What I find particularly scary about abortion is that the whole point of an abortion is to commit an act of homicide to dispose of a human being because that human being has been deemed to be an inconvenience. Obviously, we live in a society that is never content with its boundaries and those boundaries are continuously being pushed outward. What if our society eventually goes to the next step and decides that committing homicide to dispose of inconvenient human beings should not be limited to just the unborn?
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
At least we are all on the same page that abortion is a government-given right, as opposed to a God-given right (aka "natural right" to the atheists). But, what the government gives is what the government can take away, so its not really a right...its more of a privilege with conditions. This is made evident by the fact that abortion "rights" only apply to women as one of you already pointed out. A true God-given / natural right applies to all persons.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Kozy, you should have learned your lesson by now... logic doesn't work with the Party of Death.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If I understand this situation, these women never had a choice and this man murdered the babies...if the law in Ohio says you can die for murdering, then if found guilty, do it quickly.
So if the baby is a girl, she has the right to live but if a boy, he doesn't? That argument is long past reasonable. If you really don't like children and choose to not have them then don't do anything to cause them. Once a baby is alive in the mom, it's murder to kill them. The choice is a woman's before...not after.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
A man does not have a government given right to choose, a woman does. A womans body, a womans right.
You all know I believe killing unborn babies is murder. What does Ohio's law say? If, there is no clear precedent, this is the type case that just might do it.
Should he be put to death? If the law says so...yep.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If he claims he, as the father, has the "right" to choose his unborn child's death, then why shouldn't he be taken seriously? Everyday, thousands of mothers claim a "right" to be able to end the lives of their unborn children so why can't the fathers have the same "right"? Do the mothers need the fathers' consent? No, they don't. Why would the fathers need the mothers' consent? Double standard, isn't it?
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
He is a murder. The government-given right to choose has nothing to do with the question.
Ariel Castro was the alleged father of the unborn children, not the mother.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
This has nothing to do with a women's rights.
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Neither kidnapping nor rape are capital offenses in Ohio. What are being debated as capital offense are the deaths Castro caused to his unborn children. I believe he committed acts of murder but I'm sure others will argue he was just exercising his government-given right to choose.
4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |