God help us

[Jank]

Anyone who doubts that environmental extremism does not have an aspect of religious fanaticism running through it should take note. Who else would proudly sacrifice their own baby in order to promote the relationship between humankind and a greater then self natural order.

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly | the Daily Mail

[mkloby]

It's a blessing in disguise that these morons choose to not procreate. However, it's a terrible thing that she murdered her child.

[wilbur1]

these people are looney no babies for them means less idiots for us

[Gnomey]

Less idiots = healthier planet.

[wilbur1]

we should get them all together and let them go play with mother nature.....like in a hurricane or a lightning storm

[ccheese]

I think that she and her husband are both kooks, and her reason for having
an abortion is absurd...... indeed, it's beyond absurd; I do believe it was her
decision to make (not someone elses), and she should have the right to make
that decision.

Charles

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by ccheese

I think that she and her husband are both kooks, and her reason for having
an abortion is absurd...... indeed, it's beyond absurd; I do believe it was her
decision to make (not someone elses), and she should have the right to make
that decision.

Charles

I know this debate will always go nowhere. But what about the baby's decision? What about the baby's right to live???

[renrich]

THE PLAN- Back off and allow men to marry men! Allow women to marry women! Allow all abortions! In 3 generations there will be no democrats! I love it when a plan comes together!

[ccheese]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I know this debate will always go nowhere. But what about the baby's decision? What about the baby's right to live???

Unfortunately, no one bothers to ask the baby. If they did (and could)
things might be different. Until that does happen, it's her body and her
decision....

Charles

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by ccheese

Unfortunately, no one bothers to ask the baby. If they did (and could)
things might be different. Until that does happen, it's her body and her
decision....

Charles

Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon say that is not so. If any Republican wins this election - it may be so. God Bless Eire for having the decency to have such horror banned in their constitution - save in life threatening situations.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by renrich

THE PLAN- Back off and allow men to marry men! Allow women to marry women! Allow all abortions! In 3 generations there will be no democrats! I love it when a plan comes together!

Now I like that kind of logic. Took me a second, but I finally got it. Well done renrich.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Hopefully the Supreme Court will soon say that is not so. If any Republican wins this election - it may be so. God Bless Eire for having the decency to have such horror banned in their constitution - save in life threatening situations.

There are too many emotions in this terrible debate. But as a father, I have a hard time making an argument for abortion at any level. My logic flows like this. Certainly no one would want to abort in the 8th month. And the seventh month too, right. So for those who argue for choice, I ask "What month/day/hour/minute IS acceptable"? And it is the vagary imposed by that question that emphasizes doubts of my wisdom to properly identify that line of demarcation. The argument is not a black and white decision. The embryo is not a lump of tissue one second, crosses some invisible state of existence, and becomes a human the next. If that were so, the discussion could be put to rest and we could remove the emotions from the debate.

And since I can't remove those vagaries in the decision, I cannot in good conscience look my child in the eye and not question ANY decision I might make on where to draw that line.

And finally, I'll say this just to piss some people off. Right or wrong, the woman currently has a choice. But what about the father? If the woman can have a choice to abort, what about the moral, ethical, and financial repercussions of the father having a similar choice? Perhaps this flawed decision needs a revamping to remove the obvious bias. Let the woman decide to not abort and the man relieved of all financial obligations. Now that would be pro-choice.

Ugly questions steeped in a bad ruling. Get rid of Roe vs Wade.

[Les'Bride]

The point IS that a woman has the right over her body. The moral state is the problem. I marched for Pro-choice. Proudly. I believe that it should be each womans decision. IN alot of cases, like the one posted in the link, its almost an immoral natural selection process. Aleviating the idiot variable, but there are always the multitudes that slip through. but, I digress...I did protest, and when it came down for God to deem me worthy to become pregnant, I CHOSE to do what I believed was and is my purpose (among many) and bring another amazing life into this world. HOPEFULLY for the betterment. NO my situation was NOT perfect, SO?! I was a single mommy, working 2 jobs, etc. with no Gov't assistance. I understand some peoples fears, but..strangely..I understand MkLoby's point, too. AND, no...I don't push for child support.

[mkloby]

Interesting spin, Matt. I think, perhaps wishfully, that Roe v Wade is nearing its end.

[Jank]

"The point IS that a woman has the right over her body."

Yes, and the other part of the point is that no person, including any woman, has the right to kill another person without justification or excuse. (justified killing would not be illegal while excused killing is illegal but understandable under the circumstances)

So if you hold that that mass of tissue in your womb is a person, the state has a duty to step in and defend him or her from murder. At a bare minimum, the state exists to safeguard its citizens from attack both from abroad (an act of war) and from within (a criminal act).

The issue is not about a woman being able to control her own body. It is about whether that mass of tissue is in fact a person or not. For if it is a person, that person's right to life will always trump another's right not to have to undergo discomfort, detrimental effects on health, happiness, etc.

The feminist position is revealed as illogical and inconsistent when a person attacks a woman who is five months pregnant, injuring the mother to be and killing the mass of tissue in her womb. Is it murder? Obviously. But then, obviously not as that same mother to be could have matched down to have an abortion a day later had the attack never occurred.

So is that mass of tissue a person only by virtue of a mother to be wanting it to be a person thereby willing it into personhood? Is it not true that an entity is either a person or not a person by virtue of characteristics intrinsic to the entity itself? I was not aware that humans could simply be willed into existence by others. Moreover, what of a woman wants a baby thereby willing it into existence and entitling the baby to protection from the state, then changes her mind the next day? Can a person be willed out of existence?

Another example is partial birth abortion. As long as the head is kept within the vagina, it is not a person but simply a mass of tissue. If the head is moved another couple of inches, what was a mass of tissue assumes personhood and a doctor performing the procedure will be guilty of murder. So you are not a person and then some guy pulls your head past a random line of demarcation and voila? Please.

People used to feel comfortable drawing the line where a fetus could survive outside of the womb with medical assistance. We are seeing that line moving back earlier and earlier as well with fetuses able to survive in the second trimester when it is quite legal for a woman to have an abortion.