- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
turnthesuckdown said:governments should have no bearing on the moral nor ethical decisions of the people. governements were created to keep order and organize state resources for the betterment of its people. how does allowing a woman the choice to erase a mistake that could ruin her life hamper the rest of society? wouldnt allowing the woman a better economic future if she so wishes , only benefit whatever nation?
i think that all pro life advocates since they are oh so feverent about their crusade for the preservation of life should just adopt the babies that would other wise be aborted. then they would be strapped down by the effects of such babies.
anyone can have sex if they want to and the result of that should be left to them to decide what to do with. why should the government care in the first place?
abortion helps overpopulation and allows those women a better economic future which are both in turn beneficial to the nation
What a nice jucy post......damn, Navy got my first choice responce....hmm....
How about this:
turnthesuckdown said:...governements were created to keep order and organize state resources for the betterment of its people...
According to our constitution, this government was formed "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty".
Let’s explore that, shall we?
In this voter's opinion, valuing and preserving life promotes a more perfect union, as does chastity outside of marriage.
Justice should be established for both a mother and her unborn, to say nothing of the father of the child. An unwanted child, a child of rape or incest is still endowed by it's Creator with the unalienable right to life just as it's mother retains her unalienable right to liberty; So to say that it is acceptable for one's right to be violated is to make the violation of the other's rights equally acceptable.
Surly the absence of unwanted pregnancies, STDs', casual disregard for one's children and a dislike for the opposite gender contributes to domestic tranquility.
Everyone disserves the protection of the constitution. Singling out one's own child to be exempt from that protection is counter to common defense.
I don't think I need to point out that having one's arms, legs and head removed from one's body does nothing for one's welfare.
Killing one's own child is not a blessing, so it is not a liberty afforded by the constitution. Being allowed to make choices, from what your favorite color is, your friends, your job, etc, is a blessing, and being killed before you are even born is to be denied all such blessings, all such choices.
I wish you well here.
Last edited: