Feb 08 2007
The Death Of An Innocent
It will be interesting to see how insane the far left feminists are going go over the recent death sentence verdict in the case of a man who killed a woman and her fetus (which also happened to be his child). The man was convicted of two deaths, including the unborn fetus. The fact is society needs to protect the lives of those who wish to live or give life. While abortion is a tough subject, the forced death of a human child is not abortion – or anything related to it.
A mother may have, today, the right to determine whether to keep a child (for the first few months of what could be a long, fruitful life), but that does not give that right to anyone else to force their decision on her. Strangely this includes the father as well, who has no option to ‘get out’ of the parent role. His life is chained to the decision of the mother.
This case should not be all that controversial, but it will be. Because ‘feminism’ equals ‘cold logic’. To the feminist a child is property to be discarded if needed or laid around the father’s financial neck if needed. They fear any step that humanizes the ‘lump of cells’. They prefer to hide from their potential guilt at killing a human being by dehumanizing the victim. So this verdict is a threat to the mythology they have built up that rationalizes the taking of a human life – abortion. It is just a question of how badly it spooks them to determine how they will react. But silence doesn’t mean they are not reacting. They fear the idea of humanizing young humans. Thankfully there is nothing they can do to change reality. And thankfully society is starting to correct the wrong that was guiltless abortion.
Not exactly accurate, as, if the father wishes to avoid the parent role, he is always free to:
1. Just say no.
2. Wear a condom.
3. Have a vasectomy.
4. Heavy petting, only.
Soothsayer, Why should a woman get a abortion?
Not exactly accurate, as, if the mother wishes to avoid the parent role, she is always free to:
1. Just say no.
2. Use birth control.
3. Have her tubes tied.
4. Heavy petting, only.
Feminist ignore this argument that Wade made in Roe vs. Wade. But they bring it up for men’s reproductive rights.
Feminists have lost the battle. So, what’s the big deal, here?
That there are pro-abortion opinions? We live in a free society.
As to the crap we get from the courts; it’s on par with going to the doctor, when you’ve broken you’re arm; and he says, “sorry.” He only does lungs and livers. We’ve spliced and diced up too many credentials.
The courts do not “serve justice.” Justice got co-opted by insane politicians.
And, people who kill deserve the death penalty? Is the problem LAW SCHOOLS?
Yes. People who kill others ON PURPOSE definitely deserve the death penalty. And, people who kill when all they were doing was driving? Should have their licenses revoked!
By the way? The DMV should test everybody in ENGLISH. Nothing like being in a wreck with a chinaman. Even if they can understand you, they give you these looks like they don’t comprehend. Language, vision and hearing skills should all be required of DRIVERS. Then? Based on skills at the task. Not necessarily “you’re old enough to deserve it.” Or it’s required for ID purposes.
Soothsayer;
If a woman wishes to avoid the parent role she can:
1) just say no
2) use contraception (pill, plan B, et al)
3) have her tubes tied
4) heavy petting, only
Why do you hold to a different set of standards for women not holding them responsible for their actions while we DO hold men responsible for theirs?
We can assume that the pregnancy resulted in a mutually agreed upon act. Yet the result of that mutually agreed upon act then become the sole decision of the woman. If a man is required to support the child he did not want, then he should also be allowed to determine if he wants that child. Does the woman not have that choice? Since it was a mutually agreed upon act that created a pregnancy, it should also have to be mutually agreed upon to abort that result.
Apparently, in the wacky world of Sirfith and Retire05, rape, incest, and medical complications arising out of pregnancy DO NOT EXIST, and therefore a woman can just say NO! [Hint: Rape means she said NO and wasn’t listened to0];
OR,
if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry the child to term, AND it is the right of every dim-witted politician to interfere in her personal deliberations with a medical doctor as to what treatment option she will follow.
There is a large difference between being pro-abortion (which almost no one is) and being pro-choice when it comes to a medical decision between a woman and her physician.
Finally, for fundamentalist Christians, if you would care to point out anywhere in the bible that is says abortion is wrong, do so. It is my impression that in the Old Testament, aborting before the quickening was an accepted practice. The quickening occurs between the 18th and 22nd week of pregnancy.
Way to change the subject Soothsayer. From your hypocrisy/double standard with the reproductive right of men and women. Care to address that?
Just how many abortions to due to rape, incest, and medical complications arising out of pregnancy? Are you saying that those are the only reasons for women to get a abortion?
Sooth
Even you have to know the noted exceptions are a sliver of the abortions in this country.
It is after the fact birth control.
As always you are reaching to make your point.
Is your arm tired yet?
Abortions due to rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions in 2000. But never think the pro-death bunch will not drag out this 1% and make it sound like that numbers is gigantic.
Maybe soothsayer would agree that while schools have books like “Heather has Two Mommies” the schools could show films of abortions to high school kids in health classes. But then, if the kids really saw the results of what irresponsible behavior are, they might not be so quick to have sex and that would go against their right to “choose”.
Too bad that all those women who have the right to choose don’t have the right to choose not to get HIV/AIDS when they have unprotected sex. Unfortunately, you can’t abort AIDS.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that rape, incest and medical exigencies are valid reasons for an abortion – and unless you plan on having the State have a representative in the examining room every time a woman sees her OB-GYN, which might be a HIPAA violation under the present law, how are you going to prevent a doctor and his/her patient from making a private healthcare decision. Or do YOU want to make the heaalthcare decisions for every woman seeing a doctor, cause that’s what it sounds like.
With respect to your statistics, by the way, since as many as 90% of rapes (including date rapes, use of alcohol or drugs to make consent impossible, etc) go unreported, we really have no way of knowing what %-age of abortions are rape-related. Unless you can read minds now.
AJ,
“They fear any step that humanizes the ‘lump of cells’. “-
It seems that they can’t see the person for the cells!
Modern science is dramatically showing that our humanity is not a function of our health or stage of growth. We are all human.
“Rape and incest” cases are dishonestly used to “justify” the others. And “exceptions” make bad law.
Any intellectually honest humanist should oppose those who would relegate human life to the status of an animal or machine. I think our dignity as humankind requires that we accord all human life the reverence befitting our species.
AJ,
:They fear any step that humanizes the ‘lump of cells’. ” –
Could you say: “They can’t see the person for the cells?”
“Rape and incest” cases are dishonestly used to “justify” the others and besides, exceptions make bad law.
Since science is proving that our humanness is independent of our health and stage of growth, we are all human. And since our dignity as a species and our concept of human rights depend on everyone being assured the same rights, the unborn lives must be guarded.
I believe any intellectually honest humanist must oppose those who would relegate human life to the status of animals or machines. Our dignity as a species requires it.
AJ,
Sorry for the double post. I’m traveling and using a “sometimes connected” wireless hookup.
Seems like every once in a while it takes quite a while for a post to display – I did the same thing jsut the other day.
Delays in comments are due to folks getting snagged in my spam filters.
I agree with Soothsayer. Surprise, surprise. I never thought that would happen. I agree that this decision should be between a woman and her doctor. I do not want the government interfering in this area or a lot of other areas. I agree that cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the mother are valid. I do not agree that the government should fund abortion clinics. I think anyone who wants an abortion for any reason should pay for it themselves and not with any money I pay in taxes. Abortions would rapidly decrease if women had to pay for it themselves and maybe these women would be more careful. And I do not agree that abortion should be used as birth control. In fact abortion clinics should outlawed. They are baby murder factories. Do they even charge these women for this procedure? Evidently not since they abort the babies of teenagers who have no money and won’t tell their parents.
I would never condone myself or anyone in my family getting an abortion. There would be no desire or need. But this is a decision a woman has to make and it is between her, God and her conscience. I am old enough to remember how it was before Roe vs Wade and I don’t want it to be a crime again. Women will do this and it is better to do it safely than risk dying as it was in the past.
BarbaraS, so you agree with Soothsayer of one standard for Men and one for women? Reproductive rights are only for women.
Soothsayer brings up rape as a excuse for the double standard and it applies to all abortions because because “all heterosexual sex is rape”.
Total Hogwash!
If men could get pregnant – abortion would be a sacrament.
Double standard? What other medical procdure requires the consent of a bunch of middle-aged white males before treatment?
As I said, given that abortion is a permitted medical procedure in cases of rape, incest, and medical exigency – if a doctor and patient decide within the sphere of doctor-patient privilege on a certain course of treatment – how is it the State has any business inserting ITS wisdom over that of the physician.
If I want a coronary bypass – should I have to ask my moron state legislator to okay it before treatment? The double stand being employed is trying to force women to submit to the State’s dictates for a medical procedure , while men are exempt from the requirement – that’s your double standard.
Soothsayer,
Apples and Oranges.
For a coronary bypass, a woman is not required to pay support by the State.
You are twisting the argument to anti-abortion and attacking a straw man.
Let me point out your double standard.
Woman does not want the fetus/baby/child – She can have a abortion.
Man does not want the fetus/baby/child – Tough Sh*t, he should have kept his d*ck in his pants and must now pay to support the fetus/baby/child.
The man gets no choice in the matter and is required to pay despite his wishes.
More on this BS
Florida Supreme Court: Man Must Pay Child Support For Kid That Isn’t His
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/florida_supreme_court_man_must_pay_child_support_for_kid_that_isnt_his/