AaronK #fundie

AaronK #fundie city-data.com

I'm pro-life, you being pro-death. I respect women's rights as much as anyone.

I'm a Catholic, anti-death penalty, anti-war conservative republican. I don't think vegetarianism has anything to do with anything, although I don't eat red meat.

I urge you and all other pro-deathers to seek professional help on your tendency to lean towards murder of little babies. It is kind of sick in a very morbid way.

37 comments

old comment by Waiting for God

I urge you in the strongest terms to learn something about what you are talking about.

A Human blastocyst (Embryo at the stage necessary for stem cell harvesting) has approximatley 150 cells in it. This is less cells than a piece of snot picked from someones nose - which incidentally, thanks to modern genetics, can also become a human being if grown in the laboratory - or less cells than a fly's brain.

There are millions of people suffering needlessly in the world right now due to congenital defects, nerve damage, paralysis, kidney, liver and heart damage etc etc. 'Pro-lifers' are more concerned with a collection of 150 cells than they are with actual, real-life human beings, who are in pain and suffering as I write this.

Fuck the chance we have to heal these people, fuck the research we could do with stem cells into curing some of the nastiest of human defects and conditions, this blastocyst 'might' become and human being and you'll be damned if your about to let someone 'murder' this collection of cells in the name of helping countless, living, suffering human beings.

Again, 50% of pregnancies are terminated naturally - by God if you believe in the twat - and 20% of the other 50% end in mis-carriage. The fact that scientists can use frozen sperm and eggs to make an almost endless supply to blastocysts for stem cell harvesting is pure and simple murder in your eyes; and that makes you, at least in my eyes, immoral, ignorant, retarded and evil; you support suffering of living, humans.

An embryo has no nerves, no brain, no form representing a human being, it does not, cannot, suffer in anyway and it holds the greatest potential for human beings because the cells can potentially become any cell in the human body. You arseholes are 'pro-death', you sit idly by and watch as millions of people suffer and die as you stick to your uninformed opinions as to what an embryo - something I doubt you actually know anything about in terms of simple biology - can or can't 'experience'.

I don't require God nor his 'absolute' moral standards to know that you are an immoral, evil, fundamentalist dickhead who deserves to be in a wheel chair begging God to allow scientists to find you a cure.

old comment by Brian-sama

The term "pro-life" is horribly misleading, since it assumes that its opposite must be some sort of anti-life or pro-death. In reality, those who are in favor of the woman's right to choose have arrived at that position not because they have some sort of sick desire to kill people, but because they understand that the best way to offer the greatest amount of help to society as a whole is to examine each abortion on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is pro-abortion 100% of the time, because then we would die out. However, there are many people in our country and our world who are anti-abortion 100% of the time. Given the fact that each case is unique, that there are some instances where both mother and child will die if the pregnancy is not terminated, how is this position not as absurd as its diametric opposite?

old comment by Dagger

As a pro-choicer who's been a vegetarian since the age of five, I'm going to say two things:

1. Not eating red meat=/= vegetarianism, mkay? Vegetarianism means that you don't eat meat or fish. Pescotarianism means that you don't eat meat. Veganism means that you don't eat anything that comes from an animal. Not eating red meat doesn't qualify you as anything resembling a vegetarian. Off topic, I know, but it's one of my pet peeves.

2. Abortion is an issue that I've gone back and forth on for a while, especially considering that I am anti-death penalty, a vegetarian and generally anti-war (although there are some situations where military action is, sadly, the only choice, but those are very rare), and I'm not going to pretend that abortion sits well with me, but the fact is, the government has no right to force a woman to let her body be used to grow a baby if she doesn't want to. If a man needed a kidney transplant to live, and only one person on Earth could give it to him, would you force him to give him that kidney? It's the same scenario: women are not baby machines. Abortions should be legal up to the point in pregnancy where babies have a chance to survive outside of the womb, no matter how heartwrenching. This is why I support other options, such as cheap and easily available birth control and comprehensive sex education- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, after all. Abortions are sad, but a woman's right. As Hillary Clinton said, "Abortions should be safe, legal and rare."

And as for stem cell research? A clump of cells=/= a baby (I can't say for certain when life begins, but if it's before the nervous system develops, then we can be damn sure that it's not a baby) and it's not like the abortion is performed for the sole purpose of getting stem cells, and there are a lot of leftover blastocytes (or whatever they are, I don't remember the stage) from artificial insemination and other fertility treatments, IIRC, that would go to waste anyway. I don't like it when people die in car accidents, either, but that doesn't mean I don't support organ donation. If it comes down to a choice between throwing out the clump of cells away and using it for something that could save lives, which would you choose? As for creating the blastocysts? Same issue- they're just a clump of cells, only without even the potential to become a human fetus, since there's no recipient.

[/rant]

old comment by David D.G.

Not "pro-death," you frelling liar -- PRO-CHOICE.

We support the woman's right to CHOOSE whether to have the child or not, because it is her body that has to put up with the pregnancy and any potential health complications thereof, her mind and emotions ravaged by the hormones and the more concrete life stressors involved, and her already existing life that will be severely impacted by the situation either way.

You people, on the other hand, are not even truly "pro-life" (though I'll grant that you personally are at least more consistent than most by being against the death penalty); what you people really are is pro-BIRTH. Once it's actually a baby, the vast majority of people who call themselves "pro-life" don't give a flying fig what kind of life it may have, what kind of support it may get for its health and upbringing. For most of you people, the "life" you seem to be so keen on protecting begins at conception and ENDS at birth.

~David D.G.

AaronK #fundie city-data.com

37 comments

Confused?