The anniversarty of Roe v Wade

[Marty]

Saturday, January 22 was the anniversary of Roe v Wade. President Reagan had some words about the government approval of killing babies. Now someone has put those words in a video on YouTube.

Please pass it around See Ronald Reagan talk about abortion here.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/must-w ... ald-reagan

[Vince E]

Saturday, January 22 was the anniversary of Roe v Wade. President Reagan had some words about the government approval of killing babies. Now someone has put those words in a video on YouTube.

Please pass it around See Ronald Reagan talk about abortion here.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/must-w ... ald-reagan

I won't read it Marty. I don't have to. Any righteousness "or lack thereof" contained is our modern "democracy" is all begging one fierce question...Who said this is OK?????
What else might they have been questioning with the same level of personal legitimacy tied to it's basic premises?
What gets the bump of of real enterprise offered up when he the continual efforts of con men go unobserved and unpunished?

You want to use a victory of the individual against the collective as a starting point for what?
There isn't anything there......?

[Marty]

There isn't anything there......?

Just 1.2 million babies a year! A very costly birth control!

[Vince E]

There isn't anything there......?

Just 1.2 million babies a year! A very costly birth control!

And if every one of those babies was born as and remained throughout their lives a claim to welfare to be extracted from the productive at the point of govt guns (and in turn raised their own children to do the same) would you still agree that forcing their birth was the moral choice of "society"?
If at some time of measurement it could be determined that THAT is indeed what became of any law prohibiting abortion would you still agree with it? That saddling the lot of working man with that many more looters was somehow moral?
That using those same govt guns to take the choice of a woman who knew she hadn't the means to raise a child and knew that it would be exposed to the worst elements that exist to forge the worst type of personality would still be moral?

I don't endorse abortion as birth control any more than you do.

Do you have any proof that the larger portion of abortion is just irresponsible birth control as an afterthought?
Do you have any proof that allowing govt to make personal decisions for individuals leads to an ever increasing scope of govt in the lives of those individuals over time?
Which is more immoral?

[Marty]

There isn't anything there......?

Just 1.2 million babies a year! A very costly birth control!

And if every one of those babies was born as and remained throughout their lives a claim to welfare to be extracted from the productive at the point of govt guns (and in turn raised their own children to do the same) would you still agree that forcing their birth was the moral choice of "society"?
If at some time of measurement it could be determined that THAT is indeed what became of any law prohibiting abortion would you still agree with it? That saddling the lot of working man with that many more looters was somehow moral?
That using those same govt guns to take the choice of a woman who knew she hadn't the means to raise a child and knew that it would be exposed to the worst elements that exist to forge the worst type of personality would still be moral?

I don't endorse abortion as birth control any more than you do.

Do you have any proof that the larger portion of abortion is just irresponsible birth control as an afterthought?
Do you have any proof that allowing govt to make personal decisions for individuals leads to an ever increasing scope of govt in the lives of those individuals over time?
Which is more immoral?

“Our Founders embraced Judeo-Christian beliefs, this is not a plea for you to practice or convert to any specific faith. I really couldn’t care less if you are a Jew, a Mormon, a Roman Catholic, Christian, or a Wiccan – the point is to believe in and honor the God of your choosing, because it is our Creator who gave us our rights. (Okay, maybe I do care a little bit if you’re a Wiccan). As soon as God is taken out of the equation (which Liberals love to do), then nothing is left but man. And if our rights come from man, they can be taken away by man.”

Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote, “Without commandments, obliging us to live after a certain fashion, our existence is that of the ‘unemployed’… By dint of feeling itself free, exempt from restrictions, it feels itself empty. Before long there will be heard throughout the planet a formidable cry, rising like the howling of innumerable dogs to the stars, asking for someone or something to take command, to impose an occupation, a duty.”

That’s a pretty good description of exactly what “Progressives Liberals” are going for? If nature abhors a vacuum, so if spirituality does not fill a person, then things like envy, greed, a sense of entitlement, and no sorrel for the killing of unborn babies. Just look how you describe the unwanted, as welfare recipients, looters, and the poor. You have a vacuum!

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” “The notion that another human being’s right to life is contingent upon another human being’s deeming him or her wanted, harkens back to Hitler’s Germany where Jews, Gypsies, and Catholics were considered inferior to the Aryan “Master Race” and the “unwanted” were sent to the gas chambers.”

If you want proof google “Dr. Philip Ney”, “Dr. Edward Lenoske”. “Time Magazine reported in 1990 there were at least 6 million unwanted pregnancies in the United States each year. However, that year there were only 4 million births, about 1.6 million abortions and 400,000 miscarriages.” To me that is birth control.

Just think you are a Survivor and all those killed could have been Libertarians.

[Vince E]

Just think you are a Survivor and all those killed could have been Libertarians.

That would be a loss indeed. They could have all been cutting edge producers in society too. Or mass murderers. No one will ever know .(That BTW is opportunity cost- the things that might have been but will never really be known as a result of choosing one path out of the many presented)


I would wounder out of 1.6 million how many were rape victims. While I would agree with calling any other reason birth control (extreme deformation being questionable) I would argue that terminating a rapists child is not. It is arguably preventing a known sociopath from breeding by using the choice of his victim as the justification for it.


Creator (the only definition provided by the official documents of this nations founding) can be a great many things and it is to a great many viewpoints. Just because you believe only yours is correct doesn't give you the right to enforce the conclusions drawn from it's viewpoints on those you consider to be wrong.

If it did it would grant the same right to those you consider wrong. How would that dilemma be resolved?

[Greg_Cornish]

I guess god will take care of it if he thinks it's murder. The supreme court and more than half the people don't think it is. 'nuff said.

[mark poulson]

I guess god will take care of it if he thinks it's murder. The supreme court and more than half the people don't think it is. 'nuff said.

Exactly.

[Marty]

I guess god will take care of it if he thinks it's murder. The supreme court and more than half the people don't think it is. 'nuff said.

I guess god will take care of it if he thinks it's murder. The supreme court and more than half the people don't think it is. 'nuff said.

Exactly.

I guess if the majority of the people and the Supreme Court think it is ok just like the majority of people and the Supreme Court thought it was ok for slavery. We could have left it as is and let God take care of it!

But no we as human did not think it was ok for slavery and did something about it as we will do something with Government approval of killing babies.

“In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision by a 7 – 2 vote, that black people were not “legal persons” and were the property of the slave owners who were granted basic constitutional “rights” to own those slaves. Abolitionists were told if they disagreed with slavery, they didn’t have to “own a slave” and were told not to “impose their morality on slave owners.”

“Similarly, in 1973, by a 7 – 2 decision, US Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that unborn humans were not “legal persons” and that they were, in essence, property of the owner (the mother) who had the constitutional right to kill her unborn baby. Pro-Lifers who opposed abortion were told, like the early abolitionists, that if they opposed abortion, they shouldn’t have one and shouldn’t impose their morality on those who choose to.”

“Since it is a proven scientific fact the life begins at conception, the question is really whether a mother’s so-called right to “privacy” transcends the baby’s right to life. Neither the “Declaration of Independence” nor “Constitution” ever mentions the “right to privacy”, which has served as the foundation for the “right” to abortion” emanating from the Roe decision.”

[Marty]

They could have all been cutting edge producers in society too. Or mass murderers. No one will ever know .(That BTW is opportunity cost- the things that might have been but will never really be known as a result of choosing one path out of the many presented)

We are not talking about diapers, we are talking about human life! The true Opportunity Cost was when the woman had the chance not to have intercourse, use a contraceptive, or use the morning after pill.

I would wounder out of 1.6 million how many were rape victims. While I would agree with calling any other reason birth control (extreme deformation being questionable) I would argue that terminating a rapists child is not. It is arguably preventing a known sociopath from breeding by using the choice of his victim as the justification for it.

“Less than one percent of all abortions are due to rape or incest. In fact, less than half of rape pregnancies are aborted, In one study of thirty-seven rape pregnancies, twenty-eight carried them to term.”
(reference: David Mall & Walter F. Watts, eds., The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (Washington, DC: University Publications of America, 1979), p 58.)

“Instead of encouraging her to kill her child, we should provide love, compassion and concern for both the mother and her baby – whether the mother chooses to raise the child herself or give up the baby for adoption. Rape is violent, but when the pregnant woman decides to abort and kill her unborn child, she is taking part in a second act of violence.” Two wrongs do not make a right!

Creator (the only definition provided by the official documents of this nations founding) can be a great many things and it is to a great many viewpoints. Just because you believe only yours is correct doesn't give you the right to enforce the conclusions drawn from it's viewpoints on those you consider to be wrong.

You are correct and that is the reason our Founders (which embraced Judeo-Christian beliefs) use the word Creator because they knew others would be of different faiths.

Changing peoples point of views is not enforcing them even if my believes are correct.

Is it not the same as what Progressives Liberals Pro-choice has done by “making it a pre-requisite for any Democrat seeking public office. It has become a sacrament of the Democrat Party that presidential aspirants such a Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry all renounced their former “Pro-Life” stances to gain the support of major contributors of pro-abortion organizations?”

Is it like enforcing your point of view of no Government?

[Vince E]

You're right, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Enforcing choices on a persons body is never a right, however unfortunate (or possibly fortunate, you never know) the outcome might be.

If you allow the enforcement of ANY law on the bodies of people it is only a matter of time before you find you have allowed EVERY law that might control individuals through the negation of every property right natural law gives them. It's like being a little bit pregnant. Once you enter the realm of self contradictory law you can go nowhere but to it's logical conclusion...totalitarianism followed by violent revolution. We are in that cycle right now.


I would be the first (if there hadn't already been many before me) to say the idea of trying to force a society of non-govt is the essence of contradiction. Ludicrously so.