Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Whether or not pro-lifers see a child as punishment is irrelevant. Whether Barack Obama views an illegitimate baby as a treasure or a punishment is irrelevant. How Sarah Palin's daughter chooses to deal with her pregnancy is irrelevant. When a young woman is faced with an unplanned pregnancy, the only relevant opinion is her own. It's her life, her future, her body and her choice.

Reply
Report this post

Sir;...I believe if you looked you would find that liberals are usually liberal with all rights. There is no abortion right. There is a right to privacy. Do you know why we have a right to privacy??? It is to support property rights, so a person might be free of unreasonable search and seizure in person and effects. Now, we know that no person as a person is free from search or seizure. But privacy with a reasonable expectation of privacy in ones business, or in ones doctor's office is essential to any sort of freedom, democracy, or social justice. Now, I personally accept that abortion is a sin. So what??? If people are not free to sin when they are the only likely vicitms of that sin then they have no freedom to consent to the laws by which they are governed. Does life begin at birth, or at conception? Neither... The lives we hand off to our children, if we are fortunate enough to have them, are our own, with our genes. Certainly, government might make an argument of interest, but if so that interest should be a constant, and help the mother before trying to help the child. There is no effort to help the mother, but only a reliance on law to support a failed morality when, if people wanted to, they could make the moral argument and back it up with cold hard cash, as they are free to do in a free society.  Now, this argument of interest might also be made against privacy in general as well. For example, if you want your privacy, the government could demand that you act for a public and not just a private benefit. Since the United States is our union the government would be right to demand that there be no union that does not support THE Union. The same with corporations like your church. If they have no public purpose that they are willing to defend as just, and as contributing to freedom, why are they permitted??? It is assumed, rather than proved that all these extra governmental organizations going about making their own international agreements and treaties by which we will be broke are acting in our interest. They seldom do act in our interest, and so,  privacy should be denied to them. Yet, privacy cannot be denied to individuals without injury to all the people.. I hope you take this in the spirit intended. I have heard you are a good man. We must be good and trust in doing good without the expectation that all people will be good or even agree with us. We may be obliged to offer the word of God and a good example... No one is required to save the world, and if this is so, to curtail freedom is rather against that end, for people accept God out of freedom and not out of slavery. Slavery is immoral and it breeds immorality... The republicans once said of the South that Good roads mean good morals. If you want good roads and many children; Set People Free.... Because that is morality... Then give them God!