Pro lifers show no mercy

T

Timshel

New member
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/abortion-restrictions-in-oklahoma

On their last night in Dallas, the ramen noodles and microwave popcorn were finished. The money for the motel had run out too. So on a hot August night Jessica and Erick Davis and their three young kids slept in the Mazda rented for the trip.


It had only been a few hours since Jessica’s abortion. Because the procedure needed to be performed later in her pregnancy, it stretched over three days.


“I cried until I could fall asleep,” she said.


Earlier that month, at home in Oklahoma City, the Davises were told that the boy she was carrying had a severe brain malformation known as holoprosencephaly. It is rare, though possible, for such a fetus to survive to birth, but doctors told them that he would not reach his first birthday. “He would never walk, lift his head,” Jessica, 23, recalled in an interview.


“I could let my son go on and suffer,” she said. Or she could accept a word she didn’t like – abortion - “and do the best thing for my baby.”


The Davises’ ordeal was always going to be painful. But the grim path that led them to a night in the car was determined, nearly every step of the way, by a state that has scrambled to be the most “pro-life” in the nation. There are no exceptions for families like the Davises.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/abortion-restrictions-in-oklahoma
 
Absolutely heartless and disgusting lawmakers overstepping and causing such pain.

Does that couple look like they can afford a special needs child? And properly take care of the kids they have? How many people would be stepping up to adopt that child, if it survived?

I knew a family that did foster care. They had a couple of kids like that. Once they were too big to be lifted and carried around, then ended up in *storage* like cordwood in state facilities.
 
Lorca said:
Absolutely heartless and disgusting lawmakers overstepping and causing such pain.

Does that couple look like they can afford a special needs child? And properly take care of the kids they have? How many people would be stepping up to adopt that child, if it survived?

I knew a family that did foster care. They had a couple of kids like that. Once they were too big to be lifted and carried around, then ended up in *storage* like cordwood in state facilities.
Click to expand...

If the fetus survives to birth the child won't survive long.

Many pro lifers wish to hide from the FACT that most late term abortions involve some factor like this. They would rather people imagine a promiscuous woman that irresponsibly waits until the last moment than someone faced with a gut wrenching decision. Like any other statist, they want to create an image of irresponsible citizens that can't be trusted to make a decision and need the state to control them. It would be easy to allow for exceptions, but they won't be satisfied until all abortions are illegal.

On a side note... I am extremely disgusted that Rand and Ron Paul chose to endorse Cuccinelli. It was a dumb move as he will lose anyway. They won't get another dime from me. Ed Crane, Purple PAC President and a founder of Cato did the right thing in backing the Libertarian, Sarvis.
 
They had to travel far, with small children, and a pregnant woman....$$$$$$

And an emotionally painful (and physical for preg woman?) journey.....that took days instead of a morning.

What if you were looking forward to a baby and found out that it would be born devastatingly ill? How would you feel spending DAYS on a journey to terminate it?

The assumption that ANY abortion is an easy or pleasant decision is one of the most ignorant and hateful ever and pro-lifers almost without exception just fling this out there and assume it. Like divorce for example....it is a decision that may be very painful but necessary for people to move on to more healthy lives.

Once again, we see that there are many many Christians 'in name only' that do not practice their faith...only use it to accuse others.
 
Lorca said:
They had to travel far, with small children, and a pregnant woman....$$$$$$

And an emotionally painful (and physical for preg woman?) journey.....that took days instead of a morning.

What if you were looking forward to a baby and found out that it would be born devastatingly ill? How would you feel spending DAYS on a journey to terminate it?

The assumption that ANY abortion is an easy or pleasant decision is one of the most ignorant and hateful ever and pro-lifers almost without exception just fling this out there and assume it. Like divorce for example....it is a decision that may be very painful but necessary for people to move on to more healthy lives.

Once again, we see that there are many many Christians 'in name only' that do not practice their faith...only use it to accuse others.
Click to expand...

Days from Oklahoma to Texas? But, in the end she was able to terminate her pregnancy correct?

My wife and I have had this conversation many times and we would have never terminated a pregnancy under any condition.

I have never assumed that ANY abortion is easy or pleasant. Of course I am not the one that equates an unborn baby to a "fetus". I am not the one who tries to dehumanize the unborn baby. I am not the one who calls abortion a "medical procedure". If people do look at it that way, you can thank the pro baby killing crowd that has used euphemism after euphemism to support an untenable position.
 
Professor Baxter said:
If the fetus survives to birth the child won't survive long.

Many pro lifers wish to hide from the FACT that most late term abortions involve some factor like this. They would rather people imagine a promiscuous woman that irresponsibly waits until the last moment than someone faced with a gut wrenching decision. Like any other statist, they want to create an image of irresponsible citizens that can't be trusted to make a decision and need the state to control them. It would be easy to allow for exceptions, but they won't be satisfied until all abortions are illegal.

On a side note... I am extremely disgusted that Rand and Ron Paul chose to endorse Cuccinelli. It was a dumb move as he will lose anyway. They won't get another dime from me. Ed Crane, Purple PAC President and a founder of Cato did the right thing in backing the Libertarian, Sarvis.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have stated categorically, that if I had my way I would ban ALL abortions. And there are those that would support abortions up until the day the baby exits the birth canal.

So I will offer you a compromise. I will compromise my principles and allow for abortions in this instance, or pregnancies that occur from rape and incest, if you agree to ban it in all other circumstances, you know the other 98% of abortions that are done just out of convenience. Deal?
 
They have attempted before and would pass laws to ban the transport of a woman across state lines for the purposes of an abortion. Fascist scumbags and neo-confederates use the "states' rights" argument to create a thin entering wedge.
 
I Love America said:
Days from Oklahoma to Texas? But, in the end she was able to terminate her pregnancy correct?

My wife and I have had this conversation many times and we would have never terminated a pregnancy under any condition.

I have never assumed that ANY abortion is easy or pleasant. Of course I am not the one that equates an unborn baby to a "fetus". I am not the one who tries to dehumanize the unborn baby. I am not the one who calls abortion a "medical procedure". If people do look at it that way, you can thank the pro baby killing crowd that has used euphemism after euphemism to support an untenable position.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's still that way in Ireland. Last yr, a woman died when the doctors, by law, were not allowed to remove the fetus until there was no heartbeat. The diseased fetus was septic and that sepsis, over DAYS of agony and anquish, the mother ended up dying. The father begged and begged to let them to let her leave the country to have it done too...too late.

Yeah, that's a 'reasonable' position. Ireland has laws based on religious beliefs. No one in this country should have to die for somene ELSE's religious beliefs.
 
I Love America said:
Days from Oklahoma to Texas? But, in the end she was able to terminate her pregnancy correct?

My wife and I have had this conversation many times and we would have never terminated a pregnancy under any condition.

I have never assumed that ANY abortion is easy or pleasant. Of course I am not the one that equates an unborn baby to a "fetus". I am not the one who tries to dehumanize the unborn baby. I am not the one who calls abortion a "medical procedure". If people do look at it that way, you can thank the pro baby killing crowd that has used euphemism after euphemism to support an untenable position.
Click to expand...

See...you prove my point. You discussed it and she had a choice. She does have a choice, right? You would not force her to remain pregnant if she didnt want to? Or are you like SIlly Wabbit and you would kill her first?

You OTOH, think that you should be able to CHOOSE for all other women. Not so. Certainly not reasonable.
 
Lorca said:
Yes, and it's still that way in Ireland. Last yr, a woman died when the doctors, by law, were not allowed to remove the fetus until there was no heartbeat. The diseased fetus was septic and that sepsis, over DAYS of agony and anquish, the mother ended up dying. The father begged and begged to let them to let her leave the country to have it done too...too late.

Yeah, that's a 'reasonable' position. Ireland has laws based on religious beliefs. No one in this country should have to die for somene ELSE's religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Is it your position that only those who are religious can be pro life? Are you saying that there are no pro life atheists?
 
I Love America said:
Yes, I have stated categorically, that if I had my way I would ban ALL abortions. And there are those that would support abortions up until the day the baby exits the birth canal.

So I will offer you a compromise. I will compromise my principles and allow for abortions in this instance, or pregnancies that occur from rape and incest, if you agree to ban it in all other circumstances, you know the other 98% of abortions that are done just out of convenience. Deal?
Click to expand...

No, it's not a reasonable compromise. You are still forcing YOUR WILL on women, when you have no business doing so. It's not your body, it's not your risk to health and life to accept or not accept.

Tell me, why is it ok to kill the fetus in the cases of rape or incest? (But not if the mother's life is in danger in your "compromise" Hate women much?) You dont agree but you'll allow that.

Why is that ok?
 
Lorca said:
No, it's not a reasonable compromise. You are still forcing YOUR WILL on women, when you have no business doing so. It's not your body, it's not your risk to health and life to accept or not accept.

Tell me, why is it ok to kill the fetus in the cases of rape or incest? (But not if the mother's life is in danger in your "compromise" Hate women much?) You dont agree but you'll allow that.

Why is that ok?
Click to expand...

Interesting response.

So I am willing to compromise my principles, yet you aren't willing to compromise yours? Duly noted. I realize that this is an emotional issue for you, but we will proceed in a much better light if you can refrain from accusing me of hating women.

As for forcing my will on women, that is done all the time isn't it? The government tells people what they can and can't do with their bodies all the time. Why is it you only object when it comes to murdering a baby? For example, the government tells a woman that she can't sell her kidney. You may think that it is an absurd example, but it is the government telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. The government makes prostitution illegal.

I have stated categorically that I don't think abortion is OK in any circumstance. I offered up that compromise to expose how rigid the pro baby killing crowd really is on the issue. They like to hide behind "rape, incest and life of the mother" as if they are the only instances for which abortion occurs. They don't want people to know that they comprise less than 3% of all abortions. The other 97% are for the convenience of the mother. So while I would not think it were OK, if I could save 970,000 babies with my compromise, I will take it.
 
I Love America said:
Interesting response.

So I am willing to compromise my principles, yet you aren't willing to compromise yours? Duly noted. I realize that this is an emotional issue for you, but we will proceed in a much better light if you can refrain from accusing me of hating women.

As for forcing my will on women, that is done all the time isn't it? The government tells people what they can and can't do with their bodies all the time. Why is it you only object when it comes to murdering a baby? For example, the government tells a woman that she can't sell her kidney. You may think that it is an absurd example, but it is the government telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. The government makes prostitution illegal.

I have stated categorically that I don't think abortion is OK in any circumstance. I offered up that compromise to expose how rigid the pro baby killing crowd really is on the issue. They like to hide behind "rape, incest and life of the mother" as if they are the only instances for which abortion occurs. They don't want people to know that they comprise less than 3% of all abortions. The other 97% are for the convenience of the mother. So while I would not think it were OK, if I could save 970,000 babies with my compromise, I will take it.
Click to expand...

We've had this conversation. You gave up.

All the things you mentioned apply to men and women equally. Men arent allowed to charge for sex or sell body parts either. For the record, I dont think either should be against the law since I see it as an infringement on their rights. Just like preventing a woman from having an abortion.

So, next argument?

(There's no acceptable compromise that allows someone else tell a woman that they MUST carry a fetus that may kill them. That choice to take that risk is that woman's ALONE.)
 
Lorca said:
We've had this conversation. You gave up.

All the things you mentioned apply to men and women equally. Men arent allowed to charge for sex or sell body parts either. For the record, I dont think either should be against the law since I see it as an infringement on their rights. Just like preventing a woman from having an abortion.

So, next argument?

(There's no acceptable compromise that allows someone else tell a woman that they MUST carry a fetus that may kill them. That choice to take that risk is that woman's ALONE.)
Click to expand...

I didn't "give up". Do you think you are going to change my mind that what you support is murder? Do I think I am going to change yours?

Like I said, I will compromise on that one issue in a case where it can kill the mother, signed off by three physicians. I don't think we should be cavalier about taking the life of a baby.
 
Lorca said:
YOur post did not refer to you.

Why do you think it's wrong to have an abortion?
Click to expand...

Abortion = murder

Murder = wrong

So if A = B and B = C then A must equal C

And please don't bother wasting the bandwidth trying to twist yourself in knots saying it isn't really alive. You are NEVER going to change my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top