APPLAUSE!
I agree totally. I'm not a conservative, but I strongly believe that abortion of any kind other than life or death situations is wrong. We punish girls who abandon unwanted babies on doorsteps, but we PAY doctors to rip a child apart to get it out of the mother just because she either didn't use protection or the protection didn't work. Hasn't anyone ever heard of adoption? Accountability? Equality? I'm a woman, btw, and I NEVER even considered killing any of my unborn kids just because I didn't intend to get pregnant. I played and it was my responsibility to pay the price. I'm GLAD I did because my kids are the greatest gift I could have ever gotten. Yes, I'm raising them by myself, but hey, you have to take the good with the bad and accept responsibility for your actions. I chose to raise them myself, but even if I didn't think I could, adoption would have been my next choice. NEVER abortion. It's an abomination of humanity.
My opinion, but one that I will never be swayed from. Give me a thumbs down if you want, those of you who are Pro-choice. I don't care, because I believe with my soul I'm right. Killing is wrong and killing a being that hasn't even got a chance to speak for itself is the worst kind of crime.
2007-11-01 23:57:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Top Alpha Wolf 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Your passion is great.
Your wordsmithing is terrible.
You start lyric & end prose.
The big danger in Lyric poetry is straining to catch the rhyme.
Which this suffers from.
But lyric or prose a poem, particularly one this passionate, must have a heart beat. A hypnotic pounding drive that pulls the reader from start to finish. Picture a particularly naughty child being spanked by a parent as their sins are listed in ascending order. There's a rhythm.
It's bad enough you did this - smack
It's bad enough you did that - smack
But you really - smack
Outdid yourself - smack
With that last stunt - smack smack smack
This poem is an accusation. The last stanza is supposed to be a smack in the face. The big sin is not that the child didn't get to say "Don't kill me." The SIN is that some reprehensible bastard thinks the lack of a PLEA means the lack of a CRIME.
This is a slightly different mood than your poem, but consider the rhythm and accusation:
We mustn't delay that terminal day,
When we take the life of a child.
For it is what it seems,
When we all hear the screams.
(There's just no end of grief at the trial.)
But we're blameless and free if there isn't a plea,
As we cut through their flesh with a knife.
They say it's not murder
So long as you kill,
Before they can beg for their life.
11/02/07
2007-11-02 01:17:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Phoenix Quill 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Everyone has the right to their own opinion. Mine is, unless you are willing to take the unwanted children all over the world, or help fund a super big *** orphanage. You should live and let die. Habeas Corpus, it's not your body that this is happening in to and the life being taken is no burden on your back. If you don't believe in abortions, don't have one and end of story. I wouldn't have an unborn child aborted, but if my neighbor wanted to, I would not mind one bit.
2014-02-20 08:42:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by George 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that we ought not to solve the abortion question by declaring a person to be a nonperson. Bad, bad idea.
Obviously an unborn child is alive. The child should have someone who pleads his or her case. It's called a hearing and is part of due process. Maybe the law allows the mother to kill the child as sort of a self defense argument, but still there ought to be due process.
2007-11-02 00:22:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Matthew T 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
~As a poem, it sucks. As a philosophy, it's even worse. As an exercise in logic and reason, it is so full of internal contradiction and inconsistency as to be rendered meaningless, or worse. As anti-abortion propaganda, it does more harm than good as the mode of expression as well as the thoughts expressed are presented with such an infantile lack of style and grace as to invoke in the reader the premise that the writer is actually a freedom of choice advocate posting a caricature of a stereotypical right to lifer.
Then there is the issue of "rights". Rights are conferred by government and law. As a simple matter of law and fact, the unborn does not exist as a person and thus has no rights. Starting from a false premise to the contrary robs the poem of what little merit it may have been able to otherwise muster.
2007-11-02 00:00:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
I would much rather defend a woman's right to choose whether to keep an unborn child or not. Only she can fully judge her current situation and prospects for the future child. There are enough unwanted kids out there already.
Sorry your fire and teeth-gnashing poem (?) didn't work on me! :-)
2007-11-01 23:45:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bart S 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
I never see pro-lifers out there willing to adopt all the unwanted children, do you? People say, "Oh, there's not enough babies to go around to the people who want to adopt!" Correction: There's not enough white, healthy babies to go around. Look at all the babies of minorities, babies with birth defects, etc, who nobody wants.
Until you guys start agreeing to adopt these babies or give foster homes to teenagers too young to be out on their own, then I suggest getting off your high-horse.
PRO-CHOICE!
2007-11-02 01:35:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by willow oak 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
if we are so forceful about the right of unborn child, why are we not bothered about the lives of other living beings which we mercilessly eat sometimes even live!
2007-11-01 23:58:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by sristi 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yeah. It's nice to allow a child to live and to suffer for good or for worse. Quick question...
How do you even know that the unborn child wanted to live?
2007-11-01 23:49:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Pmel 2
·
2⤊
3⤋
Harsh.
2007-11-01 23:54:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋