|
|
sheep (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sheep) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} unfunnybusiness,@ 2008-10-28 11:05:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Abortion = Rape and the holocaust
I found this via Stupid_Free and TQC (with the help of google).
I'm not Voting for a Man, I'm Voting for Generations of Children and their Right to Live
A lot of it is the usual religious blathering and lets look at pics of babies in the womb.
However, a few paragraphs stand out.
But suppose you have two candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor.) You disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people. Furthermore, the second candidate—whom you consider boring and disagreeable—believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now, which candidate should you vote for?
...
Don't you believe that though there were other issues in Nazi Germany besides the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, that all those other issues were trumped by that one? If Lincoln's platform involved ending slavery yet you agreed with Douglas (who wanted slavery to remain legal) in lots of other areas, would you feel right voting for Douglas, knowing you were voting for slavery?
...
The right of unborn children to live is on the table. The killing of the unborn is the holocaust of our day. Where do you want to have stood on this issue? Where do you want the man you vote for to have stood on it? If your grandchildren ask you one day whether you voted for or against the right of children to live, what will you say?
...
Believing what I do that the unborn are human beings in the fullest sense, to be pro-legalized-abortion is exactly equivalent to being pro-legalized-killing-of-three-year-olds.
...
What would you think if a politician said "I'm not pro-rape, I'm simply prochoice about rape. And though I would not choose to rape a woman, I believe that every man should be free to rape a woman if that is his personal choice." And what would you do if that politician promised the rape lobby that if he is elected president, the "first thing I would do" is to sign legislation that would invalidate all the state laws that restrict rape in any way?
Well, I think I would say that man is pro-rape, wouldn't you? But technically, no, he is simply prochoice about rape. Well, okay. Be prochoice about whether someone should eat Mexican food or Chinese food, or cheer for the Phillies or the Rays. But don't be prochoice about whether men rape women or kill children. Because that is to be pro-rape and pro-killing.
Now, no doubt Obama supporters will think this is an outrageous analogy. And those who don't believe unborn children are really human beings would understandably feel that way. (Though, both scientifically and biblically, they are absolutely wrong.) But what about all the people who keep insisting they are prolife, that they really DO believe the unborn children are precious human beings created in God's image? If that's what you really believe, then you must accept the analogy as valid. (On what basis is it invalid unless it's because the unborn aren't really human and therefore don't have human rights?)
Is rape, despicable as it is, really worse than overpowering and tearing apart an innocent child in his mother's womb? If you are REALLY prolife, not just if you say the words "I am prolife, but there are many other issues," but I mean if you REALLY believe these are children, then the analogy to rape, kidnapping, or killing teenagers or women or Jews or African Americans is perfectly legitimate. How could it not be? Don't skim over this—seriously, I want to hear your answer.
I only skim read the post, so there may be many other 'analogies'.
I've never heard of this person before, so I'm kind of hoping they are a troll or this is some how supposed to be satire... some one please tell me it is.
Ugh, I didn't even try to read the comments. I hope he is being torn to shreds.
Link to TQC - http://community.livejournal.com/theque
Link to Stupid_Free - http://community.livejournal.com/stupid
I found this via Stupid_Free and TQC (with the help of google).
I'm not Voting for a Man, I'm Voting for Generations of Children and their Right to Live
A lot of it is the usual religious blathering and lets look at pics of babies in the womb.
However, a few paragraphs stand out.
But suppose you have two candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor.) You disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people. Furthermore, the second candidate—whom you consider boring and disagreeable—believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now, which candidate should you vote for?
...
Don't you believe that though there were other issues in Nazi Germany besides the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, that all those other issues were trumped by that one? If Lincoln's platform involved ending slavery yet you agreed with Douglas (who wanted slavery to remain legal) in lots of other areas, would you feel right voting for Douglas, knowing you were voting for slavery?
...
The right of unborn children to live is on the table. The killing of the unborn is the holocaust of our day. Where do you want to have stood on this issue? Where do you want the man you vote for to have stood on it? If your grandchildren ask you one day whether you voted for or against the right of children to live, what will you say?
...
Believing what I do that the unborn are human beings in the fullest sense, to be pro-legalized-abortion is exactly equivalent to being pro-legalized-killing-of-three-year-olds.
...
What would you think if a politician said "I'm not pro-rape, I'm simply prochoice about rape. And though I would not choose to rape a woman, I believe that every man should be free to rape a woman if that is his personal choice." And what would you do if that politician promised the rape lobby that if he is elected president, the "first thing I would do" is to sign legislation that would invalidate all the state laws that restrict rape in any way?
Well, I think I would say that man is pro-rape, wouldn't you? But technically, no, he is simply prochoice about rape. Well, okay. Be prochoice about whether someone should eat Mexican food or Chinese food, or cheer for the Phillies or the Rays. But don't be prochoice about whether men rape women or kill children. Because that is to be pro-rape and pro-killing.
Now, no doubt Obama supporters will think this is an outrageous analogy. And those who don't believe unborn children are really human beings would understandably feel that way. (Though, both scientifically and biblically, they are absolutely wrong.) But what about all the people who keep insisting they are prolife, that they really DO believe the unborn children are precious human beings created in God's image? If that's what you really believe, then you must accept the analogy as valid. (On what basis is it invalid unless it's because the unborn aren't really human and therefore don't have human rights?)
Is rape, despicable as it is, really worse than overpowering and tearing apart an innocent child in his mother's womb? If you are REALLY prolife, not just if you say the words "I am prolife, but there are many other issues," but I mean if you REALLY believe these are children, then the analogy to rape, kidnapping, or killing teenagers or women or Jews or African Americans is perfectly legitimate. How could it not be? Don't skim over this—seriously, I want to hear your answer.
I only skim read the post, so there may be many other 'analogies'.
I've never heard of this person before, so I'm kind of hoping they are a troll or this is some how supposed to be satire... some one please tell me it is.
Ugh, I didn't even try to read the comments. I hope he is being torn to shreds.
Link to TQC - http://community.livejournal.com/theque
Link to Stupid_Free - http://community.livejournal.com/stupid
Post a comment in response:
