How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

Starting a fan club?

visagrunt we're talking about infants here not homicidal maniacs... The two are not equivalent, and with modern medicine the actual chance of a woman dieing due to a pregnancy is rather low...

We're talking about an innocent human life here, visagrunt I refuse to let you get away with dehumanizing children and saying it is okay to murder them cause you find them to be inconveinent.

This is what I was trying to get at with my earlier post. It's not that it's not human, it's just that it's rights are not as strong as the mother's right to control what happens to her body. I am speaking specifically about rape resulting in pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry a child that she did not consent to conceiving is a further assault on her. I believe this assault on the woman is more egregious than the killing of the human who is yet to be born.

Actually if it wasn't for Fox News, I doubt any of you would know anything about what happened in Benghazi, nor would you know anything about Fast & Furious.

I wish my parents had aborted me instead of raising me to feel like nothing I ever did was right. I'm pretty sure I was some sort of accident, or there was a bet going involving my parents expecting me to turn out gay or something.

But why do people get hung up on the raped victims who want access to abortion when they constitute .01% or less of all abortions performed? For that, you are willing to stall the governments departure from subsidized abortions?

The correct approach, if they cared AT ALL about the sanctity of human life, is, that they, too, would move to ban abortions, while offering the public a more palpable alternative, that allows for protections of those who are raped victims.

In other words, the issue of Rape Victims and the Mental Health of the Mother is to Abortion, what the possibility of killing an innocent is to capital punishment. It is a smoke screen, emotional blackmail. Because when dealt with by prescribing an alternative that satisfies that requirement, you find something else to complain about and the goal posts are moved, and the issue reframed in a different light. This only serves to muddle legitimacy and slow progress.

Every human who has ever been born is dead or will die... Where does the sacred part come in?

the right to life is the sacred part, specifically the God-given aspect of it.

That is true DerStadschutz, the question with regards to the unborn human is do they have any rights, and does God extend rights to them...(with questions regarding: Is a zygote a human being... what defines a human being... etc.) If God does not exist in your view, do we, society, extend rights to them?

I don't think it matters whether or not one believes in god. God is irrelevant. This is why I dislike religion so much... It teaches people not to think for themselves and instead to just go along with whatever the group decides is acceptable, which is usually what one or a much smaller group of people at the "top" decide is acceptable. I don't know where human life begins or ends. I see this abortion thing as a complicated issue, and I know that most people who oppose it will usually suggest giving the child up for adoption, but apparently there are more children in orphanages than the orphanages know what to do with, and a lot of times, kids in those orphanages end up abused sexually, physically, verbally, and emotionally. I'm not saying that the ones who are already living are automatically much more important than the ones who have yet to be born. What I am saying though, is if we just outlawed abortion, or everybody who ever thought about one just decided to give their child away to an orphanage, imagine how much worse the problems would become for kids in orphanages. You "solve" one "problem," and make another one appear or make it simply become worse. And I think that's important to note. I'm not about to pretend to know what the solution is though. I just feel it's something we need to take into consideration. I mean, are all the anti-abortion people willing to open their doors to all the unwanted fetuses who don't get aborted? Most likely not. They tend to just view it as some moral thing and an excuse to stand on a pedestal and preach nonsense.

And I'm also pretty sure the main reason this same stupid issue keeps coming up election year after election year is because it is an issue which people seem to be extremely passionate about, just like the whole religion/separation of church and state issue, and the gay rights issue. I'm not saying none of these are important, because they certainly are. But I think they're chosen purposely to get us to argue among each other and not see other incredibly important issues. It causes a lot of people to vote with their emotions instead of with their logic. It also causes us to hate one another when what we should be doing is working together to make things better for all of us. Instead, we pick sides, and we view our neighbors as the enemy because how could a decent human being possibly disagree with our self-righteous viewpoint about anything? It tries to turn a world made of many shades of grey into black and white. It makes things easier to sort out that way, I guess. But nothing ever really gets done regarding those issues anyway, and while we're busy fighting each other and spinning our tires, they pass things like NDAA and the patriot act. And very few people ever seem to notice.

Well I didn't draw that conclusion... IF a God exists, and that is a big IF, and this God makes moral demands on us, it would be foolish to take this creators demands lightly. So operating under that IF, I'm sure you would agree, too, that if this God demands that all human life is valuable, and that all Human beings are created in the image of God, and therefore have inherent worth with a right to life, you would also work to protect human life and stand up for human rights, because you take this God seriously, and you see the inherent good in his ways. IF this god does not exist, it is no consequence to you, and I sure as hell hope you have a moral conscience and a gracious heart. So yes... in this equation, God does matter. What is your excuse for not defending the rights of the unborn, and where in your buddhism, hinduism, or secularism do you source these beliefs? I'm not asking this literally, so much as I am illustratively.

K, now that that's aside, there are too many loving homes, who, for draconian measures, are not allowed to adopt up all the orphanages of the world. Blood politics is still a major factor in many parts of the world, and they would rather see their own children be unloved and grow up alone, no fault of their own, then see them raised by a different race. Blood is irrelevant in the torahs eye, and placed love high above it. Why can't raped women give new life a chance at their own life in the homes of one of the millions of couples who cannot have children, and therefore, are forced to adopt abroad?

The issue comes up a lot because the dam federal government will not stop subsidizing abortion. Get out of the market, you have no business in there. It also comes up a lot because we think the human fetus has rights, some don't, we acknowledge that, but we do. Gay marriage is an issue for the wrong reasons, and that is on both sides. Gay advocates don't know the fire the are playing with, and Christians are just a bunch of illogical haters. I have strong positions on these issues, but I only vote based on a candidates positions on Education, Economy, Energy, Entitlements, and Foreign Policy. Social issues should be a states issue, and if your state wants to pass gay marriage or subsidize abortion, I don't support your position but I don't care much for it either.

The fact that government workers are authorized to take a life under certain circumstances does not imply that there is no obligation to protect the right to life of innocent persons. It is stated in the preamble to the US Constitution that everyone is endowed to certain inalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That being said, the government of the United States has an obligation to protect the rights of the innocent that are guaranteed by the constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution reads thus:



I suppose that "Posterity" could be construed as including zygotes.

The correct approach if THEY cared at all about the sanctity of human life, is, (gasp!) to actually help mothers deal with the situation that you would have them enter in to. It can't be just a mantra of "no abortions, ever!" without doing something to help mothers raise their kids. Taxing the mom's to death instead of people who can better pay more taxes, trying to kill off education, welfare, and health care etc. is not a viable solution and not the act of people who actually care about what happens to you after the moment you transit the birth canal. Treating a fetus as sacred and an infant as somebody else's problem and an afterthought is no solution.

Also, Republicans and the wealthy seem to get up in arms every time the concept of "class warfare" is mentioned. Well, here's a news flash - forcing people to have babies that they can't afford, and then doing nothing to help them afterwards, is little more than a cheaply disguised way of repressing the poor and keeping them that way. How can someone get an education, have a career, and be financially successful if they're strapped with a financial burden that they cannot handle, that focuses their attention away from their education and their career, before they even start out in life?

And no, the solution is not to ban birth control, and its not to preach abstinence. People will have sex, like it or not. That is a fact. Everyone knows it. To offer abstinence as a solution is disingenuous and no solution at all, and those offering this "solution" know it is - offering it as a solution is basically a way to perpetuate the situation.

It isn't just a mantra removed from reality, if anything, it is a reaction to the 90% of abortions done out of convenience, be it an unplanned accident that interferes with school or work, or the man doesn't want the child, or other reasons. To frame this as an issue of the mother being forced to keep an unwanted child is a cheap cop out, especially when we can end all abortions today and offer up babies for adoption for the next few years, and you still would not meet the demand here in the US of childless couples who are not able to have children of their own.

The issue isn't the burden to the mother. The issue is whether the fetus has the same rights as a birthed human being. And if this fetus has rights extended to them, be it by the creator, or by society, then the ethical approach is to send them to a home where they can be loved and raised by people who love them.

It says no such thing.

And since that has not been said, where, pray, does that obligation of the government lie?

Has anyone, ever, successfully enforced that obligation against the government? Has anyone successfully sued the government for failure to uphold this obligation (where the obligation has not been set out elsewhere in statute)?

Government has only those obligations that are imposed upon it by the constitution, by enabling legislation, by the express operation of statute, or by the imposition of the Courts.

Unless you can find me provision or precedent that imposes such an obligation on government, your claim is empty.