Abortion

Debra_Law,

I will try this one more time. Yes, that is what I said. What I mean by that is the fact that he would love his child so much that he would break the law. He would love his child so much that he would risk his freedom and/or life for his child. That is what I admire. What I admire is the stance that he [/b]HE WOULD LOVE THE CHILD THAT MUCH! Not that he would break the law, but THAT HE WOULD LOVE THE CHILD THAT MUCH![/size]

You're a good sport, MA.

You're a good sport, MA.

It is the known existence of violence and the threat of violence against women that the Supreme Court contemplated when it ruled that men (especially men like Greasy) have no right to be notified when a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy.

[
We have good cause to be "pretty hard on John Creasy." He never said he LOVED that unborn child; you're merely assuming something that he never said. HE said he would NOT ALLOW any woman to abort HIS child. He never said anything about loving that child, he's interested in controlling his perceived property and nothing more. He said his principles as a MAN were more important than the law--the law be damned. Again, he never said he loved that embryo. It's his principles as a MAN that are at issue--his right to say what he will allow and what he won't allow. He backs his principles with threats of violence against women. If you know anything about violence against women, then you will understand that his emphatic statements of possession and control have NOTHING to do with LOVE and everything to do with CONTROL.

I've always found the contradiction re children conceived in rape/incest situations versus other situations. [This doesn't mean I don't recognize the seriousness of rape/incest situations]

Surely all the fetuses are equally innocent. Why would/should there be an exception for fetuses of rape/incest? Do these fetuses become abhorrent little creatures simply because of what a man or a woman has done? [I suppose it's possible for a woman to rape too, with the result that a fetus is conceived.]

The monumental shift in empathy is puzzling to say the least.

Debra_Law wrote:

It is the known existence of violence and the threat of violence against women that the Supreme Court contemplated when it ruled that men (especially men like Greasy) have no right to be notified when a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy.

Maybe there is just some things in life that you should never do, like mess with a man's kids.

You have no legally recognizable rights to tell a woman anything when it comes to HER decision whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. So there.

chichan wrote:

I've always found the contradiction re children conceived in rape/incest situations versus other situations. [This doesn't mean I don't recognize the seriousness of rape/incest situations]

Surely all the fetuses are equally innocent. Why would/should there be an exception for fetuses of rape/incest? Do these fetuses become abhorrent little creatures simply because of what a man or a woman has done? [I suppose it's possible for a woman to rape too, with the result that a fetus is conceived.]

The monumental shift in empathy is puzzling to say the least.

Congratulations, you've just figured out the big logical flaw in the entire right2life(TM) position.

It's logically an all or nothing proposition. American law does not recognize any distinctions between born persons due to the circumstances of their conception and/or birth and there is no rational reason to think it should make any such distinction amongst the unborn. If ANY unborn has a "right to life" sufficient to force the mother to bear it, then so also does the unborn child of the rapist.

Pretty **** up, isn't it? I wish to hell I'd never heard of the abortion issue. Without it, the de-moker-rat party would have died a natural death 30 years ago.

Maybe there is just some things in life that you should never do, like mess with a man's kids.