How in the world can that cause controversy, except with bloodthirsty ghouls? Abortion is the latest holocaust.
Offered in response to someone disgusted with preserving the lives of the innocent:
Disgusted's disgusting projection:
The fuss was about CBS Kowtowing to a group that promotes murder yet they won't air ads from any group sponsoring a public option and true health care reform. Maybe if Les Moonves lost a family member to a right wing murdering psychopath he might think twice next time. CBS has long since abrogated the right to use our airwaves.You defend the slaughter of tens of millions of children as a "constitutional right," and you're calling others "murdering psychopaths"?
Butchering the not-yet-born in ways that animals can't be is not "health care."
Shame on you, murderous tyrant.
9 in respondeo:
Abortion is a controversial subject to be sure; to adapt a national policy, pro or con might be a mistake. Should our 10th Amendment, allowing individual states the right to legislate on this emotion-pact subject be the proper alternative?
reb
____________________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life . . . ."
Substituting a few other nouns in place of "abortion" might alter one's perspective:
Slavery is a controversial subject to be sure; to adapt a national policy, pro or con might be a mistake.
Pedophilia is a controversial subject to be sure; to adapt a national policy, pro or con might be a mistake.
Genocide is a controversial subject to be sure; to adapt a national policy, pro or con might be a mistake.
Rape is a controversial subject to be sure; to adapt a national policy, pro or con might be a mistake.
Abortion is, apart from everything else, killing a baby. Does any circumstance exist under which such an act can be justified?
Sir Amillennialist - There are two circumstances
that I would point to: (a) on so-called "pre-birth abortions", and "Dr Tiller the Killer" became well-known in his state for murdering the viable fetus for personal enrichment! In this case, a self-appointed executioner, shot him dead, in his church, ignoring the Law. -- > (b)..
Therapuetic Abortions: Where the parents, in consultation with their family doctor, has diagnosed an Ectopic (tubal) Pregnancy in the Fallopian tube, and the prognosis indicates the mother's life to be in serious jeopardy, and (often there are children at home needing two parents) decides on the elective surgery.
I do not see where there is a fundamental disagreement.
Your friend, reb
______________________________
Hello again, Reb,
It is my understanding that an ectopic pregnancy cannot be saved and often results in the mother's death; in such a circumstance taking the baby is necessary.
Most of the abortions performed in our country are cases not where what is endangered is the mother's life, but her life-style.
Ancient civilizations performed child-sacrifice to gain favor with the gods; according to the 12th century rabbi Rashi, one of the ancient gods Molech was worshiped by burning children alive:
"Moloch . . . was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved."
Another tradition attributed to Rabbi Simeon explained that "the idol was hollow and was divided into seven compartments, in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle-doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which were all burned together by heating the statue inside."
Such worship of Molech/Tophet/Baal/Astarte/Chemosh/Kronos occurred throughout the Mediterranean.
What many defend today as a "constitutional right" is no less barbaric or depraved; the only difference is that we dress up the bloody, shrieking corpse in the language of "choice" and "women's health."
A.
Sir "A" - If laws relating to abortion were properly left to the 50 states, the legislatures
within those states would be under intense scrutiny, and politicians held accountable!
A national policy would tend to preclude that direct, individual responsibility, where it rightfully belongs.
Back-room & down the alley illegal "clinics" have injured and killed many innocent young girls in the past, and/or their viable child.
There's far too much emotion involved here, where logic and decent laws should prevail.
reb
______________________________________________
Hello, Reb,
I am all for limiting the federal government's powers to those enumerated in the Constitution. That's a given.
I am not familiar with medical practice before abortion was legislated from the bench -- were pregnant women whose lives were in danger forced to go to "clinics"?
I avoid the emotion by dealing the fundamental question of what is involved: Abortion is killing a baby. If that can be justified (as in saving the mother's life), then so be it.
Otherwise, it's killing a baby, wherever it's done and whoever's doing it.
I would agree; taking human life Is, generally speaking, a tragedy, and should be avoided.
I did not say that young girls were "forced" to seek an abortionist; often embarrassment and shame, and/or fear of parental judgement, or a casual boyfriend's fear of the "complications"
of legal responsibility, too often drove the two lovers to the illegal, unqualified 'butcher' abortionist!
Teenage immaturity, or a cheating spouse, was often the problem. It's an imperfect world, isn't it?
reb
______________________________
_______________________________________________
Hello, Reb,
"forced" was a question; I was not implying that you were implying that.
Regards,
Amillennialist
We have come to a point as a culture where good is called evil and vice-versa. The fact that most professing Christians are cloudy on the most basic moral issues can only mean worse for the larger society.
If abortion could be clearly seen for the barbaric, unconscionable act that it is, I think it would simplify the conversation considerably, but apart from the miraculous intervention of the Gospel in the human soul, I fear we're nearly stuck. The moral framework we once enjoyed is all but gone...
Ironically, I honestly believe many who identify themselves a "pro-choice" sincerely think they are the ones on the moral high ground. They, in many cases, truly do not see what they do as murder. So it's not so much that they are thirsty for blood as it is that they are completely deceived and blind. Of course, people like Tiller almost certainly had to be an exception to that generalization. How could he not know?
But how do we respond to such blindness? Such deception? Such utter depravity? Certainly the gospel first, and passionate, compassionate dialogue where it is possible. And we continue to call evil evil.
It's a mess...
Post a Comment