The only problem with adoption is that the state looks to make a profit off of it, by charging so much darn money to adopt. (the other side of that, it ensures the family is dedicated to caring for them)

if pro-choice is libertarian, then so is pro-murder-at-will.

Do a little research, and you’ll find tons of instances where a “doctor” told a lady that it “might possibly, slightly cause her… hmm… some discomfort” to have a baby, so she should feel free to late term abort the 8 month old living, breathing, feeding human being. This way the doctor gets paid, and coulden’t care less about the slaughtered offspring. Of course those doctors are going to hell twice, in my opinion.

Here’s the main FACT. Birthing has been risky since the fall of man. That means all of history.

So for you to support the conscious murder of a woman’s offspring…. is completely messed up, and immoral.

And you’re all about nature right? Show me where else in nature a mother would slaughter herself to save her own ass? NOWHERE! Animals gladly sacrifice themselves to preserve their youngin. A doe with a fawn, will lower her head and charge at an oncoming vehicle, if it spooks her just right and she thinks yer fawn is in danger. Of course this breaks her neck and kills her.

For a mother to slaughter her child is the most unnatural, disgusting act of human selfishness I can think of.

Try and rationalize it all you like. In the end, it is complete human degredation and perversion.

and for you think that a beautiful baby child would be a “living reminder of how she was sexually violated” is a thought of complete ignorance. I can safely say this because my cousin happens to be a rape baby. Thats right. Not exactly “awesome information” that folks like to put out there. But she loves him dearly. When he was in highschool he was in a motorcycle accident, became permantly brain damaged, and on top of everything, she has cared for him like he was an infant for over 30 years.

Don’t even try and tell me that isn’t “natural” or that it “scars” her for having her son.

Your opinions are ignorant ones. rant over.

Also, as Van Zant says, pregnancy is rarely without health consequences for the mother. Despite what modern medicine might have you believe, no pregnancy is without serious risk. A mother might well die or become permanently impaired giving birth to the child of her rapist.

Thirdly, in cases were probably fatal medical complications are forseen by a woman’s doctors I think it should be the choice of the woman whether she wants to take that risk.

In fact, pro-choice is an almost liberatarian policy, giving the freedom of discretion to the individual. That some mothers might abuse the right to abort (Side note: I think Roe vs. Wade was a bad judicial decision as it had little or no basis in the Constitution. The “right to abort” was written into the constitution, but that’s another matter.) is no argument against it because all of our other freedoms (e.g. of speech) are abused by some people.

Basically abortion is a very case by case thing, and therefore difficult to legislate. Sometimes I sympathize with the mother and think she should be allowed to have an abortion and sometimes i dont. It should only be a last resort.

A second and final case I can see where abortion might be “justified” would be if the mothers health was in danger.

that’s all for now.

In a related senerio, I don’t support National Right To Life because they allow for too many exceptions in the legislation they try to pass and support. They truly make me sick with their lack of a backbone. I’m not one to compromise with the evil pro-abortion, baby butcherin’ lobby.

I know that the gun law and abortion law differ but the same principles apply. A wise man once said, “Stand up for something, or you will fall for anything.” To truly stand firm in your principles one must resist the temptation to compromise. Even if it ’seems’ to bring instant success. In the long hual you could lose out big.

JJ, out.

I have a dream… that one day NRA members and GOA members can hold hands and shoot inanimate objects in complete, unadulterated, harmony.

Here’s is the responde I received from the NRA

Mr. Coleman,

Thank you for taking the time to write to us and express your concerns. I hope I can ease your mind and dispel a few myths.

First, the NRA is without a doubt, not only leading the fight, but doing 90% of the heavy lifting. I personally was assigned the Katrina case the moment we learned of confiscations through news footage. I was personally responsible the investigation, coordination and research of this case. The case has been almost entirely paid for by the NRA with minor financial contributions from SAF.

Second, GOA has nothing at all to do with this case. By nothing at all, I mean just that, nothing to do with the Katrina case whatsoever. They have contributed no financial assistance, no legal work, no investigatory work, have supplied no plaintiffs and have brought forth no useful information whatsoever. If GOA is in fact claiming that they are involved at all, let alone leading the fight, then this is little more than a repeat of their shameless attempts to increase their donations by claiming the work of others as their own. They are not our “brothers in arms” in this case, as they have yet to lift a single finger in assistance with this case. The mere fact that there is no mention of the GOA whatsoever in the Federal court filings, not as a plaintiff nor as a friend of the court, should speak volumes. This is why we are not mentioning them in our press releases. There is nothing to mention.

We understand your confusion as this has been a source of frustration for us for some time. Generally speaking there are far too many who will simply listen to the mainstream media or notice sent out by an organization and think they know the whole story, when what they heard could barely be considered the truth. I applaud you for raising your concern and seeking out more information.

Good luck to you,
Rob Harris

So I decided to read a bit further into the GOA’s material, and I saw this.

So What Is GOA Doing About All This?

…Many people have suggested that GOA go to the courts to get an injunction against the offending officials, but GOA does not have standing to bring suit in these instances.

…we support court action; we will file a brief, but lack standing to file suit in the organization’s name

source

I should have never doubted my club.