how personal views affect your job
I find it amusing that people like Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry can call themselves Catholics and say things like, "I don't personally believe in abortion but I support a woman's right to have one." to separate their personal beliefs from their voting record. Then they think it's imperative that we know the personal beliefs of a Supreme Court nominee because they would affect his voting record. Talk about a double standard. I can separate my views from the law, but this guy can't.
Of course, I'm saying this tongue in cheek. I personally hope he can't, and I think Kennedy and Kerry are full of shit. One democrat said this Alito guy could be the deciding vote that might abortion illegal and that's troubling. Why is that troubling? Is it any more troubling than the other votes that might make baby killing wrong?
I've written about this before. I used to be pretty ambivalent about abortion. I used to say the same things other "holier than thou" idiots said. "I could never be the reason for an abortion, but I can't see why anyone else should live by my oh so lofty standards." (Looking back, damn I sounded like a pompous ass. I wonder if this post makes me sound like any less of one.) That changed when I saw a sonogram of the youngster. When I saw him moving around, and saw his little heart beating, I thought, "This is a person. Rationalize around it all you want, but this is a living human being, and killing him would be very wrong." How anyone can look at that kind of video and come up with "unviable tissue mass" is beyond me. Line up all the experts you please to soothe your troubled soul and help you convince yourself that it isn't, but I know a baby when I see one, and that's a baby! Call it reproductive rights, or a right to choose, or being in control of your body, or whatever you want, but the bottom line is....you're killing a baby. Does your right to do what you want with your body overrule murder? That's the question. The choice, such as it is, was made when you decided to have sex, knowing that pregnancy was a possible outcome of that choice. Once the pregnancy started, you're arguing for your right to murder a child. That's where the rubber meets the road. Put all the extenuating circumstances and pretty euphemisms around it you want but when you come down to it, that's the argument. Does it give me the right to kill a baby?
When a woman delivers a baby the "natural" way and throws him or her in a trash can, and he or she dies, we're all outraged, and we should be. Why is this any different than the same act committed a month prior, or six months prior? In both cases, the child is completely dependent on others. In both cases, a lack of care killed him, or her. Is the crime just one of timing? The only difference is, in one case, only one person is capable of that care. That happens to be one of the two people responsible for the fact the baby exists in the first place, based on their choices.
Yes, there are many circumstances and it's a complex subject, but at the bottom of it all is the same fact. We're killing babies. As long as people can say, "Yes we are, but those babies interfere with a woman's right to do what she pleases with her body, and that's more important." I guess abortion will remain legal.
I know that sounds all intolerant and stuff, but I don't understand the opposing viewpoint, and would like to hear anything that makes it palatable to me. Every time someone tries though, I find myself throwing the line "...and that's why it's OK to murder babies." on the end of their arugment, and all of a sudden I'm right back where I started. I don't want to punish anyone for having a good time, or ignorant kids experimenting with sex. I just can't condone murder.
Incidentally, I hear members of PETA support baby killing, but want to ban us from harming lab animals. I'm not saying harming lab animals is a good thing, but does anyone else see a double standard there? They are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals...as long as they aren't human animals. Baby bunnies should be protected, but baby humans can be fast tracked to the butcher block. Boycott KFC for the way they kill chickens, but abortion clinics are A-OK! Yeah, it makes me shake my head sometimes.
Of course, I'm saying this tongue in cheek. I personally hope he can't, and I think Kennedy and Kerry are full of shit. One democrat said this Alito guy could be the deciding vote that might abortion illegal and that's troubling. Why is that troubling? Is it any more troubling than the other votes that might make baby killing wrong?
I've written about this before. I used to be pretty ambivalent about abortion. I used to say the same things other "holier than thou" idiots said. "I could never be the reason for an abortion, but I can't see why anyone else should live by my oh so lofty standards." (Looking back, damn I sounded like a pompous ass. I wonder if this post makes me sound like any less of one.) That changed when I saw a sonogram of the youngster. When I saw him moving around, and saw his little heart beating, I thought, "This is a person. Rationalize around it all you want, but this is a living human being, and killing him would be very wrong." How anyone can look at that kind of video and come up with "unviable tissue mass" is beyond me. Line up all the experts you please to soothe your troubled soul and help you convince yourself that it isn't, but I know a baby when I see one, and that's a baby! Call it reproductive rights, or a right to choose, or being in control of your body, or whatever you want, but the bottom line is....you're killing a baby. Does your right to do what you want with your body overrule murder? That's the question. The choice, such as it is, was made when you decided to have sex, knowing that pregnancy was a possible outcome of that choice. Once the pregnancy started, you're arguing for your right to murder a child. That's where the rubber meets the road. Put all the extenuating circumstances and pretty euphemisms around it you want but when you come down to it, that's the argument. Does it give me the right to kill a baby?
When a woman delivers a baby the "natural" way and throws him or her in a trash can, and he or she dies, we're all outraged, and we should be. Why is this any different than the same act committed a month prior, or six months prior? In both cases, the child is completely dependent on others. In both cases, a lack of care killed him, or her. Is the crime just one of timing? The only difference is, in one case, only one person is capable of that care. That happens to be one of the two people responsible for the fact the baby exists in the first place, based on their choices.
Yes, there are many circumstances and it's a complex subject, but at the bottom of it all is the same fact. We're killing babies. As long as people can say, "Yes we are, but those babies interfere with a woman's right to do what she pleases with her body, and that's more important." I guess abortion will remain legal.
I know that sounds all intolerant and stuff, but I don't understand the opposing viewpoint, and would like to hear anything that makes it palatable to me. Every time someone tries though, I find myself throwing the line "...and that's why it's OK to murder babies." on the end of their arugment, and all of a sudden I'm right back where I started. I don't want to punish anyone for having a good time, or ignorant kids experimenting with sex. I just can't condone murder.
Incidentally, I hear members of PETA support baby killing, but want to ban us from harming lab animals. I'm not saying harming lab animals is a good thing, but does anyone else see a double standard there? They are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals...as long as they aren't human animals. Baby bunnies should be protected, but baby humans can be fast tracked to the butcher block. Boycott KFC for the way they kill chickens, but abortion clinics are A-OK! Yeah, it makes me shake my head sometimes.
John put this out here at 11:39 AM
3 Comments:
When a woman is not mentally ready to have a child, but still keep the baby anyway just for the sake of thou shall not kill - when the baby is really born, the shock in that new mum's heart can cause depression/self destruct and feeling of hate to that newborn.
Is that fair for the baby to be borne in that condition? *I think not*
Anyway, I'm sure those women who have had an abortion, have to live with the guilt ALL their life. What can be a more powerful punishment than that?
PS. The theories above don't apply to women who have no consciousness and kept on doing abortion just because it's legal.
I understand what you're saying Sandra, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic. I feel for a woman who puts herself in that position because of bad decisions she and her partner made. It's a tough spot. Have a baby you aren't ready for or kill the little guy, or girl. I'm also not necessarily saying one choice is better than the other. What I am saying is, "Recognize that this is the choice you are making. Realize that you are making the choice between having a baby you may not be able to care for properly, and killing him, or her." It's also worth mentioning that there are thousands upon thousands of people out there wanting to adopt a baby. I personally know of some. One couple was going through a pregnancy with a young girl, expecting to adopt her baby when it was born. Her boss found out and convinced her to let him adopt the baby instead. The couple was heartbroken. I found out New Year's eve that she in indeed pregnant now though...in her third month. I'm so happy for them! The point though is people like them are out there. There are alternatives.
Yes I understand what you are saying. You also have to realise that not everyone is as informed as we are. They most probably have no support through that confusing period.
Again, there's always 2 side of the coin.
PS. I'm happy to hear about your friend :) XOXOX I wish her the best through the pregnancy.
Post a Comment
<< Home