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

So Fr0d0..would you tell a 12 year old victim of insestual rape that she has to carry the baby to term and care for it?

Either you are pro choice or you are not. Either you support abortion or you do not. Either you vote "yes" that the 12 year old can kill her innocent baby or not.

Quote:Would it really be better to kill the baby rather than let it die naturally?

It would be cheaper and since the result is going to be the same.........

(March 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So Fr0d0..would you tell a 12 year old victim of insestual rape that she has to carry the baby to term and care for it?

Either you are pro choice or you are not. Either you support abortion or you do not. Either you vote "yes" that the 12 year old can kill her innocent baby or not.

I think I'm pro life. An opinion newly fostered since reading the series on aristpophrenium.com

The thing is a life is just that. To say we ought to have a veto on that life by virtue of the fact that it isn't out in the outside world yet seems indefensible to me. To make conditions like you just did and say our appeal to justice has to be limited by sweeping statements is also abhorrent. Of course there are mitigating circumstances and we need to pursue justice at all cost.

(March 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Things like this make me HATE religion.

Things like this make me hate Republicans.

Second that, authoritarian assholes!

Quote:To say we ought to have a veto on that life by virtue of the fact that it isn't out in the outside world yet seems indefensible to me.

That's absurd, Frods...especially as these republican cunts are only concerned about this little fetus until it pops out of the pussy. After that they don't give a flying fuck about it. It can starve and freeze to death in the dark for all they care as long as they don't have to pay to warm and feed it. They prefer to foist that responsibility off on the woman who didn't want the fucking thing in the first place.

I suspect that deep down they use pregnancy and birth as yet one more way for men to control women.

(March 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The thing is a life is just that. To say we ought to have a veto on that life by virtue of the fact that it isn't out in the outside world yet seems indefensible to me.

Why is vetoing a life in need of defense? Why is permiscuous permissiveness to life a implicit good not in need of defense?

(March 8, 2011 at 9:14 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The thing is a life is just that. To say we ought to have a veto on that life by virtue of the fact that it isn't out in the outside world yet seems indefensible to me.

Why is vetoing a life in need of defense?

Really? This is a serious question?

Quote:To say we ought to have a veto on that life

Yeah....which brings up another point, Frods. What's your fucking interest in it? You aren't involved in any way in the conception, birth, life, death, education, or support of any of these fetuses. What arrogance allows you to think that you get a say in telling someone else how to run her life?

There is no shortage of people in the world. We are not clawing our way back after a fucking flood....which didn't happen either. What business is it of yours?

These fucking assholes.

Quote: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.

For 15 minutes, a life gasped for air. For 15 minutes. Think about that. Your child. Your flesh and blood that you brought onto this earth. You let it suffer for 15 goddamn minutes, knowing it - she, in this case - wouldn't survive. Yeah, I'm about to appeal to emotions, because that's all these right-to-lifers are doing.

This wasn't a case of some wild teenager getting knocked up at a party. This isn't a game of "who do we blame, the rapist or the victim?" This wasn't some woman who decided she couldn't afford another child, or one at all because she or her lover weren't responsible enough. This isn't even an incest victim.

This was a baby fated to die. There were no if, ands or buts about it.

Don't tell me that in the face of watching your child slowly strangle on itself, you wouldn't want desperately to help in any way possible, even if it was only a merciful end.

Quote:The law, the only one of its kind in America, prohibits abortions after the 20th week. It is based on the disputed argument that a fetus may feel pain at that stage.

So we're on to pain, eh? Right. The baby might feel pain. I notice that while it was gasping for breath, no one mentioned whether or not it was given some sort of pain medication to ease its suffering. We give adults that much, yeah? That baby was going to feel pain one way or the other. And you forced it to sit through 15 minutes of it. A baby.

Quote:"We acknowledge the tragedy that occurs with a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby. But isn't it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?"

This is not a goddamn Disney movie. Just because my lover's arms are around me doesn't ease my suffering if there is an icepick in my stomach. This isn't "Mommy! Kiss my boo-boo and make it better!" Did I mention that baby was strangling in her mother's arms and the mother couldn't do anything about it? Someone should have videotaped that awful suffering to combat those fucktards that stand on the street corners here in Charlotte with their pictures and signs. You're trying to use a romanticized image of love and comfort to make yourselves feel better for following what your religion says is the way to go. You're not basing it in science. You're basing it in emotion - and you're not looking at all of them. What about the mother, who tried to bring another productive member into society, another child for her to love, and you made her watch the fruit of her womb die in her arms because you believe your invisible sky daddy told you that's what was supposed to be?

I find it frustratingly ironic that you want a live baby, but you're okay with dead soldiers and convicts (well, at least the Republicans are).

You bastards.


PS - Void, you fucking suck. I want this ban back in place by morning my time.

(March 8, 2011 at 9:33 pm)corndog36 Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 9:14 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The thing is a life is just that. To say we ought to have a veto on that life by virtue of the fact that it isn't out in the outside world yet seems indefensible to me.

Why is vetoing a life in need of defense?

Really? This is a serious question?

Yes, that is a serious question.