• Quick Shot Challenge: Caption This Sniper Fail Meme

    Drop your caption in the replies for the chance to win a free shirt!

    Join the contest

PortaJohn

Is political expediency worth the life of an unborn person?
On it’s face I’d say “no”, but I have uncertainties about the various viewpoints on abortion. Should the government even be involved in the process/decision? At what stage does personhood come into effect? If the unborn couldn’t survive outside the womb should it be granted personhood and all the inherent rights? If yes what about the rights of the mother? In my opinion it’s much more complicated.
 
On it’s face I’d say “no”, but I have uncertainties about the various viewpoints on abortion. Should the government even be involved in the process/decision? At what stage does personhood come into effect? If the unborn couldn’t survive outside the womb should it be granted personhood and all the inherent rights? If yes what about the rights of the mother? In my opinion it’s much more complicated.
My answers are in RED below.

Should the government even be involved in the process/decision?

Yes. There are laws on the books that protect the rights of people in all stages of development. There are laws against assault and battery, murder, rape and robbery. In some states, it's still against the law to commit a mercy killing. If a country cannot or will not protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us the how much less will it care about the rest of us?

If the unborn couldn’t survive outside the womb should it be granted personhood and all the inherent rights?

A person's level of development should not be used to determine whether they can live or not. I have a friend that is paralyzed from the neck down. He could not survive on his own without 24/7 care. Even though he's an adult does it give anyone the right to kill him or neglect his needs because he can't even wipe his on ass let alone feed himself?

I knew a boy in grade school, who was mentally retarded and suffered from epilepsy. He was born a normal child. When he was five another five year old smashed a brick on top of his head. That fractured his skull which caused the brain damage leading to the retardation and epilepsy.

Not quite to the level of inability to care for himself like my paralyzed friend, the boy I knew would require constant adult help for his entire life. So just because he required constant assistance did that make him any less deserving of life?

On a side note and nothing to do with this discussion, the five year old attacker grew up to be a nasty evil prick. To make a long story short, I beat him up when I was a high school freshman. Not a teacher was to be found. That was probably intentional. The rest of the kids in the hallway kept yelling for me to kill him. And I darn near killed him. I had blood on my clothes for the rest of the day. Nobody, even the teachers, asked why I had blood on me. I wanted to do to him what he did to the poor mentally retarded kid with epilepsy. Sometimes, what goes around does come around.


If yes what about the rights of the mother?

Baby killers have used that argument for several decades, One analogy is if you are involuntarily connected in someway that gives life support to another person. Or if you were forced (not asked) to donate one of your kidneys to another person who will die without the transplant. Imagine being forced to donate a kidney to Michelle Obama. Well that's one way we would know if she's a tranny.

Anyway, being forced to hook up to another or have a kidney removed would be a violation of your right. You should have your right to refuse that service to the other person who would most surely die as a result of your decision.

The baby-killers have used the same argument to "detach" the unborn baby from the mother. There is a stark difference with the two situations.

By refusing to be attached or be a donor to another person, their death is a predictable but unintended. Remember that your refusal has a foreseen but unintended result. You don't want him or her to die but you also have a right to keep your kidney.

The argument for a mother's bodily autonomy would be logical if the death of the baby was unintentional. However, the result of a successful abortion is the intentional death of the baby. A baby that survives an abortion is a result of a failed procedure. That's why the baby-killers were opposed to the Born Alive Protection Act.

There are some rare instances where the death of the unborn baby is foreseen but NOT intended. In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg is stuck in the fallopian tube. If it remains there and continues to develop, the mother will die. There is no uncertainty about it.

The only way to save the life of the mother is to abort the unborn baby in the fallopian tube.

With a normal pregnancy, there is already a moral relationship between mother and baby before the decision to abort is already made. Also consider this, the woman has already consented to sex voluntarily. There was a moral decision to engage in an activity in which a new life is a predictable outcome.

What about rape or incest? The pro-abortion Guttmacher institute estimates that only 1% of the abortion cases are the result of rape. The rest are due to consensual sex.

I've met a couple of women with children conceived as a result of rape. Both of them had a wonderful relationship with their children. I'm not mitigating the awful experience of rape. A pregnancy is a heavy burden to go through for a woman, especially if she was raped.

However, two wrongs don't make a right.

What some men mean for evil, God can turn it around for good. The rape of a woman didn't escape God. He wasn't surprised by it and has a plan for that baby. A woman that's pregnant because of a rape and decides to keep the baby is a real hero. If she doesn't want to keep the baby but put it up for adoption to a loving couple, she's still a hero because she chose life.

The "pro-choice" crowd wants us to think that there is only one choice. There are two choices, one results in life.


In my opinion it’s much more complicated.

You are correct, there are complicated facets to this subject. That's only because we, as a nation, have made it complicated. The solutions are simple if we determine to what's right by the Almighty and Giver of Life. Just like the Sunday school song says, "God loves the children, all the little children of the world."

If He loves the children, then how can we justify killing them because they haven't relocated outside the womb?
 
Last edited:

Do something NOW. Meloni esp. has been a huge disappointment - she has a largely conservative government to work wth instead she is "honoring" her EU ties. Just like Abbott here in TX,she is making a conscious choice to let the "new residents" in.
 
Last edited:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mwalex



MwVkPzg4Mz6x.png