[on why abortion should be illegal in the case of saving the mother's life]
And this is where I come in and point out that a mother's life shouldn't take president over a baby's life. The baby will live longer that the mother, anyway. She got her chance; let the baby have its.
65 comments
I'll go you one better, Stubborn. Let's kill you and harvest your sperm (or eggs, whichever the case may be). Surely you agree with this? After all, you've had your chance, now let your unborn children have theirs.
Except in most cases, if the fetus is actually endangering the mother's life, it's going to die right after she does, being dependant on her for nutrients and everything.
DIE IN A FIRE.
Hm, the mother took 16 years and more to grow to an age, where she could get a child. She could get another one after her failed birth within a year.
So if god wants as many children as possible, he would choose the abortion ;)
I'll leave it up to god to decide. If the abortion happens without any problems, god supports it. If the fertilized egg or fetus keeps magically re-appearing in the uterus or has a force field protecting it, my guess is god doesn't want the abortion. Lets make sure the doctor's are not using iron equipment though, wanna give god a chance to intercede after all.
So of course her husband or partner and parents and already living children don't count at all. Women are just human incubators. Chilling. For the first time, I'm starting to be glad that I'm infertile. I wouldn't want to be a young woman of childbearing age and ability in this time of insanity. If I was still able to get pregnant, I'd be looking into moving to another country where women are treated like humans.
Idiot. What has George Bush got to do with this?
OTOH, I'd prefer his life to be forfeit in lieu of the baby's!
However, on a serious note, nothing is cut and dried about this kind of tragic situation. The foetus is not the only one with rights. The woman has a superior right. If a woman's life is endangered by cancer cells they are excised. And whn she recovers, her husband and children are relieved and delighted. They have rights too - the right to have a mother and to have her love and care as they are growing up; and the rights to have a companion and helpmate (note correct spelling!) in bringing up a family, as well as the right to the continuance of the loving relationship they confirmed through marriage.
Granting a superior right to a foetus annuls all these other rights. That is certainly not balanced or fair.
I take the view that all that is possible should be done to save a foetus. Modern medicine can perform many miracles that were unthinkable when I was a young person. However, there are still limits to what it can do. When those limits are reached then a clear and regretable decision has to be made. A foetus, whatever it future potential may be, cannot be allowed to kill its mother. It becomes a parasite that will kill its host. What kind of a life could a child have, born out of such terrible circumstances. Matricide in the womb! That's how terrible it is.
As to you, Stubborn, you are an unfeeling bastard. I hope you are not married. Or if you are, I will not be surprised if your wife does a Bobbit on you. And it will be better than you deserve, you heartless cur.
Wow. Just wow.
Wow... wow......
Dear Asshole:
Ugh. I should *not* have gone to that website. Most of the people there seem to be complete jerks.
There's the whole "it's God's will if the mom dies" horseshit. I guess they are against any sort of medical care.
Then someone tries to make a point about relative morality, and it goes over everyone's head:
Damn. Now I'm in a bad mood. >:(
Fundamentalism: pro-life before birth, anti-life after.
Plus, what about the mother's chance to have another 17 kids?
Learn english, and get a dictionary.
Hence why women die because assholes like you feel we are worthless other than for incubators. Did it dawn on you, oh dim one, that if mother dies, the FETUS DIES too?
When you misspell words, it makes you look ignorant, and maybe a bit stupid if your spelling is way off. When you use a near homophone instead of the proper word, it becomes painfully obvious that your attempts at intellectualism have failed. It's precedence, not president.
Uh huh, and what if that mother has four kids and a husband, all of whom love and rely on her (something that actually happened in a Catholic hospital, despite the husband begging the staff to save his wife, and was widely reported in the media)? Or what if she's a single mom who already has another child? Or, hell, what about the fact that her death is going to cause a hell of a lot more pain than the death of one baby? Yes, it's horrible if the baby dies, but it's even more horrible to sacrifice the mother's life.
Seriously, these so-called pro-lifers only give a damn about people while they're still in the womb. Once you're born, they couldn't care less.
"The baby will live longer that the mother, anyway."
The infant mortality rate would like to have a word with you.
Also, "that the mother?"
Perhaps you should move to Nicaragua where abortion is illegal for ANY reason.
Alright, see little Johnny over here, he has a fatal heart disease and he'll die if he doesn't get a transplant immediately. You're a good match, there are no other donors, you've lived your life, and he's only five so you get to give him a chance.
Whaddaya mean, you want to live? Dying to save another isn't okay when it affects you? Oh, I see. You think it only applies to women .
UGH. TOOL.
What about all the people that know and love the woman? Her friends, her parents, her husband, her children, her siblings, her coworkers? I'm sure they'd rather have a cooing baby over her. *sarcasm* What the fuck are you smoking? It must be strong and cheap. What about her goals and dreams? What about her intellect and value to society? The baby has none of these. Therefore, the woman is obviously the one to save.
Newflash, asshole, we women have more value that just squirting more incompotent new humans out to overpopulate the planet.
Die in a fire.
I'm sure somebody asked already, but isn't the likelyhood of the baby dieing, when the mother dies like - hhhhmmmmm, very HIGH?!!!!!
Without the mother, the fetus will likely die anyhow. Because, ya know, the mother is SUPPORTING the fetus entirely until birth.
I would assume this person isn't familiar with fetal development. But in most cases, OBGYN's want to see a full 34 weeks gestation, any fetus born prior to 34 weeks is likely to have under developed lungs. Because of this, the fetus may die or suffer from developmental disorders.
But screw all that knowledge! KILL THE MOTHER!
Die in a fucking fire, fucker.
If life is so precious to you fundie shitheads, help the people who are already here!
Many things that endanger the mother endanger the fetus, too; e.g., ectopic pregnancy. If mom's 25, she still has about another 250 chances to get pregnant.
I remember hearing a story that a woman was giving birth, and the baby got stuck. They couldn't push it up and do a c-section, and the mother was bleeding to death. They ended up having to cut the baby up and deliver it in pieces. Obviously, it was dead.
What would you have suggested they do? Cut the mother up to save the baby?
Wait, don't answer that. The situation was horrible, and it's horrible the baby died, but they should try to save the mother.
Following your logic, why not killing the elderly?, or the people with incurable illnesses?, or those who are in a comma?. And wait, what happens in etopic pregnancies where the baby can DIE anyway too?. Or when the baby is not more than six months or seven, the minimum to put him in neonatal care?.
Babies die all the time, why would you think that a baby would automatically live longer than the mother? Also, anyone who can't differentiate between precedent and president shouldn't even be allowed to vote, let alone voice their opinion on these types of issues.
Half of the time, the child would surely die too. So it's potential becomes moot because it's screwed anyway. Best ensure someone survives from the mess than ensure no one survives.
And if it does come down to a choice between the mother and the baby living, then it should be the mother's decision. Perhaps with the father's input, but it should be the mother's choice in the end.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
