(March 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: There are some horribly inhuman politicians living in Nebraska.

I do wonder why the Deaver's didn't simply leave the state to have the appropriate medical procedure done. They shouldn't have had to, but that would have been the appropriate response to this lunacy. Hopefully they are preparing to setup a legal attack on this abomination of a law.

Wouldn't they be arrested for that?

(March 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: A mother has the right to choose precisely becuase the baby is part of her.

The baby is it's own person, it is part of no one.

Difficult question. And I don't see why it has to be religious. Would it really be better to kill the baby rather than let it die naturally? Are the parents gaining in that scenario? Why should it be lawful to kill an unborn child? I can see there might be reason if any suffering of the child could be known, but it wasn't. The mother would have had to give birth to the baby dead. Isn't there something to holding it and loving it even ever so briefly?

(March 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: A mother has the right to choose precisely becuase the baby is part of her.

The baby is it's own person, it is part of no one.

Difficult question. And I don't see why it has to be religious. Would it really be better to kill the baby rather than let it die naturally? Are the parents gaining in that scenario? Why should it be lawful to kill an unborn child? I can see there might be reason if any suffering of the child could be known, but it wasn't. The mother would have had to give birth to the baby dead. Isn't there something to holding it and loving it even ever so briefly?

If the baby is its own person, and part of no one..then by all means allow the woman to remove the baby since the baby isnot a part of her to begin with.

But in reality, the fetus is NOT a person and is wholly a part of the mother. therefore it is the mothers right to chose what she wishes to do with HER body.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: A mother has the right to choose precisely becuase the baby is part of her.

The baby is it's own person, it is part of no one.

Difficult question. And I don't see why it has to be religious. Would it really be better to kill the baby rather than let it die naturally? Are the parents gaining in that scenario? Why should it be lawful to kill an unborn child? I can see there might be reason if any suffering of the child could be known, but it wasn't. The mother would have had to give birth to the baby dead. Isn't there something to holding it and loving it even ever so briefly?

Either way the child was going to die. One way could have had it die as quickly and as painlessly as possible. The other involved it being born, then having to struggle to breath and cling onto life for the brief moments it had, what kind of life is that? That's without even taking into account the suffering the parents had to endure by watching it die in their hands, an image they now have to live with for the rest of their lives.

How can letting it be born and live such a short life of complete agony be better than the alternative?

How come when dealing with abortion and euthanasia we give more dignity and fairer treatment to our pets and animals than we do to our fellow human beings?

(March 8, 2011 at 4:15 am)theVOID Wrote: It's just plain fucking sick.

Things like this make me HATE religion. There is NO secular argument against terminating pregnancies in cases like this, but religious motherfuckers... They manage to put people through the most fucking repulsive situations imaginable all in the name of their fucking imaginary friend.

And she was forced to deliver death and watch it take hold...

A dark day, forced upon two decent human beings by others who care not for anything but their moral purity.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Skipper Wrote: Either way the child was going to die. One way could have had it die as quickly and as painlessly as possible. The other involved it being born, then having to struggle to breath and cling onto life for the brief moments it had, what kind of life is that? That's without even taking into account the suffering the parents had to endure by watching it die in their hands, an image they now have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Live with a natural death, or with the knowledge that you ordered it killed. Not much of a choice. Why shy away from reality and choose sterile inhuman termination? If you read the story, it says the baby didn't suffer.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Skipper Wrote: How come when dealing with abortion and euthanasia we give more dignity and fairer treatment to our pets and animals than we do to our fellow human beings?

Well we can kill animals and no one cares if that's right or wrong. I don't equate that with 'dignified' or 'fair'.

---

(March 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: But in reality, the fetus is NOT a person and is wholly a part of the mother. therefore it is the mothers right to chose what she wishes to do with HER body.

The baby is not the mothers body. It depends on her to exist, like children, old people, and disabled people depend to exist.

(March 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm)Ashendant Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: There are some horribly inhuman politicians living in Nebraska.

I do wonder why the Deaver's didn't simply leave the state to have the appropriate medical procedure done. They shouldn't have had to, but that would have been the appropriate response to this lunacy. Hopefully they are preparing to setup a legal attack on this abomination of a law.

Wouldn't they be arrested for that?

No.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: A mother has the right to choose precisely becuase the baby is part of her.

The baby is it's own person, it is part of no one.

I agree.

Quote:Difficult question. And I don't see why it has to be religious. Would it really be better to kill the baby rather than let it die naturally? Are the parents gaining in that scenario? Why should it be lawful to kill an unborn child? I can see there might be reason if any suffering of the child could be known, but it wasn't. The mother would have had to give birth to the baby dead. Isn't there something to holding it and loving it even ever so briefly?

It doesn't have to be religious, it should be a moral issue, but here in Nebraska it is religious, we are a right wing, bible thumpin' state. Some of our religious based laws drive me nuts. I do think that in cases where there are legitimate medical reasons to consider abortion, the decision should rest with the doctor and patient.

I see no reason why these people couldn't have gone out of state for the procedure.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Live with a natural death, or with the knowledge that you ordered it killed. Not much of a choice. Why shy away from reality and choose sterile inhuman termination? If you read the story, it says the baby didn't suffer.

Quote:And that’s what happened. The one-pound, ten-ounce girl, Elizabeth, was born December 8th. Deaver and husband Robb watched, held and comforted the baby as it gasped for air, hoping she was not suffering. She died 15 minutes later.

Let me strangle you for 15 minutes, see how much suffering you don't do.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The baby is not the mothers body. It depends on her to exist, like children, old people, and disabled people depend to exist.

Don't be an idiot. That fetus is connected to the mother's bloodstream while being maintained in a specialized organ that provides life-support functions. You pro-lifers can be so disgustingly disingenuous when it serves your purpose.

(March 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm)corndog36 Wrote: I do think that in cases where there are legitimate medical reasons to consider abortion, the decision should rest with the doctor and patient.

Agreed

---

(March 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Let me strangle you for 15 minutes, see how much suffering you don't do.

My bad, I read it incorrectly.

---

(March 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: That fetus is connected to the mother's bloodstream while being maintained in a specialized organ that provides life-support functions.

That still doesn't make it the mothers body either.