English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1) No one could have ever afforded to support all African-Americans. Does that mean we should not have fought for their rights?

2) No one could have ever afforded to support all Jews. Does that mean we should not have defended them?

3) No one could ever afford to support all beaten women and children . Does that mean we should not interfere?

4) No one could ever afford to support all unborn children. Does that mean we should turn our backs?

2006-08-07 07:24:59 · 16 answers · asked by man_id_unknown 4 in Pregnancy & Parenting Other - Pregnancy & Parenting

16 answers

Your point is well made. A lot of what drives the abortion industry (besides the money) is just plain selfishness. It's easier for us to pressure a woman into getting rid of the baby because deep down we fear that the baby might become "society's problem."

So we pretend to be compassionate and caring by telling her to abort it. We say it's her right. We say it's her body. But it's all just rhetoric to hide the fact that society doesn't want to deal with "unwanted" children. It's the same reason we push condoms and birth control on teens. It takes more time, patience and heart to teach teens to be responsible and to encourage abstinence.

But no one wants to take time to help his fellow man or to better society. So we offer easy answers and cheap outs.

In the case of blacks and Jews, they had an advantage on unborn children in that they could speak for themselves and rise up as a group. And their courage sparked action in others and this in turn shone a spotlight on their plight.

For babies in the womb, it's up to other people (strangers, basically) to care about them and speak for them.

I'm glad you have the courage to do this and I hope more Americans will one day, too, so that our society will be truly humane.

2006-08-07 08:21:33 · answer #1 · answered by Veritas 7 · 1 0

I agree with what you are saying: if we do not individually get involved when people are hurt, neglected or mistreated, we will not like the world we live in. I think the US in some ways has shown leadership in its support for those who are oppressed - as a female who is deaf and has worked in Domestic VIolence and other fields, it sometimes seems like nothing will ever be enough to solve the problems we still have. It saddens me to see that too often; whether on an individual, group or national basis, the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

In terms of the current international battles, I do not know if there is any good answer. The US is trying to mediate, but some of our allies are polarized to various sides, and depending on how far back one goes, the violence and death is blamed on each respective party. Sometimes I think the issue is that it is hard or impossible for a person, a group or a country to involve themselves when the disputing parties are not willing to consider mediation or a drastic change in tactics. Then we have to think about damage that can happen to ourselves, our families, our groups and our country when we jump into or allow ourselves to be pulled into disputes that cannot easily be resolved. The words "collateral" and "collateral damage" are used to describe the deaths and injuries caused to human beings who either just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or who attempted to intercede. It is a hard call.

2006-08-07 14:53:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

unborn children? i was under the impression that they were masses of unwanted flesh, like a cancerous tumor that will destroy the rest of your life if you are not ready for it. The world is overpopulated, the last thing it needs is more poorly raised or underloved people. Find a better fight.

2006-08-07 14:34:21 · answer #3 · answered by Jonny Propaganda 4 · 0 0

Wow, very interesting, I will take all the steps nessesary to bring my future children into a safe, loving environment. I think you know the answers to all the questions.

2006-08-07 14:32:04 · answer #4 · answered by Austin S 2 · 0 0

This is a series of questions with answers that will be debated until the end of time.

2006-08-07 14:30:51 · answer #5 · answered by Chris 4 · 0 0

the difference is that a woman should actually have a say in what happens to her own body, and no man gets to make that decision for her.

2006-08-07 14:29:47 · answer #6 · answered by kittens 5 · 0 0

Let those who want to fight for those things fight the fight. Those who think its a waste of time, should just step aside and let them do it. Good things don't come easy.

2006-08-07 14:29:33 · answer #7 · answered by aplusjimages 4 · 0 0

1)No
2)No
3)No
4)No
Just because people can't afford something, doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Even if you are only saving one soul, and not every soul, from lifelong pain, it is worth it.

2006-08-07 14:30:16 · answer #8 · answered by Ell 5 · 0 0

With respect to your poetry, your logic is completely twisted by your rhetoric.

2006-08-07 14:32:50 · answer #9 · answered by kwanyin_mama 3 · 0 0

Excellent point, GW.......Gives all of those anti-war crazies some food for thought, doesn't it? It's just not fair that you are so smart and some of us are so, so dumb.

2006-08-07 14:49:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers