the commentary on the Huffington Post to know that you will rarely be given a fair and balanced presentation of any story there. Similarly, I know that I am no more likely to get an honest and accurate portrayal of issues at "The Public is Revolting", so I just naturally assumed that you were probably going spastic over some non-story being blown all out of scale by some Left wing whack-job. It wasn't that much of a limb for me to go out on, and after reading a couple of the relevant stories at Huffpost, it' pretty clear that my original suspicions were accurate.
One aspect of this which I can agree with you on though, is that I also believe that the Republican language of this bill is wrong and morally confused: there should be no Federal funding of abortion for ANY reason. The Federal government should not be in the Abortion business at all. My conservative opposition to corporate welfare includes not only Big Oil, Big Agriculture, etc...but also Big Abortion!
Given your many criticisms of corporate welfare on this blog, I'm sure that you must agree with me.
For what it's worth, I am pleased to see that this is a majority opinion among Americans (one Rasmussen poll from last year found that 53 percent of Americans favor a ban on abortion coverage in any health insurance plan that receives federal subsidies).
The only morally justified application of abortion is when it results as a side effect of medical treatments needed to protect the mother's life (for example, having to remove the uterus as a treatment for aggressive uterine cancer, etc.) That provision is recognized by the relevant legislation, so at least they got that right (of course, health care funding should not go through Washington at all, but that's a whole other issue!)
I'll give you the last word (unless you say something really,really stupid). Go ahead.
that crack about "saying something really, really stupid" was just a joke ( a stupid joke!)
Then my last word is this:
Thohea and I have accused you of twisting things around to prove your points and when you use a phrase like this - that's what we are referring to.
"Given your many criticisms of corporate welfare on this blog, I'm sure that you must agree with me."
I do not agree with you on most things or we wouldn't be having these discussions. If I disagree with corporate welfare - which I obviously do - that doesn't mean I agree with you on government funded health care - which may include an extreme case abortion for a rape victim - any rape. I do not believe a woman should be FORCED to bear the child of a brutal thug, or her father or brother or even the guy that drugged her on a date. BUT - she should be counseled on the matter and given all the options with abortion being the very last resort.
Yeah, that's a good criticism. That was a dumb throwaway line, and even when I wrote it I almost deleted it (it was late). I should have.
One last point ( I know, I can never shut up....it is a failing on my part))
Denbec
I do not believe a woman should be FORCED to bear the child of a brutal thug, or her father or brother or even the guy that drugged her on a date.
Andre
That reaction is certainly understandable. It does seem grossly unjust.
However, I would hold that you cannot simultaneously hold that position and make the claim that you believe that all human life is equally precious.
The life conceived under those circumstances is no less innocent, and no more responsible for the circumstances that conceived it, than any other life conceived under any other set of circumstances.
To allow for the killing of that life is to admit that it is less deserving of our protection, and thus of less value, than another life.
I can see no way around that conclusion.
Can you?
I've already had my last word - didn't last long.
sorry...the intention was sincere, but the vessel was flawed.
but...that having been said....I am left with no other conclusion that you're answer to my last question must be "No".
It's a tough one, I can understand you're wanting to run from it.
Again Andre - please don't put words in my mouth or my keyboard. You gave me the last word - I took it - you seem to want to continue so be my guest. But I have moved on to other topics.
What words did I put in your mouth?
I asked a tough question and you declined to answer it because you have conveniently "moved on".
I said I understood. No problem.
Post a Comment