The Prenatal Holocaust

[Sera]

My lunch break is about to begin, however. Anyone have a spare skinned baby?

No but the fingers and toes are REALLY GOOD with that papa john's garlic butter dipping sauce.

Is it really a conspiracy if the Christian Right admits to wanting to turn this nation into a Christian theocracy?

I mean that's like their prime selling point.

They freely admit to it so... no

[hey]

I want to burn in the stake each and every fucker that thinks human life is sacred, just saying.

Not every life is sacred. This is true. However, a life does not need to be sacred for it to be wrong to kill them for no reason.

For example, moosey is not sacred, but if you were to kill him, i'd still call you a murderer.

[Tajin]

Anyone have a spare skinned baby?

Hmm, our skin is soo thin its probably harder to skin a human than it is to skin say... a cow.

[Sera]

i bet if you boil it the skin comes right off

[Indeed]

Not every life is sacred. This is true. However, a life does not need to be sacred for it to be wrong to kill them for no reason.

For example, moosey is not sacred, but if you were to kill him, i'd still call you a murderer.

Why is it wrong to kill a person, but not wrong to kill any other kind of animal? Why is human life more valuable than any other form of life?

[Demosthenes11]

What annoys me is the hypocrisy of the modern pro-life movement in the US more so than the actual moral dictation. Life is sacred yet once that baby is born no one gives a shit about the condition that child grows up in because suddenly life isn't so sacred anymore. Your parents are drug addicts? Sad for you. Parents can't afford to keep you fed and watered? Bet you wish you could respawn. Born with crippling neurological conditions? Divinities gift to you. Parents can't afford to take care of a child with Downs/Cerebral Palsy? Work harder.

There is no middle ground, there is no solution, there is no analysis of the logistics or intricacies of the individual situation of people across a varied populace. Nope, it's just wrong and that's that. Such simpleminded thinking may sway the hearts and appeal to emotion but reality is far more complex and attempting to make things black and white does nothing to solve the problem if you want to call abortions a problem in the first place.

We've seen in the past that outlawing abortion just leads to an underground market where desperate women die needlessly because they need to rid themselves of a child. Many of the voices that lead the pro-life charge also happen to be christian fundamentalists who have their own plans for what the US should be and this abortion battle is just their first point of contention in a grander plot to make this country "Christian" kicking and screaming. Perhaps I am just being a conspiracy nut again but it's something always on my mind.

This starts with 'every life is sacred' and it ends with completely outlawing any form of birth control on theological grounds.

it's about subjugation of the poor, seriously. Who are the people that typically want to have an abortion? Those who are not able to financially support their child. These people need to be punished for their poor decision-making, even if it means ruining them forever.

What's ridiculous about this is that not only are the mothers the ones punished, but so are the children and really the society as a whole. How do you ensure a class of people stay down? Make them have children early, when they aren't prepared. No time for college, no time for a career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_father_model

[Ksandra]

It certainly isn't something I would do, agreed. Hell, I don't think I'd abort at 24-26 weeks, myself. But that is ME. The beauty of having a say. But I can't know for sure, and circumstances are never certain. What if something goes wrong, someone is sick, etc. Not all abortions are "because I wanna" but when we start putting conditions on shit we start systematically removing autonomy from the medical process. I can't support that, ever. I can tell you what I think I would do, but I can't really say for sure. No one really can until they're confronted with it.

At the same time, you can't apply their values to others. I don't feel like most docs would abort a 40 week old baby that was perfectly healthy. I think many would induce and take it for adoption. I like that idea. But when you start making rules and making things illegal, Ksandra -- the innocent people who need those procedures because something is WRONG will suffer as a result. The people who have "bad" or irresponsible intentions will always be able to do whatever they want regardless of the law. The innocent will suffer.

At some point we have to trust the medical board and the MDs to do their jobs properly and safely. A doc can refuse to do a procedure.
We need to leave autonomy to the patient.

Hold on. First off I have stated several times I am referring to normal situations and that if health risks are involved than that is a completely different situation. In fact, I am pretty sure all these abortion laws have stipulations involving doctor's choice and that if the woman is considered at risk than it's not illegal past w/e weeks the law has set. I have never said I was against that. And I think it's extremely slippery slope to claim "when you make these laws" considering Roe. v. Wade came out in '73.

I'm sure if you search hard enough you'll be able to find some bullshit incidents here and there where a woman couldn't abort, but I highly doubt it happens enough to warrant removing the law altogether.

You however, have gone balls to the wall about woman's choice! woman's choice! So, in that case if there are no laws then a woman can and will find that doctor willing to abort the child at 40 weeks because she just doesn't feel like it anymore. You may think all doctors are pure at heart and would refuse, but I'm sure someone somewhere would gladly make a business out of it for "woman's rights." So no matter how good the other doctors are, they become irrelevant.

You talk about the woman having the right to the responsibility of the fetus, how is aborting a full-term fetus responsible at all? (again barring health reasons)

[Kohan]

Hmm, our skin is soo thin its probably harder to skin a human than it is to skin say... a cow.

It's much like skinning a chicken, really. After proper preparation, you can do a fair amount of it with your hands. Simply apply pressure near the joints, and peel the skin back.

Now, you can leave it on if you want a crispy, flavorful baby skin, but I'm trying to watch what I eat.

EDIT: Oh, and Sera mentioned the boiling option, too. There's plenty you can do, really.

[Yugl]

Why is it wrong to kill a person, but not wrong to kill any other kind of animal? Why is human life more valuable than any other form of life?

Where did he say that it was?

[ronin sparthos]

Is it really a conspiracy if the Christian Right admits to wanting to turn this nation into a Christian theocracy?

I mean that's like their prime selling point.

I don't really like blanketing everyone under that banner because there are people that identify as pro-life that aren't theocratic zealots.

What I try to argue though is the idea that complete eradication of abortions is just not going to happen. You're pro-life? Ok. Support sex education to the fullest and try to prevent abortions through arming adolescents with as much knowledge as possible regarding pregnancy access to birth control and family planning. This will lower abortions and at the same time allow individuals to enjoy the natural experience of intimacy through 21st century methods and practices. Ignoring the issue does. not. work.

You won't save everyone but you will have done everything possible to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

[hey]

Why is it wrong to kill a person, but not wrong to kill any other kind of animal?

Depends on your reason for killing, of course. For the luls? gtfo. Self defense and/or food? No problem.

Why is human life more valuable than any other form of life?

It's not. Certainly not significantly anywya.

[Sera]

Hold on. First off I have stated several times I am referring to normal situations and that if health risks are involved than that is a completely different situation. In fact, I am pretty sure all these abortion laws have stipulations involving doctor's choice and that if the woman is considered at risk than it's not illegal past w/e weeks the law has set. I have never said I was against that. And I think it's extremely slippery slope to claim "when you make these laws" considering Roe. v. Wade came out in '73.

I'm sure if you search hard enough you'll be able to find some bullshit incidents here and there where a woman couldn't abort, but I highly doubt it happens enough to warrant removing the law altogether.

You however, have gone balls to the wall about woman's choice! woman's choice! So, in that case if there are no laws then a woman can and will find that doctor willing to abort the child at 40 weeks because she just doesn't feel like it anymore. You may think all doctors are pure at heart and would refuse, but I'm sure someone somewhere would gladly make a business out of it for "woman's rights." So no matter how good the other doctors are, they become irrelevant.

One woman suffering like that is worth it to me. ONE conscious, aware adult who suffers that way. Sorry but my priority always goes to the being that will consciously know the difference. I can't force what MY choices would be on others. That woman deserves to make her own choices, with the guidance and advice of her physician, in private.

Re: malpractice-- That is a matter for the medical board. Not the government. Again, unless you're batman and you can see every single possible contingency, you can't go making laws regarding this stuff. Medical shit gets too complicated and is too individual. Who gets to decide what's what and what's important enough? The law? Should be up to the doc and the patient, like ANY OTHER procedure. I'm saying once you start taking away autonomy from sane, capable, oriented patients, you start heading toward a world you will not like.

[ronin sparthos]

it's about subjugation of the poor, seriously. Who are the people that typically want to have an abortion? Those who are not able to financially support their child. These people need to be punished for their poor decision-making, even if it means ruining them forever.

What's ridiculous about this is that not only are the mothers the ones punished, but so are the children and really the society as a whole. How do you ensure a class of people stay down? Make them have children early, when they aren't prepared. No time for college, no time for a career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_father_model

Oh I'm aware of that.

You force the poor into situations where they are bogged down with children, financially paralyzed with all other family planning outlets vaporized and they have no choice but to find themselves into a religious institution where the indoctrination can properly continue. An insidious little plan perpetuated by some very sinister individuals.

Life is sacred yet all that matters is getting warm bodies into those pews. Preferably empty-headed and in need of salvation.

[Tajin]

a woman can and will find that doctor willing to abort the child at 40 weeks because she just doesn't feel like it anymore.

You'd rather have the kid be born to be left on the streets, sent to the w.c. or given to adoption and end up in a orphanage? Any option is SHIT if you ask me. And this is of course talking about the better countries with orphanages, pity the souls (oh yes i went there fuckers) that are born elsewhere.

[Indeed]

Depends on your reason for killing, of course. For the luls? gtfo. Self defense and/or food? No problem.

It's not. Certainly not significantly anywya.

I'm not really sure I understand your view, but that's why I was asking you questions. Are you arguing pro-life or pro-choice here?

[hey]

I'm not really sure I understand your view, but that's why I was asking you questions. Are you arguing pro-life or pro-choice here?

I am pro murdering fetuses.

I just think that it's hypocritical to say it's fine and dandy to kill someone a second before they're born, but if you do it a second later, it's suddenly a terrible thing.

[Greatguardian]

You're still confusing murder with killing people. They're not the same thing.

[Ksandra]

One woman suffering like that is worth it to me. ONE conscious, aware adult who suffers that way. Sorry but my priority always goes to the being that will consciously know the difference. I can't force what MY choices would be on others. That woman deserves to make her own choices, with the guidance and advice of her physician, in private.

Re: malpractice-- That is a matter for the medical board. Not the government. Again, unless you're batman and you can see every single possible contingency, you can't go making laws regarding this stuff. Medical shit gets too complicated and is too individual. Who gets to decide what's what and what's important enough? The law? Should be up to the doc and the patient, like ANY OTHER procedure. I'm saying once you start taking away autonomy from sane, capable, oriented patients, you start heading toward a world you will not like.

Your argument about "just one" does not, and should not, hold weight in laws outside of trying to make the laws better rather than removing them. I doubt you will find many, if at all, laws where there isn't an incident where someone was treated unjustly. Again, these laws already put doctors say in place, but they limit it to health risks, rather than "she just felt like it." Which I think is completely fair. While, I fully expect it to be the doctor, not the neighbor down the street, to be able to assess the risk, that doesn't change the fact it should only be about risk after the age of viability has been reached.

Because, again, no matter how you slice it, there is something that will turn into a human growing inside the woman. I just don't think that labor should constitute the only cutt-off that pre-human can have towards having some rights to life, when it could survive without the mother in the first place (passed the viability point).

[Indeed]

I am pro murdering fetuses.

I just think that it's hypocritical to say it's fine and dandy to kill someone a second before they're born, but if you do it a second later, it's suddenly a terrible thing.

I see. Okay then. I was just confused by you saying "not all lives are sacred," because to me that seems to imply that some lives are sacred.

[Yugl]

I am pro murdering fetuses.

I just think that it's hypocritical to say it's fine and dandy to kill someone a second before they're born, but if you do it a second later, it's suddenly a terrible thing.

So, by extension of your reasoning, you are fine with murder of individuals post-birth as well?