Democrats have screwed up priorities
Find a Conversation
Democrats have screwed up priorities
| Mon, 11-10-2008 - 11:30pm |
i dont get it.
I was reading today about Obama's short term agenda and three things that came up were
1) stop plans to drill for oil in environmentally fragile areas
2) stop the ban on funding of abortion aid in other countries
3) stop ban on stem cell creation and subsequent destroying for research purposes.
WHAT??????
why is the environment and/or animals more important that unborn babies?
many times the liberal agenda is more for the rights of everything EXCEPT unborn kid, eg: baby animals, people on death row, gay rights, etc.
I am not against the rights of those i just listed, i would just include unborn children too, right?? it seems like strange priorities, or hypocritical.

Pages
~ And when the life of the mother is involved....again, you're chosing to do what's best for you and not the unborn life but that choice tends to be more understandable.~
An aside, sometimes (such as in my case) once I was dead so would be the unborn life.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Yep, never said you didn't!
I'm sorry for your friend's experience. But really, no matter how you describe it she chose to terminate for her own convenience. Some people value all human life, no matter how imperfect.
I can understand their viewpoint.
I am still pro-choice.
You think because she chose to abort, she didn't value that life???
But really, no matter how you describe it she chose to terminate for her own convenience.
Again, that is your opinion. I would look at her friend's situation and think that she was terminating out of mercy and love for her child. Can you imagine how painful a death that infant would have? I wouldn't want to bring my child into this world only to die a horribly painful death. So if you want to say that was done for the woman's convenience, that's fine. But I disagree, so it is only your opinion.
I wonder how it was crystal clear to some of us exactly what she meant?
I say again, class in its broader context has nothing to do with income level.
How anyone could imagine she meant that most poor people are drug dealers is--well kind of silly.
In reality though research tends to show that most drug dealers and not only low class (by virtue of their character) but also from a socio-economic standpoint.
Maybe she was going by the research reported in Freakonomics which in summary says this about the typical drug dealer:
>>In Chapter 3, Levitt offers an in-depth discussion of the economic workings of a Chicago drug gang, shattering the common misconception that all drug dealers are wealthy. His analysis of the financial records of a Chicago gang proved that most street-level dealers earned far less than minimum wage. He turns to the socioeconomic context of most gangs for an explanation of the incentives that compel young men to become drug dealers.<<
You're right. I have a hard time wrapping my arms around that one. Most people don't kill a life they value. From what you described it didn't sound like the reason for taking the life was to prevent the suffering of the innocent but for the convenience of the mother. The mother who didn't value the life even enough to want to hold it.
So no, if the baby was destined not to survive anyway why the rush to intervene and get rid of it sooner? That I will never relate to except for the convenience of the mother. I don't understand why that's so hard to admit.
There was no reason to believe any pain would be involved--certainly not any more painful than being sucked out by a vacuum machine or scraped out prematurely would be. By all accounts the baby would more likely have aborted naturally and very likely painlessly.
All these ultrasounds cause lots of extra abortions.
Did you know that 90% of those who find out they're carrying a downs syndrome baby choose to abort them? Eugenics by prenatal testing....how far we've come!
Pages