|
|
Post by Amelia on May 18, 2004 23:08:01 GMT -5
What is it with this purity thing? "and psychologically she will find that it is possible to deliever this beautiful pure child into this world..."
I said it once, and I'll say it again: you're idealizing the "child" as this wonderful pure baby, when you don't have any proof of that. Just because it's "unborn" doesn't mean it good.
And actually, it ISN'T pure because it carries the genes of a rapist. You are passing on the genes of a rapist, which might manifest itself in the child, who may go on to rape others. Nature cannot always be fixed by nurture.
|
|
|
|
Post by navynate on May 19, 2004 18:10:36 GMT -5
TEXTAmelia, your argument that a baby concieved in rape and carries the genes of the rapist deserving of abortion is rediculous. Just because a baby was concieved that way doesn't mean that the child will grow up to be a rapist. Women who have gotten pregnant from rape have said that it was good that came out of something terrible, (those were the ladies who gave birth to their babies). Another group who had the abortion after getting pregnant from rape of incest said that the abortion was as bad or worse than the rape itself  How can that be possible? If abortion is a good thing and has to be used if someone is raped, then why are they saying that abortion is as bad or worse than being raped? prochoice groups lie and tell women that they don't have a choice, "THEY NEED TO GET AN ABORTION, NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS." Learn the truth and become prolife, OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amelia on May 19, 2004 23:42:49 GMT -5
Edit- read the rules  On another note, based less on spelling skills and more on rhetoric, I never said that all women who have been raped should have an abortion, I am simply saying that it's asking a bit much to say that it's a great decision to keep a baby that was the result of rape.
|
|
|
|
Post by shell on Sept 28, 2004 4:51:11 GMT -5
i just want to say that i was raped when i was 14 wich resulted in me having a beautifull son who is now sixteen and i could never contemplate killing a child for the sins of his father my son is the one good thing to come out of a unhappy event in my life he is the best thing to happen to me abortion for any reason is wrong but to blame an innocent child for wot his father did is initself the true sin
|
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Oct 5, 2004 21:23:04 GMT -5
From a magazine I often read:
A "fetus" is no different than a born child in only 3 ways:
Size
Development
Dependency
Neither of those makes a person less "human".
So abortion is murder.
Murder is wrong.
So abortion is wrong, whatever the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cheneysmyhero on Nov 8, 2004 19:06:30 GMT -5
I believe any decision to abort a pregnancy and kill the child is made by Satan, not the woman. We must keep Satan from destroying the works of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malebolgia on Nov 8, 2004 23:04:54 GMT -5
I thank GOD everyday, that I wasn't aborted.
Praise Jesus, Hallelujah
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 8, 2004 23:25:35 GMT -5
Grow up troll! |
|
|
|
Post by chaMur on Nov 20, 2004 23:17:18 GMT -5
I honestly wonder whose opinions would change when they're in that situation. First of all this is crossing the line of church and state. All of you who say, “It’s God's will." I would bet my life you wouldn't be saying that after you were raped. Who wants rapist genes out in our world? It should be the woman's decision. Mind your own business. It's completely ridiculous who you can say it's okay for a woman to get raped and have a kid. She just needs to get over it. And how a criminal should be murdered. Oh and can we forget all the innocent civilians in Iraq who we have murdered. But no...It's bad to kill eggs. What ever happened to this being a free country where people can make their own desisions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Nov 21, 2004 11:19:21 GMT -5
There's a rapist gene? Hmmm. Who want's poor genes in our world, maybe forced sterilization for the lower class is the answer. Come on Adolf, time for you bratwurst. ;D That's a double edged sword, liberals campaign on the murder of babies and the preservation of the tried and guilty. You don't want to go there. You seem to have forgotten all the Iraqis that we have built schools for, or the probable millions Saddam killed, or the 3000 American civilians in NY that were killed that started this whole mess. Wrong thread, move on. I know, like my right to sleep with my mother, or my right to marry 3 other people. Sorry wrong thread. Now they have me doing it!!  |
|
|
|
Post by chaMur on Nov 22, 2004 17:54:42 GMT -5
For your information studies have shown that a criminal gene can be hereditary. THE MAJORITY OF IRAQIS don’t even want us in Iraq. Period. Oh and why do you even state it as “the murder of babies”...YOU FORGET we are talking about undeveloped eggs! You say murdering someone is a crime? A criminal or not they’re more of a person than an egg…am I not right? |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 22, 2004 18:52:56 GMT -5
Apparently!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Nov 22, 2004 20:38:24 GMT -5
By all means cite those studies. There is absolutely no concrete evidence supporting your statement. There has been no discovery of a criminal gene. There may be certain aspects of biology that can make a person more susceptible to criminal behavior provided that certain environmental factors also exist. There is no proof that a criminal gene exists that controls an individual's behavior regardless of his environmental influences.
And even if there did exist this magic gene that is absolutely no argument for the destruction of that embryo. I see Hitler's Youth have grown into a rather unimpressive bunch.
Put down The Nation and step away from the idiot box. Yet another statement devoid of fact. Where is your proof? Have you found some poll the rest of us missed? CITE SOMETHING!
Please tell us when an egg becomes a human. When the tissue is removed from the mother's womb? After the egg is fertilized? 3 weeks in? 5 weeks in? 10 and a half weeks in? Once an egg is fertilized there does occur some development, no matter how slight, so unless we are talking about the removal of unfertilized eggs then I have not forgotten anything. You have failed to understand the state of this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaMur on Nov 23, 2004 7:23:27 GMT -5
I don’t have any sites to post...I'm not going to lie. I know what I've read though. It dosn't matter if i don't have anything to make you believe. I know I'm right. But you really need to stop with this Hitler thing. It's the conservatives like you who are trying to take over this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Nov 23, 2004 8:43:28 GMT -5
Actually it does matter. If you are going to come on a forum and post unsubstantiated claims you, at the very least, lose all credibility. I know what I've read and I know there are absolutely no facts supporting your claim. It's just disappointing that we have another liberal coming on this board trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes. I thought we might have been able to have a true debate. My Hitler reference had in no way anything to do with world domination. It was rooted in the various parallels that exist between the pro-choice movement and the Third Reich. Margaret Sanger was a notorious racist and White Supremacist. Let's have a quick history lesson shall we? I'm in a rush so instead of taking the time to dispute your points directly, I will direct your attention to an article that was featured in a 1992 copy of Citizen Magazine. I'll be back tonight when I have more time. Feel free to explore this further, there is plenty of material corroborating my position. This will be fun, as well as informative: How Planned Parenthood Duped AmericaAt a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood. Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South." Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted. While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others. These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive. Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy." [glow=red,2,300]More at:[/glow] blackgenocide.org/sanger.htmlAlso check out: www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html |
|
How can that be possible? If abortion is a good thing and has to be used if someone is raped, then why are they saying that abortion is as bad or worse than being raped? prochoice groups lie and tell women that they don't have a choice, "THEY NEED TO GET AN ABORTION, NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS." Learn the truth and become prolife, OK.
