Watch the little fetuses on TV
Jim Mowen, who ran unsucessfully against Andrea Zinga for the Republican congressional nomination, has submitted the following guest ... well, it's not a post, but rather a challenge, I guess.
If it goes down this road, I have a few shows I'd like him and others of his stripe to watch too, such as Frontline's "The Last Abortion Clinic" about anti-abortion tactics and efforts to make it ever more difficult, if not impossible for women to get safe abortions in a clinical setting.
Or perhaps "The Jesus Factor" about how Bush and Rove have cynically milked the fundy crowd to gain and hold power.
Or particularly the excellent documentary, The Dark Side", the Frontline episode aired two weeks ago which documented how the administration was itching to invade Iraq before 9-11, how they instantly began trying to use 9-11 as their big excuse to go into Iraq, and Cheney's war with the CIA in order to control and twist intelligence in order to deceieve the public into supporting it's burning desire to get the U.S. into the worst foreign policy blunder in it's history.
But Mowen's program promises to be interesting - at least the ads for the program make it seem so. Go ahead and catch it. The technology is amazing and can now show clearly the inside of the womb. As you watch all those little half formed fetusessss (or feti?) just remember that they could be there due to rape or incest or be inside a hopelessly drug addicted mother with no money, or......
Evidently, the pro-life folks are more than willing to adopt these babies though, aren't they? Or are they just trying to club us over the head with their particular religious beliefs and take away a woman's right to control her reproductive life?
And of course, these anti-choice folks are likely dead set against condoms being freely available too. And likely pro-death penalty. Makes my head hurt.
Perhaps next a Rastafarian will write in to encourage us all to watch a pro-marijuana documentary and then try to convince us to legalize it based on its important role in their religious beliefs? That might work too.
Millions of people who are already alive are starving and suffering in this world. Wonder why it's their obsession to dictate what other's do with their unborn fetuses?
INVITATION TO ALL
This Sunday evening there is a program on that I encourage, to some of you, challenge you to watch.
National Geographic Channel
Sunday – January 14
8:00 pm
The program details how triplets (inside the womb) act and relate to one another. I saw a clip of the video used and it is 4-D sonogram and one sees these babies for what they are…living, loving, real people – just not yet born.
I appreciate the fact that many pro-choice (pro-abortion) people come to this position by lack of knowledge, lack of understanding of what a human life is inside the womb. Here is your chance to learn a little more about the reality of the situation, a little more about the life that is terminated in an abortion.
If you are pro-abortion, I challenge you to watch this show.
As far as comments, please let’s save them for after the show).
Thank you – Jim Mowen
It should be noted that Jim has no rational view on this subject, as evidenced by the fact that he insists on portraying anyone who may favor a woman's freedom to get an abortion if she chooses as being "pro-abortion", a disingenous and completely unfair distortion.
But if you want to humor a theocon and engage him in a debate in which his position is rigid, he'll dismiss anything you say or believe that doesn't square with his rigid and pre-conceived moral and religious framework, and is impervious to any logic, then be my guest. He seems to enjoy it and thinks that this is "debate".
posted by The Inside Dope @ 1/12/2007
40 comments
40 Comments:
To suggest Mowen has no rational view on abortion is silly. Mowen clearly opposses killing babies in the womb. By your tone, I surmise you support killing babies in the womb. Both these position have basis in fact and merit, but to think the Dope wants to kill babies in the womb and is not "pro-abortion" is disingenous and a complete distortion of the facts.
It's one thing to trash someone because you disagree with them, but it is another to smear them because they favor a pro-life or pro-abortion (choice) position.
jeeeshhh
I didn't say you were unwilling to debate. I said it was useless. There's a difference.
Abortion debate aside, I hope the Republicans in the 17th learn their lesson from the beating they took across the nation. The religous right is destroying the "party of Lincoln." They must look to the true conservatives in order to fix it. People like Mr. Mowen are not the answer.
Scott, what is a 'true conservative?' Personally, Mr. Mowen is a true conservative, whether you like him or not.
I know him well and worked on his campaign. Yes, he is pro-life, which is a conservative position, not just a 'religious right' position.
Certainly, the religious right plays the homosexual-issue too much, but is there another issue that offends you of the religious right?
Mr. Mowen, even if it were so that there were not many (white?) babies to adopt, there are plenty of older children. Why haven't you adopted some of them?
Oh, and personally, I don't know of anyone who is "pro-abortion." Nobody thinks that is the hunky-dory option, just that it should be legal and safe when it is necessary--and only the woman herself is qualified to judge the necessity.
I hope he runs against Phil in 2008. A relious nut will be easier than Zinga in this area. Expecially with the stem-cell debate going on in DC now. Anyone who focuses on issues like abortion and gay marriage will seem out of touch with this labor and veteran heavy district.
Personally, I'd be fine with the Republicans running canidates like Jim Mowen. Running these social conservatives is running their party into the ground.
PS - I know I'm not the only one who is disappointed that Jim Mowen took down his blog. It's pretty clear he's going to throw his hat into the 2008 primary, and I think he owes it to the people of the 17th to let us see he real opinions, and continue to afford us all the cheap laughs his real opinions inspire.
Whatever your position is on abortion...you'd be catagorically insane after watching this program to not accept that a baby in the womb is nothing short of 100% human life.
Thanks for confirming my point, namely, that it's impossible and a waste of time to debate anyone who thinks like you (or Mowen) do.
You leave no room for understanding or debate. You have your mind slammed shut and that's that.
Why even pretend to want to debate?
RI Rep: A true conservative (which I am definitely not) would call for less governmental restriction in general. Less government spending, less rules against personal life choices, less intrusion into privacy, etc. True conservativism died with the election of Reagan. It tried to come back with G.H.W. Bush, but it was too late to resuscitate it.
I saw a very good documentary on Goldwater recently. Some of the interviewees stated that Goldwater turned liberal in his older age. I don't believe that is true. Goldwater kept the same views throughout his long years of service. His party took a hard turn to the right and is worse off because of it.
The Republican party of today is nothing more than a shadow of its former self. Hopefully, the 2006 and 2008 (mark my words) loses will spur the party back onto the right path. One can only hope.
Dope, did you watch the show? Would you like to try to state a logical position that what I saw on that show is NOT a "100% human life?
Please do not dismiss me by your 'you leave no room for understanding or debate' garbage. If you think that the comment that this show clearly identifies that the baby in the womb is 100% human life - please, please be my guest to expand YOUR line of thinking.
If you wish to find one who is dismissive and close-minded - look no further than your own mirror.
Again - accept this as a challenge...'enlighten me' (1) did you watch the show? (2) by your comments, you seem to disagree that a baby in the womb is 100% human life - please enlighten me (when that 'group of cells' has a heartbeat, brainwaves, fingers, toes, lungs - everything that you do...you say that this is not human life, huh?
You can feel that way, over half the population feels differently.
Given that there is no way to acertain whether a collection of cells which cannot survive outside the womb is a "life" or a human as you think with any certainty, I feel that in the case of abortion, a government should always err on the side of freedom and liberty.
So I strongly believe that everyone should have the right to choose to have an abortion. Period.
I especially think men who pontificate about denying women this right are in a particularly poor position to do so.
To all the rigid moralists trying to impose their views on all others, I simply say that if you believe abortion is immoral, then don't get one.
Simple.
What if I do not believe that having sex with a 12-year old is immoral, who are you to put your morals on me?
What if I think that breaking into your house and taking all of your possessions is ok - who ae you to put you morals onto me?
What if I think that it is ok to drink and drive - who are you to put your morals onto me?
Should I continue?
Think how much better off your parents, and for that matter the world, would have beeen if the had choosen to abort your "collection of cells"!
Ever considered a career in standup? You're a laugh riot. And so original too, and you've really got that hate thing going on!
See you in church.
Love thy neighbor just went out the door.
Of course Mr. Mowen is a crazy. If I happened to believe, as many do, that a fetus is a human being, I would be too. While the abortion debate is used to the hilt by cynical politicians, it is a moral issue for at least a few true believers.
First, your stupid analogys about moral relativism has no relation to this debate.
I doubt that there's many people who consider sex with a 12 yr old proper, so of course it's unlawful.
On the other hand, a MAJORITY of Americans are in favor of preserving a woman's right to have an abortion should she choose to.
I didn't watch the show because I didn't have any particular interest in it and I've seen dozens of similar science documentaries in the past. I didn't need to watch that particular show to see amazing footage of fetus' in the womb.
And your baiting me as to whether a fetus is "human life" is disingenous as well, as it's clearly critical as to what stage of development a fetus is at.
Frankly, I don't care what you call it. Through the first trimeseter, which I believe is the window for legal abortion, it's not a viable human being. It's simply what it is, a human fetus which has begun to develop and is in it's very eariest stages.
Again, no woman should be forced to give birth against her wishes if it's possible to get a safe, clinical procedure to stop the early development of the fetus.
Go ahead and call me names and attack me, I don't give a hoot. That's the way I feel, that's the way I believe, and that's the way I believe it should be in a freedom loving country which values individual concience and choice in such matters.
After all, it will only be a matter of time before abortion procedures as we know them will be obsolete, replaced by morning after contraceptives, and many other contraceptive methods, including finally, some for males short of vasectomies.
So in a while, you wont' have any big moral soapbox to get on and berate those you feel are inferior. Pity.
And as to my not watching the show.....
Did you watch the shows I mentioned? That's ok.
I don't usually let my TV viewing schedule be dicated by others, not to mention that no one needed to see that particular show to be "educated" about fetal development or the abortion debate.
Face it, you just wanted to get people to watch what you feel was yet another emotional hook to try to turn them against abortion. And I even let you use my blog to do so.
You can see that no one other than myself has any interest in debating this issue, and frankly, I'm done myself.
I've stated my views clearly. I'm done. I'm not the national spokesman for abortion rights, nor do I wish to be. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time responding to every anti-choice zealot out there, nor should I have to.
As I said, I have no desire whatsoever to debate such a contentious issue beyond stating my views and why I hold them. I've done that. Beyond that, nothing is accomplished by going back and forth.
I acknowledge your right to think abortion is immoral or murder or whatever. You obviously don't have to get one.
But many anti-choice people simply refuse to acknowledge or respect the fact that others don't see things the way they do, and they're determined to ram their views and impose their moral stance on EVERYONE.
That's the difference, and that's why the issue is a non-starter.
I kinda think we know why you and others are on a jihad against abortion. I imagine, or at least hope, that you also are aware of the reasons a majority of the population supports a woman's right to choose in such matters.
Beyond that, it's a waste of time.
As I say, Jim, if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
Otherwise, butt out.
You can continue a futile effort to convince all Americans that abortion should be illegal. Good luck with that. But please don't be surprised when you find that a lot of people just don't want to hear it.
We've heard it all before, and we've heard it for years. OK, we get it, you think abortion is murder.
End of story.
Interesting thread - almost comical.
I thought that liberals fought for human rights, for the rights of those who were being oppressed and taken advantage of.
What happened to this thinking?
Aren't the unborn the most deserving of protection?
Liberals seem to care more about terrorists in prisons than they do about unborn babies. Tragic...
Confused...
No, please don't go on. Your over-simplified ignorance is clear enough already.
Dope, your arguments just don't hold up...
1. Most people are for abortion. This simply is not a fact - and even if it were, most people were for segregation and trampling on the rights on minorities (was that a correct policy?).
2. A baby cannot exist outside the womb (so it is alright to kill it). So, a 1-month old baby also cannot exist on its own, so are you saying that it is ok to kill a 1-month old as well?
If killing a 1-month old baby is wrong (which I hope that you will agree with), then how about killing a 2-day old baby?
If that is wrong, which I hope that you will agree with, then how about a baby 2-days before birth?
If that is wrong, which I hope that you will agree, then how about a baby 4-days before birth?
If that is wrong....(I am sure that even you see where this is going)...so, when oh wise one, is the proper time to allow a baby to live and to allow the mom the right to kill the baby?
You are a coward and will not print this - and if you do, you'll make me wrong for asking a simple question. Why do you only have criticism, yet no answers to specific questions?
At 4:15 this afternoon, Jim Fisher (WOC - Clear Channel) presented a partial bio of Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama explaining that as a child, Senator Barack Hussein Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia. This prompts the question, can you attend a Muslim school without being a Muslim? And that prompts the projection, would Senator Barack Hussein Obama ever convert to his original religion after a successful bid for the Presidency?
Tammy..
Hope you're registered with the FBI. With weirdo notions like yours, you're probably of interest.
Is this a "fetus caring" contest now? Your little pals bobbing in the embrionic fluid are suddenly "people" we should militantly defend?
Your comment about terrorists is simply too absurd on its face to even address.
"Tammy", you're a coward who pretends to be a woman to sit here and argue a bullshit no-win subject using your particular set of facts while saying all others are mistaken.
This is why I refuse to take the bait. More people DO favor keeping abortion legal, and you're a moron if you don't grasp the difference between viable and able to live on its own. I'm not going to explain it to you.
Anyone else want to "debate" these oh-so-caring folks?
IF you want to go around in circles for eternity and never get anywhere, be my guest.
Listen Jim, to your comment at 12:41, this is why I refuse to engage in this stupidity.
First of all, you distort or misunderstand nearly every one of my points.
I don't base my view that abortion should be legal on the fact that the majority agree (which is true, by the way) I only mention that to show the fact that it's not a matter of moral absolutes, as you'd like it to be.
If you think that people who favor legal abortion are all in favor of allowing abortions which are now clearly illegal, namely past the first trimester except in cases of the life of the mother, you're nuts. That's a blatant and clearly purposeful distortion of the truth.
I've never heard anyone advocating late term abortions except in cases where the life of the mother is involved.
You also distort late term abortions as simply a casual choice to abort a late term fetus. You know full well that is not the case, that they're extermely rare, and only done when the life of the mother is at stake.
If you'd quit lying about all that, that would be a start.
I didn't "choose not to educate myself" by not watching your show. As I clearly explained, I've seen it all before. What was so special about this particular show? It couldn't show me anything I haven't already seen several times. So .... why bother?
As to gay marriage, I think it's fine. Why shouldn't they have a chance to be as miserable as straights who are married? (joke)
I do support that right, and obviously, if the majority doesn't, then it's illegal, and that's the way it goes.
There's no inconsistency between that and my view on abortion,
Once more, I did not ask for this debate, and I've stated my views and why I hold them.
If you want to continue to berate or challenge those who feel the same way I do, then address all your comments to readers in general, not me.
I have no desire to continue to respond for reasons I've already stated.
QC Media fruitcake.
First of all, of course Barack Hussein Obama would convert right back to Islam the second after he became president, just like the paranoid snakes in your head tell you.
He'd then announce that this country is henceforth to be known as the United Muslim States of Islam and force all cruise ships to sail for the mid-east and return full to the brim with evil-doing terrorists who would make it their first order of business to come to your house and force you to sit in another chair and watch a guy with a beard watch your tv sitting in your favorite chair.
Of course, after a few hours of this, you'd crack and swear eternal allegiance to Allah, and would be completely assimilated by believing every bit of bullshit you hear, then be equally ignorant, paranoid, and bigoted and continue to be possessed by irrational fears, only portraying Christians as unholy infidels this time around.
Maybe my universe is too narrow. I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I know some folks who think it's not an area where the gov't, at any level, should tread.
I also know some people for whom that distinction is too complex. A discussion on this topic leads to what is called in debate a "Definitional Stop." "Definitional Stop" precludes all intelligent debate. It is to debate what a rainout is to baseball.
Good Night.
I simply love the fact that the right has nothing to throw at Obama so they use his middle name. My middle name is Steven, does that mean that like King Stephen of England that I will murder in order to gain the leadership of my country?
It is people like "Fruitcake" that have tarnished the great name of this country. Perhaps President Obama will help move us away from the dark ages the right is tring to create.
Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, legally and openly in some civilizations, such as ancient Rome. Abortion early in pregnancy -- before 'quickening,' or fetal movement felt by the woman -- was legal when America was founded. It became criminalized in the mid- to late 1800s for several reasons, including pressures by doctors to drive midwives out of business; the Victorian obsession with chastity; sincere efforts to protect women from what was then often an unsafe and crude medical procedure; not-so-sincere efforts to "protect" women arising from anti-femminism; and a nasty racist response to increasing immigration and minority births (the ruling classes were afraid the WASPs would die out).
Abortion didn't stop when it was outlawed. Women simply reverted to older methods, injured themselves trying to induce miscarriages, or turned to "back alley" providers. The argument for making abortion legal again was, and is, that women should have control over their own bodies and reproductive cycles, and should be able to end a pregnancy in a safe manner if that is their choice.
Those against a woman's right to choose put women in a place of second-class citizenship by elevating the rights of a fetus (especially when it can't live outside the womb) above those of a woman. Stop and think about it for a second -- would this national debate be going on if we were talking about stripping MEN of the right to control their bodies for nine months?
Also, ponder these questions: if anti-choice folks have their way and somehow convince lawmakers to declare a fetus has personhood status from the moment of conception, wouldn't that open the way to criminally charging women who had miscarriages? After all, their bodies failed to support the life of another person, thereby at least committing manslaughter. And wouldn't the state have the power to force medical treatments like C-sections on women to prevent possible injury to the fetus?
Please, educate yourself on the history of how and why things came to be the way they are. A good starting point is James Mohr's "Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900," or Hill and Huff's "Roe vs. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History."
And if you are anti-choice, please consider working FIRST for improved access to birth control and more options for birth control -- especially for men. Preventing as many unwanted pregnancies as possible should be the first step in this national fight.
UMR,
As always, you expressed what I was trying to say, only much better, and in a far more succinct way.
Thanks.
Umrblog,
One is either for abortion or against abortion. 'Pro-choice' is FOR abortion. Quit playing silly word games.
I love it, all of a sudden, liberals want government out of our lives. How about the new liberal cause - laws to ban spanking of children (talk about government in our lives).
The simple reality is that whether one wants to call this 'cells' (Dope), it is potential life, that turns into, at some point (debateable at what point, but most definately truth), human life.
No mother says, 'I am having a fetus.' The baby in her womb, is a BABY. She calls it her baby, it is her baby.
Be for abortion if you so desire, but don't dress it up so nicely by calling it 'pro-choice.' You want to call it pro-choice, yet you will never state the choice that you are advocating, will you?
Will you say...THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN CARRYING THE BABY AND HAVING THE BABY - OR TERMINATING THE PREGNANCY (BABY). The definition of 'choice' in this issue is most definately pro-death.
Anonymous.... and of course it's clear who you are... can you PLEASE stop being so disingenous? I mean, your logic is so broken it's pathetic.
One tip to who you are is your odd need to beg people to say something you believe and they don't.
Sure, people that are pro-choice are for the right of a woman to have the choice between carrying a baby to term and terminating the pregnancy early in it's term.
But then you do this bizarre logical ju-jitsu where you LEAP from that fact to somehow saying that it is "definitely pro-death"
BULLSHIT. ha! I mean, come ON!
It's not "pro-death" in the slightest, let alone "definitely". What the hell are you thinking?
No one is advocating FOR killing a fully formed human, nor are they even advocating the freedom to abort a fetus after the first trimester (or whenever the legal limit is) unless the situation is clear that carrying a baby to term would pose a clear danger to the mother's life.
Once again, you have the maddening habit of framing your arguments entirely from your particular and peculiar beliefs and religious and/or moral suppositions.
You're more than free to have them, but don't premise your entire argument and logic on it.
If you believe that a week old fetus is a fully formed human being, then yeah, someone who believes that terminating that fetus is "for" death.
But.....
You're not taking into account that there are millions and millions of people who DO NOT believe either religiously or morally that such a fetus is a "human".
Why can't you seem to grasp this?
Nothing about the issue is "most definitely pro-death", that only exists in your mind and those who believe as you do.
This is why the entire topic is a non-starter and impossible to debate as long as one side clings to their particular beliefs as if they and they alone are possessed of the "truth", because it's what they believe as a part of their particular religious beliefs.
Again, the issue here is an issue of freedom. You are free to NOT get an abortion or to somehow try to forbid your wife, or daughter to have one.
But others who do NOT share your beliefs on the issue should "most definitely" be able to make their own choices based on their religious, moral, and other considerations.
Until you're able to try to be logical WITHOUT building your entire argument on specific beliefs that you hold that others don't, it will never make sense.
Jim, You've outdone yourself.
Your last comment is incredibly offensive, disigenous, and frankly, shows a kind of desperation.
Now you go from my rational statement to suggesting that I am in the same catagory as the KKK and Hitler?
What are you smoking? And you ran for office????!!!! We don't know how lucky we are I guess.
Your predictable response of resorting to wild distortions and goofy accusations is really a shame, and frankly, it's sad.
A fetus a week or two old is NOT the equivelent of a human being, whether they be black or jewish or Native American or whatever.
And you're LYING your ass off when you suggest that I've ever argued that the only reason abortion should continue to be a legal choice is simply because most people oppose banning it.
I mention that your position is the minority only in as much as it shows that your particularly arrogant and intolerant view is not the end all and be all.
Jim, I hate to break it to you, but just because you feel like you have a pipeline to the guy upstairs, it does NOT mean you have a monopoly on absolute rightness or truth.
And twisting facts, misrepresenting people's arguments, and continually insisting that everyone agree with your moral views is a big loser.
I don't care if you feel abortion is murder. As I've said many times, no one will make you have one.
But don't try to tell me and millions of others who don't share your sense of moral absolutism in this particular matter that we have to agree with you, or in the case of women, that they should be criminals if they choose an abortion, or that those professionals who endure the scorn of the self-rightous like yourself and the threat of death by religious lunatics in order to provide a safe, and supportive environment for these women facing a very serious and enormous choice should be arrested and imprisoned because they don't happen to share your beliefs.
Abolishing slavery wasn't so much taking anyone's rights away as restoring rights to millions of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS. (you know, the kind that have been born and are actually living a life.)
Your Hitler analogy is so pathetic it doesn't warrent a response.
Taking away people's rights is not what this country is about Jim. If you love authoritarian regimes where such matters are strictly dictated, I assume you'd love China or perhaps a mid-east theocracy.
But your pathetic and disgusting reliance on transparently lies and distortions to cling to your argument only shows that you're just too frustrated.
Maybe you should take a look at this need of yours to get others to agree to your peculiar logic and views and consider whether wasting your energy and time trying to insist that others believe as you do is really the right thing to do.
The fact remains that your only case against abortion and for banning it or criminalizing it is simply that YOU don't feel it's right for religious and personal reasons.
Guess what Jim. That's NEVER been a good enough reason for Americans to allow their rights to be taken away, and it never will be.
Your attempt to outlaw abortion is no different than if someone insisted that abortions be paid for by the government and promoted in the schools as a method of birth control on moral grounds.
And finally, with the very world tetering on the brink of crisis, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives being slaughtered with your tax dollars and those of generations to come because of the idiotic and irresponsible policy of waging war while cutting taxes, which has never been done in the history of the world, our government seeking to errode more and more of our constitutional rights, and on and on, I'd think you'd have something better to do than rail about an insoluble matter of individual moral preference.
Again, don't like abortion Jim?
DON'T GET ONE.
OK Bub....
You had your own blog, to your credit, and for some resason, you folded it up and quit.
Now you bring your issues over here to my real estate and seem to want to debate me on a issue where we'll never agree. This is a waste of my time and yours, and it's also not of my choosing. It just so happens that no one else will argume the pro-choice side of things, though I'm sure there are many out there who hold that view. They know that getting into this tarpit with an ideologue is a waste of time.
You can think that early term abortion is taking a life, or whatever you wish to feel. It's NOT the equivelent of killing people based on their religion or race. The fact that you apparently insist that it is shows how confused you must be.
Again, you refuse to even admit that there is another valid point of view on this matter and that is that a fetus isn't a human being.
I suppose you've added 9 months to your age then as well, since you believe that life begins at conception? Do you celebrate the day you were conceived with cake and candles?
At any rate, you ARE rigid in your thinking because you can't allow for anyone believing other than you do.
You think abortions are the moral equivelent of the holocaust. Fine. I think that analogy is not only false, but offensive.
You think slavery and lynching of blacks is the same as a woman chosing to have an abortion. Again, very strange and offensive to me, but hey, if you want to believe that, fine.
Killing men women and children based on the color of their skin or their religious faith is NOT the same as terminating a fetus a few weeks old.
Everyone but sociopaths agree with that.
What you simply are too zealous to admit is that not only do not all people view abortion as you do, but a majority do not.
And beyond that, millions more may agree with your view of abortion but realize that it's a deeply personal choice and not their place to dictate what someone else can or cannot do when it comes to a woman's reproduction.
You can twist and distort and appeal to emotion all you want Jim, but the fact remains that most people prefer freedom of choice over theological edicts.
Abolishing slavery was a matter of human rights, as is the freedom of a woman to choose not to continue a pregnancy in it's early stages.
The mother is a human being, the fetus, simply stated, is not.
I look forward to the day when other methods of contraceptives render your crusade meaningless.
But until then, again, good luck wasting your time trying to take away women's rights.
As to censorship. Yep. Unless someone else wants to argue with you, I'm not going to continue this here. It's over.
TID,
Reading through this thread, it seems like your only real argument on this subject is - 'if you don't like abortion, don't get one.'
Does this same thinking work with embezlement, theft, spousal abuse, armed robbery?
Too bad your rush to make some glib remark has fogged your mind.
That's obvilusly not my only argument. Sorry.
Sorry to argue TID, but it is certainly the argument that you run to time and time again.
By your running away from it now, at least you must see it for the follishness that it is?
You're a compulsive arguer, and have the crazy compulsion to never stop until someone agrees with you. It ain't gonna happen.
And no, most definitely not, I don't see that argument as foolish in the slightest.
It sums up my argument that it's a matter of individual choice and if you don't like abortion, then FINE, don't have one. Otherwise, butt out and stop trying to criminalize something that over half the country doesn't believe should be illegal.
How stupid do you have to be to not get that straight after my explaining it about 9 times?
Just go on, try to convince people abortion is evil or whatever, but don't demand everyone agree with your view, and don't expect your views to become the law of the land.
If that were the case, I'd outlaw ugly tattoos on beautiful women. But it ain't gonna happen. And neither is abortion going to be outlawed in this country.
Face it, you're been taken for tools and idiots by the Republicans for decades now. They don't intend, nor have they ever, to do anything to outlaw abortion. They just keep stringing you dupes along year after year with sops and lip service, and you follow like sheep.
Post a Comment
<< Home