According to Rick Santorum, we shouldn’t allow abortions even in cases of rape, because those fetuses are gifts from God. Yes, God’s gift to rape victims is pregnancy. Maybe this is just me, but I would kind of prefer God to give me the gift of Not Being Raped In The First Place.
It’s easy to write off Mr. Frothy Mixture as an extremist lunatic, but… Well, he is an extremist lunatic, but he’s not alone. Over 150,000 Americans have voted for him so far in the Republican primaries. Yikes.
You should have seen the commercials he had running here in South Carolina. He is, apparently, “rock solid on values.”
I took that to mean that if you aren’t a wealthy white man you’d be better off voting for someone else.
Mr. Frothy Mess is a fundamentalist Catholic. That means he hates abortion, hates contraception, and hates sex except for the purpose of procreation. He’s also a misogynist homophobe who toadies up to his corporate masters. He doesn’t understand the wants, needs and desires of the hoi polloi and he doesn’t want to understand these things.
However he is one of the few living Americans to have a figure of speech named in his honor. But he won’t send Dan Savage a thank you card.
If rape pregnancy is a gift from god doesn’t abortion just mean we kept the receipt?
If he is following the full Catholic line, he is opposed also to abortions even to save the life of the woman.
Sorry ‘Tis, but we really need to start calling spades spades and frothy mixes frothy mixes.
…except didn’t his wife have an abortion to save her life?
That turned out to be lies.
Of course, he is also a supporter of the death penalty. He’s really amazing comic relief. He’s like satire, except he’s serious.
I grew up in a Catholic family (although I spiritually and mentally left that church by the time my age reached double digits and I spend years going through the motions so I wouldn’t get disowned), and my long contact with Catholics shows me that Santorum’s brand is far more extreme than the average church member. Most American Catholics are of the “cafeteria” type, i.e., they pick and choose those elements of church policy they agree or are comfortable with and ignore the rest. I’m firmly convinced that Santorum doesn’t want to be the American president; he wants to be the American pope, and that a President Santorum would be the beginning of a US theocracy that would make the Taliban look like a bunch of moderates.
Ing, I have to, HAVE TO put that as my FB status. How shall I give credit where it’s due?
Nope, it’s legit. Induced labor a month or so prior to any possible viability. Now he calls that a partial birth abortion, and wants it outlawed.
I would shudder to raise a daughter in many parts of the U.S. Passed and proposed bills seem to be sending a clear message to young women:
Don’t have sex
Don’t use contraceptives
Don’t get pregnant
Don’t have an abortion
If you do any of those things, you deserve to be punished for the rest of your life. No college or career for you, you dirty whore.
Oh, and it still counts if you were raped–both the punishment and and the whore part.
He’s not just not alone; he’s part of the 27%. Twenty-seven percent is a whole lot of people.
Rasputin wrote:
A wealthy, white, Christian, heterosexual man.
Oh, no. You can just pretend to be Christian and straight if you need to. The important part is white and male and RICH.
I’m given to understand that Santorum doesn’t enjoy sex and doesn’t think other people really do either. Of course he doesn’t want other people doing any of these things, but he doesn’t want to do them himself. He is fairly internally consistent here.
In general, I think you’re right about most religious fundamentalists, though. When they feel the need to violate their own morals, they just rationalize it and try, er, to hide the decline.
The Ing’s name is linkified. You can use that for attribution.
Not totally consistent, really, just fairly.
You might be surprised by the Cafeteria Catholic Conservatives. They aren’t above making death threats to the local Monseigneur over minor things when something is “modernized” or simply brought in line with existing rules.
I’m not sure if this is really the case..accuracy is really a good thing.
Personally the way I see all these things is pretty simple. It’s throwing your weight around for the sake of throwing your weight around. They just choose the things that to them are the least self-sacrificial as they can.
In short, they are Glory-hunting. And quite frankly, this is as Christian as Jesus Christ himself. It’s also something that, I believe is by definition immoral.
Nope she did indeed. The fetus had a lethal condition–I think it was a ureter or kidney issue. They tried to fix it intrauterine, but she developed a placental infection. They tried antibiotics to get rid of it, but she became septic, giving them no choice but to remove the source of infection(placenta/fetus–who was probably not in great shape either), or she would die. Their excuse was that it would not be fair to leave the other 4 children motherless. Santorum’s wife also lived (ahem…’in sin’) for 4 years, with an OB/GYN who routinely performed abortions for women who wanted them. He was interviewed as saying that she never objected to his line of work. She was a young nurse at the time. It seems that her views are more reasonable, and Santorum is the crackpot.
Just exploring the weirdness of that claim – what about the rape victims who don’t get pregnant? Why don’t they get presents? Did they do something wrong?
If a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, is God giving the rapist a gift?
Also, didn’t God create everything? Why are some phenomena gifts from God and others not? If, instead of getting pregnant, a rape victim contracts AIDS, or syphilis, or cervical cancer, are those gifts from God, too? If so, are we allowed to cure them? If not, why has God suddenly stopped running human biology?
It’s like giving someone a dog as a gift. Sure, it’s a gift, but it’s generally frowned upon, because you didn’t ask the person whether he/she has the time/energy/money/desire to properly take care of the pet.
It’s not a gift. It’s a burden.
Sure, it sucks to have an entity that is unwanted, but the solution to that isn’t to gift-wrap a shitty situation.
If they’re conservative Cathomics, they’re not Cafeteria.
Typo alert: “Catholics”, not “Cathomics”.
Some will tell you that all phenomena are gifts. That includes actions that remove other phenomena. Syphilis is a gift, as are the antibiotics used to treat it. An abusive spouse is a gift, as are the social and legal resources used to get away from said spouse. The loss of friends and family are gifts, as are debilitating, chronic conditions.
It is easy to find people who take this view. It is more difficult to find those who take this view while in possession of such “gifts”.
Except, you know, for not even vaguely comparing.
He doesn’t understand the wants, needs and desires of the hoi polloi and he doesn’t want to understand these things.
See, I don’t buy the not understanding thing. He’s fully aware that the woman he loves, the one he married and had a family with, was, at one time, in love with and wanting to have children with an Ob/Gyn, one who was 40 years her senior and performed abortions.
He understands that other people have wants, needs, and desires of their own. He just doesn’t care. Just another two-bit theocrat with delusions of grandeur.
How do you figure?
No, it simply means that they like the conservative parts. Santorum is a cafeteria Catholic if he is in favor of the death penalty, which the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy oppose.
There’s an interesting line of thinking that Santorum uses here, that a lot of pro-lifers use. He suggests that having an abortion would be similarly detrimental to the girl’s life. I’m glad to say, studies have been done, and we can knock down this argument pretty simply (will someone help me with my citations? I’m at work and kinda busy, but these studies should be easy to find. I might come back later and fill in the holes myself.)
For a while, people were arguing that abortions can give women PTSD. A quick psych survey showed that, while there is some emotional distress shortly after the procedure, the long-term effects were nothing compared to keeping a pregnancy you didn’t want. And the incidence of PTSD was 0%.
Also, while we’re talking about depressed mothers, a mother with postpartum depression (or any other kind of depression) has an effect on the emotional wellbeing of their child. I don’t have a specific study to cite on this one, but it was discussed pretty extensively in my developmental psych classes in undergrad, and is a generally accepted phenomenon.
So. A woman can get an abortion, deal with it, you know, cope, and move on. Or she can keep a pregnancy and allow depression and other feelings of guilt to well up – and probably affect her child as well.
Personally, I think it’s better to have a child under the right conditions: when YOU’RE ready. And whether you believe in a linear afterlife or a cyclical afterlife or no afterlife, I think this argument holds as being the better of the two options, for both mother and potential child.
I have a daughter, in the US, and agree. I’m planning on buying her an emergency backup supply of Plan B the moment she hits puberty. No sense taking chances.
You’re discounting the entire pregnancy part of pregnancy.
It’s the physical and emotional/psychological stress of carrying around a baby that was the product of rape for 9 months.
In the US Conservative Catholics are just as cafeteria as Liberal ones. A liberal Catholic ignores church teaching on birth control and abortion. A conservative Catholic ignores church teaching on social justice, living wages for workers, just war, and the death penalty. It is a very, very rare American Catholic who doesn’t pick and choose which Church teachings are the “right” ones and which ones can be ignored.
Santorum is the latter kind of cafeteria Catholic.
baby steps, i figure. anybody fool enough to think frothy mix has even half a point won’t be able to see those differences between dog ownership and pregnancy, but they might be able to see the similarity of an imposed and unwelcome burden. the analogy might perhaps be usable as an initial lever towards opening a mind, if just smashing it open with a crowbar won’t work.
The major predictor of poor psychological outcome after abortion is social pressure to not have an abortion or a deep seated belief that abortion is wrong, according to several studies I’ve read. (Will try to find them again if anyone’s interested.)
So those who argue that abortion causes PTSD or whatever are contributing, more strongly than the abortion itself, to the emotional distress of women who have abortions. Is this a feature or a bug in their world, I wonder?
Santorum is not a fundy Catholic. He is just your every day Catholic who follows whatever the Vatican pronounces. There are Catholics, there are heretics, but there are no fundy Catholics.
Although I don’t agree with them either, you have to admit that someone who opposes abortion in all cases (except perhaps when it would save the life of the mother) is more believable than someone who is generally opposed, but not in case of rape, incest etc. If one really believes that abortion is murder, then there is no other choice. (I’m not saying that I agree otherwise with such folks, nor that they are believable in other cases. However, with respect to this one point I find it strange that many people say that the people who make no exceptions are somehow worse. They are simply sticking to what they believe. You might not agree with what they believe, and neither do I, but one shouldn’t criticize them for taking their own beliefs seriously as opposed to the wishy-washy stance of others which in some cases might indicate that their main motivation is something different.)
That’s an interesting idea. But wouldn’t it be likely to expire before she needed it?
Plan B is available to women over 18 without a prescription. I’m willing to keep getting it for her every time the previous dose expires until she’s 18. Ok, so I’ll likely be post-menopausal by then, but I doubt that the pharmacist will demand an LH level before dispensing.
This is one of the rare cases when two wrongs make… not a right, but a lesser wrong.
The two wrongs being 1) anti-abortion stance and 2) hypocrisy/inconsistency.
Taking an atrocious stance all the way to its atrocious logical outcome is worse, in a utilitarian sense, than having an atrocious stance and cutting corners.
Also, it takes more to be consistent about an “abortion is murder” position than taking a “no exceptions” stance. Things like supporting policies which actually reduce the demand for abortions. If a politicial declares an “abortion is murder” position, but only supports those of the policies consistent with said position that involve coercion against women, then no consistency points for him.
Doesn’t his name translate to “sanctimonious dick”?
I really don’t understand the trend of applauding people who believe ALL women are subhuman baby-machines instead of just slutty women. It’s consistent, yes, but it’s consistently terrible.
Oh, no, that’s where you are wrong.
My daughter married one. Now she is one.
They buy into EVERYTHING that is Catholic dogma, and in the most extreme ways possible, often in ways that the Catholic hierarchy is very uncomfortable with and mostly disavows.
She and her husband will not allow my wife and I, because we might say incorrect stuff to the kids, see our grandchildren without being supervised by BOTH parents.
And they homeschool the kids because they can’t afford Catholic school for six kids and don’t want the kids exposed to secular values at public school.
Oh, yeah, fundie catholic. Yes, they exist. In their own little world, which is why you don’t hear about them much.
Also, it takes more to be consistent about an “abortion is murder” position than taking a “no exceptions” stance. Things like supporting policies which actually reduce the demand for abortions.
I agree with all of your analysis except that quoted above. The idea this being a rare case is an interesting analysis, and right from a utilitarian point of view. (However, most of the criticism of these people points out how worse they are in some moral sense, not in a utilitarian sense. I also admire people more who are consistent even if I disagree with them Someone who is vegetarian because he objects to killing animals yet wears leather? Give me a break!)
To me, “abortion is murder” implies, if taken seriously, “no exceptions”. I’m not sure why you are distinguishing them.
As for the last quoted sentence: This assumes that their goal is to reduce (perhaps to zero) the number of abortions. This is an invalid assumption. Outlawing all abortions and enforcing it is also a way to reduce (perhaps to zero) the number of abortions. If reduction were the only goal, then policies reducing the need would be just as good. But they are not, since most of these folks want something which reduces the amount of sex as well. Fear of pregnancy is one way. Yes, it is not perfect, but in countries without birth control, there generally is less sex. So however much one disagrees with this stance, it is not hypocritical.
One often reads that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies where there is available birth control. Of course. However, Santorium and his lot will oppose birth control since it has the side effect of increasing the amount of sex. Their goal is no unwanted pregnancies because there is no sex except among married couples for purposes of procreation, not no unwanted pregnancies per se.
No his name translates to “using tongue to remove santorum”
Also, it takes more to be consistent about an “abortion is murder” position than taking a “no exceptions” stance. Things like supporting policies which actually reduce the demand for abortions.
I’d like to agree completely. I really, really would. However, presumably politicians believe that murder is murder and that murder is bad and yet they frequently propose policies that are almost guaranteed to increase the rate of murder and other violent crimes, i.e. laxer gun laws, measures that are likely to increase policy, ridiculous drug laws that encourage organized crime, laws that make it more difficult to get a divorce-and laws restricting abortion. There is a strong correlation between legal abortion and decreased crime rates.
So I’m not sure that lack of support for laws that reduce the demand for abortion is proof of insincerity. It might just be proof of stupidity.
Earlier on in the campaign, I wrote him off as laughable, but due to the recent trends, I’m starting to worry more. I’m not worried about what would happen if somehow he won the nomination, that would be a dream come true for the President, but for him as a vetted VP candidate to Romney or Gingrich who would keep the conservative base from staying home come November.
I think VP’s the spot he’s really running for now. And might well get.
Of course, when inducing a labor to deliver a baby that has no chance of surviving outside the womb is totally cool, as long as the women in question is mother to Mr. Santorum’s children.
Only a cruel man would punish the victim for the criminal’s crimes. America outlawed involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, but Santorum would have impregnated rape victims involuntarily serve their attackers by making them bear their children. Only a cruel man demands that a victim of a vicious crime must, for at least nine months, give of her body, her blood and her heartbeat to her attacker. Deplorable.
http://brettcottrell.blogspot.com/2012/01/cruelty-lacks-wisdom.html
It’s good for a year, surely? Just make it a birthday present.
They’re DOING HARM TO PEOPLE. FUCK what they believe and whether they stick to it.
Dear God,
Thank you for getting me pregnant. I can see that it was really important that you get me pregnant so you sent Mr.XY to rape me. It is truly a wonderful gift you have given me! I am so proud that you chose me at 15 to carry this important fetus for you. Since this baby is so important to you I will leave it for you to take care of. You will be able to find it at the place I was raped (you know where that is of course). Thank you so much for your cherished gift,
Sincerely yours, Pregnant Teen
Link to my blog would help. Haven’t blogged in while but will soon probably
It does my heart good to see you intending “santorum” to be taken as the common usage ;)
Dan Savage earned a special place in my heart for getting that going!
Apparently someone really screwed up the text of those ads. They really should have said “Rick Santorum has rocks in his head. Some of them may be valuable.”
Sure they are. They just don’t like things changing, even if it means bringing something which has been wrong back in line with rules and doctrine. Which you might think would be the important thing to someone who cleaves to their faith. They pick and choose what it is about the religion that they want on their trays and discard the rest. They’ll insist that the Pope is infallible and then disagree with him, especially if that pope was John XXIII or John Paul II. They aren’t necessarily particularly observant Catholics, which is really pretty much a technical requirement for being a Catholic. Totally cafeteria.
Suffering is a gift. It’s also a punishment for those who don’t interpret their gift properly. Perfect, really.
More so than they deserve, IMO. Why do you regard consistency in “no exceptions” people higher than empathy in “some exceptions” people?
So you acknowledge that they regard reduction in sex as more important than reduction in something which they claim to perceive as murder… And you still somehow believe their claims that they consider abortion murder. Even though you concede the alternative claim: that they mainly want to control women and prevent them from having sex freely.
The amount of self-contradiction is confusing me.
Citations very much needed.
So however much one disagrees with this stance, it is not hypocritical.
That last sentence is copy-paste debris. Please disregard.
“Admire” is probably the wrong word; so is “respect”. But I think people know what I mean. The issue should be whether abortion is murder, not whether there should be exceptions. If it isn’t murder, then the whole issue of exceptions is moot. It would also help if the “pro-choice” crowd would admit that there is a difference in aborting at 6 weeks and at 8 months.
Given that efforts to curtail abortion access in USA often take the form of instituting legal cutoff points at 4 or 5 months, I don’t see how what amounts to ceding ground in that area would help. If you allow that there is a point after which a woman should be forced to incubate her fetus, that point can always be pushed forward a day, since any cutoff point except for birth would not have any nonrandom justification.
I take it that you withdraw your claims regarding the effectiveness of abortion bans in reducing abortion and the effectiveness of contraceptive bans in reducing sex?
Pregnancy and religion:
I have a very religious friend who recently became pregnant with 5th child, even though she has a disorder in which she becomes violently ill, can barely keep food down or walk across the room without throwing up during the first 1/2 of pregnancy. Basically, her 4 existing kids have no mother to speak of right now…it is all the church and neighbors (even some of us secular folks) helping them survive. She looks like end-stage cancer patient right now. The dad has missed weeks of work. And yet, they feel that this was somehow “God’s will” and she has been asked to suffer. And when finished, they will cram 7 people into a house built for maybe 4 on a one-income salary, 10% of which I am sure is going straight to the church.
Why wouldn’t a good God just have them adopt one of the 30,000 kids that starve daily, instead of having her to almost starve bringing in 1 more?
You’ve heard about the parasite that makes insects drown themselves in order to propagate, right?
PLease remember that making abortion illegal or otherwise reducing access to safe abortion does not reduce or do away with abortion! In fact, the reverse is true! In places where safe abortion is less accessible, many more abortions take place, usually unsafe abortions, resulting in injuries to and deaths of the women that seek them. Which, of course, ties in perfectly well with the goals of these sacks of santorum, who despise women on behalf of their shitty gods.
Touché. I have to admit that–and I acknowledge that being a life-long atheist may color my perception in this matter–I have a very hard time believing that a great many Americans who identify themselves as religious actually believe the claims they make about God, for the very simple reason that if they genuinely believed all of that, they wouldn’t behave the way they do. It’s hard to imagine, for example, that Newt Gingrich genuinely believes adultery is a sin for which he’ll be sent to Hell after he dies, or he wouldn’t keep doing it.
He is fairly internally consistent here.
I call bullflop. He very clearly doesn’t want people of other religions imposing their religiously-derived moral rules on him, so he is not being consistent at all.
You make a reasonable point, but I’d argue that there is a distinction between advocating a policy that may, as a predictable but unintended consequence, cause an increase in the incidence of murders on the one hand, and directly legalizing certain forms of murder on the other.
I do think Philip Helbig has a valid point regarding consistency of one’s position re: abortion. Admittedly, it’s a good example of “a foolish consistency [being] the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines,” as Emerson famously put it, but the foolishness does not make it any less consistent. That’s an inevitable consequence of adhering to a principle that’s fundamentally flawed.
But he doesn’t have a point, because he’s not just saying it’s consistent but that this consistency makes it more respectable. Which is understandable, because, hey, it’s not like HE’D ever be at risk of an unwanted pregnancy, from rape or otherwise. Why should he even pause to consider the priorities of anyone who would?
Well, her views *were* more reasonable. People change over time; she could be a crackpot now.
OF COURSE abortion is not murder – any more than refusing to donate a kidney is murder.
Of course there’s a difference. The former actually happens.
Fucking wonderful; I’ll have to think about how to arrange a supply for my daughter. >.>
“Maybe this is just me, but I would kind of prefer God to give me the gift of Not Being Raped In The First Place.”
You “wimmin folk” should just be thankful a man was willing to chose you to rape. It’s like a marriage proposal, you should be flattered. {sarcasm}
Women’s genealogy was not followed because women were believed to be simply the fertile soil in which a man “planted his seed”. Women did not contribute to the genetic makeup of the child.
If you doubt this .. read your bible!
yes, this has bothered me for decades. Those who oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest are clearly not motivated by the idea that abortion is murder. They’re motivated by the idea that an abortion is ok for women who were forced to have sex, while the rest of us should have kept our legs closed. Mr. Frothy Mixture is evil, but his argument that no abortions are ok for any reason is actually more rigorous, if you really believe abortion is murder.
Look, if you (the generic you) advocate a policy which has 1) a desirable main purpose, and 2) an undesirable “predictable yet unintended consequence”, you are pretty much by definition prioritizing achieving 1) over preventing 2).
So if a politician claims that abortion is murder, but does not support policies which reduce abortion in practice (or supports policies which increase abortion), they are either a) lying about considering abortion to be murder, or b) not all that concerned about preventing murder.
So you see, assuming that they are lying is actually giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Due to my being a fuck-up, my response is here.
If it isn’t murder, then the whole issue of exceptions is moot.
Abortion isn’t murder. In no other circumstance is one person required to provide their body for another’s use, even if the other person will die if the first person refuses to allow the second the use of their body or bodily resources. No one is required to give blood or marrow or donate a kidney. If a person walks into the blood donor center, fills out the paperwork, allows the needle to be placed in his/her arm and 250 cc of blood to be removed, then suddenly says, “No. I’m not doing it” the needle is removed and they walk away with no consequence. Even if, as can happen, her/his blood is the only compatible blood for a person dying of severe anemia. Even if that person will die without it. Refusing to allow your body to be used as an incubator is not, ever, murder.
It would also help if the “pro-choice” crowd would admit that there is a difference in aborting at 6 weeks and at 8 months.
Abortion of a healthy 8 month fetus in a healthy woman doesn’t happen. At least, not legally. The only reason an 8 month fetus is aborted is if it is too ill or deformed to live outside the uterus or the mother is too ill to survive a normal delivery.
Follow up to #20:
God gave a 9yo girl in Brazil the gift of twins when she was raped by her step-father. After the abortion, Santorum’s church gave her an excommunication. No word about the Roman Catholic Church’s judgement on the step-father bastard.
I take it that you withdraw your claims regarding the effectiveness of abortion bans in reducing abortion and the effectiveness of contraceptive bans in reducing sex?
Why?
Note that the effectiveness and whether or not I think the ban is good are two separate things.
Are you new here or something?
Why? Because you failed to provide any evidence for those claims when you made them and after you were asked. The only reasonable interpretations of this behavior are a) that you withdraw your claims because you weren’t being serious or b) that you expect me to take your word for it.
b) would be absurd, so we are left with a).
Oh, look! Evidence countering your claim about abortion bans reducing abortion!
Now, can you at least try and defend the claim about contraceptive bans reducing sex?
(Off topic, but totally necessary because of the fucking awesome.)
Nematomorphs are way more awesome than religion. They can survive their host being eaten! Look at one crawl out of a frog’s mouth after it ate the cricket the worm was living inside!
(On topic)
Jeez, that really sucks. I cannot understand why anyone would do that to themselves and their family.
Wait! You’re concerned about the extremely rare issue of a rape related pregnancy, but not the prevalent hideous issue of abortion on demand in America, abortion on a whim?
Well…I think it is obvious who the lunatics are…and it ain’t Fearless Rick and company.
But we all know…killing, especially murder…comes easy to Americans. The rest of the world, not so much. I think its now genetic. I think we can safely say that. Still, not excusable though.
The content of the rest of your post is even more bizarre.
Seems somebody wants to live in a pretend world, a world WITHOUT REAL consequences.
Well, its a mean world out there, with real consequences.
Real joy, and at other times, real suffering.
You can be murdered in your sleep.
Your precious child you spent your whole life raising can end up being abducted and never heard from again. Parents will grieve ’til the end of their lives. Real tears. Real despair. And most will still hope for the return of a child that will never come.
One can get Lou Gehrig’s and then watch as one’s body slowly betrays you—completely, while your mind stays intact, crystal clear.
A moment’s inattention at the wheel can result in a pedestrian’s death, and all the heartfelt sorrowful apologies to the victim’s family won’t count for much. And you can never bring the person back. Or trade places.
And a woman can be brutally raped and become pregnant.
And with each passing day, a stranger’s child grows within her womb. Ahhhhhhh.
So sorry we live in a real world. Again, one with real consequences. Not just one of joy and suffering, but also one of life and death.
And then eternal life and death are added into the existential equation. That’s right! On top of all the horror you’ll witness or experience, your Creator is going to grade your life and then assign you an eternal destiny, one that you actually chose based on your moral and religious actions! A destiny of eternal ecstasy, or eternal unimaginable suffering…over every inch, and throughout every inch of your body.
And that’s what makes life so precious—things, and even people, can be lost.
Or saved.
Temporally first, and then forever.
You can lose the people around you . And you can also lose your soul.
And God doesn’t really care that you don’t approve, or you don’t like the precarious journey before you. Or that you didn’t ask to be born. Or that you think you need more proof of His existence before you act. He just doesn’t care. Your life is being judged, anyway.
The very first command of God, to the very parents of mankind, was to be fruitful and multiply.
Abortion strikes back at the very first commandment of God.
Becoming pregnant after being raped IS unfortunate.
But there is absolute law. And somehow…everybody knows it.
Killing the guilty can be acceptable at times, but directly killing the innocent unborn is always murder, and murder is never justified.
You may get a pass in Obama’s America—because that guy will do anything for votes…but you won’t get a pass in the world to come.
All you have to do to enter that world is die.
And everybody dies. Very much alone.
No, Fearless Rick is right on this issue. Your logic is flawed. Have you talked to any women that suffered this experience to term? Their attitude will surprise you.
But Brett, as a male, we’ll just consult you on this issue. No need to actually talk to any women who have lived through this. Thanks.
Are you saying that people being assaulted shouldn’t fight back, because in the real world people get murdered? Are you saying that parents shouldn’t try to keep their children safe, because in the real world children are abducted? Are you saying that we shouldn’t try to cure ALS, because the real world consequences are dying horribly of it? No?
Then why, when we can avoid the horrible real world consequence of pregnancy after rape, should we not? Oh, because you read in a book? Not that women shouldn’t have abortions, because the book doesn’t mention that, but that people should reproduce. Clearly the only way to have people reproduce is to ban abortion. Fan-freaking-tastic reasoning and empathy.
“Commandment Of God”?!?!
LOL!
When you can provide incontrovertible, objective, scientific EVIDENCE for the existance of this entity, instead of blind assertion, then and only then will I do you the favor of explaining why he can stick any and all such “Commandments” up his archangel, and that such an entity should never be favored with “worship” of any sort.
But first, though…the evidence?
thats a great post.