Why I respond
I have arrived folks!!! I just got my first negative feedback!! Yeah!! Anywho I thought I would take this moment and respond to it. I "attack" the woman in the previous post (ie: Rebecca Kiessling) because she isnt telling "her" story but her mothers and twisting it to make herself into the victim. I don't believe for one. minute that she sees her mother as a victim of something horrible. Yes, I have a tendency to post before proofreading. I am working on that. My thoughts tend to fly and I just post because I want to get my message out as quickly as possible because I think I have something important to say. I am new to this gig so give it time. The problem is this woman DOESN'T work towards ending rape. She exploits rape victims to feel better about her own bruised ego. She sees her mother as a means to an end. I am visceral for good reason. What she is doing is deplorable on every level. And not everyone sees abortion as the equivalent to murder. BTW, to JOHN the commentator on my THIS HAD TO BE DONE post:I DO own a bible thank you very much. Why does it have to be a new print? And are you suggesting that because I have an opposing opinion to Ms Kiessling that I can't or am not a follower of JESUS? It just goes to show once again that the majority of people in the anti choice camp are motivated by religious dogma and not rational secular arguments.
Well, here are a few thoughts: I am still baffled by your take on Rebecca, and fine with agreeing to disagree. If you are comfortable assigning motives to people then publishing them as fact, go right ahead. Not much credibility there, but that isn't new for the pro-death movement. (which is a fair awy to refer to a movement which refers to it's opposition as anti-choice) With regard to those who do not see abortion as murder, again, fine. If that is the case you need to return to biology class and learn a few things about life and when it begins, but I won't hold my breath as doing so would destroy your cause. I apply these standards: Is what you are removing from the uterus of a woman during an abortion human? Well, it does have human DNA, and only humans create human DNA, so it is clearly human. Is it alive? Again, yes. It is growing, has a beating heart, and responds to stimulus independantly, so it is indeed alive. So what we are dealing with is a human which is alive. Does it meet those same standards after the abortion? It clearly still has human DNA, so yes to that one, but to the second qualification, sadly, the answer is no. It no longer has a beating heart, nor is it growing, nor does it respond to stimulus. Based on those qualifications I can state unequivocally that in the process of an abortion a human life is intentionally ended.(see murder) I'd enjoy reading your attempt to disprove any of what I just wrote. As to your bible, the reference was to the fact that you clearly have not yet unwrapped and read it. God speaks regularly and clearly to the respect of innocent human life. Abortion is the antithesis to that notion. Nowhere in the bible does it offer a scintilla of evidence that it is in any way okay to end the life of a child in the womb. It is murder, and in violation of God's commands. I am confused by your last comment when paired with an earlier comment in the same post. In the same paragraph you claim to be visceral and rational. Which is it? I would side with visceral, as rationality doesn't seen to have crept into your being. It seems that as a 'follower of Jesus' you would concern and acquaint yourself more with the religious dogma you seem to ignore, and embrace the very rational notion of protecting innocent human life.
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent from this response that your motive is religious in nature. That doesn't surprise me. You don't get to dictate religious dogma to other people. AS for your insinuation that science is on your side, you should check out just how little of the scientific community supports your side on this.
Delete