Show the pictures! Free speech! Rights without moral obligation!
Show the pictures!
Free speech! Rights without moral obligation!
Show the pictures!
Free speech! Rights without moral obligation!

Call me a dreamer, but if only there were a safe and legal procedure available for a woman to terminate the unplanned parasite within her womb early on before it became a viable human being, perhaps this partial-birth abortion issue would be moot.

The Rethuglicans MUST be defeated at all costs, even if it means supporting victory by the Taliban. After all, the Islamic fascists aren’t concerned with some completely arbitrary distinction as to which side of the birth canal a fetus happens to be on. I’m certain they would be happy to arrange for a pre- or post-natal abortion for any American fetus (or “baby”, as the Right-to-tell-you-how-to-run-your-Lifers like to call it in their propaganda) of any age.

The position of having parental responsibility for fetal children of course.

“Missionary, Doggy-style, Reverse cowgirl? You are a medieval looney.”

Call me a medieval looney if you will, but I’m not the one who hasn’t progressed passed the urge to smash up fetal children with crude instruments. BTW there was most likely a reason why pre-human hominids evolved passed the urge to smash of infants in fetal stages of development with big wooden sticks sometime in the Pleistocene epoch. It appears that either anti-fetal rights extremists haven’t yet made that leap of perhaps some kind of atavistic mutation in humans is causing the current spate anti-fetal rights extremists due to their revived caveman traits.

This is exactly what we “moonbats” are talking about — you sick f*cks forget about BORN children.”

We don’t. That’s why we don’t support positions such as implosive withdrawals from Iraq which will cause thousands more to die with our coalition peacekeepers there to stop it.

Whoever said anything about a woman’s life here? Abortions are no longer done to save a woman’s life. Current medical technology has elminated that problem. BTW arguing red herring is also fallacious.
What’s uncivil is feticidal parents murdering our nation’s children for their own selfish purposes and then anti-fetal rights extremists having the audacity to suggest that this evil should not be opposed.

Now THAT’S funny. :-D

I won’t bother to address you again ,as I see logic is something you’re not capable of. Your assertions don’t hold water, as I’ve pointed out in great detail. I could unpack the various fallacies you’ve presented, but why bother? You will continue to ignore the questions I actually ask, and reframe them to something you feel confident answering. You possess a truly shabby intellect.

What position? Missionary, Doggy-style, Reverse cowgirl? You are a medieval looney.

Don’t forget about all the babies who were born, idiot.

This is exactly what we “moonbats” are talking about — you sick f*cks forget about BORN children.

Comment by Zoo — April 18, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

Non sequitur FTW.

Uncivil is putting the life of a fetus over the life of a woman.

Its a shame that anti-fetal rights extremists are still trying to ignore this so they can shirk their parental responsibilities to their fetal children.

And no, nobody is forcing them to be pregnant either. Potential for pregnancy and therefore parental responsibility is just a natural part of recognized sexual liability. Couples with fetal children did not have to put themselves in that position if they did not want to.

Separate and distinct, huh Webster? Let’s plop that fetus out on the table, independent of it’s host, and we’ll see how well it does.

It has no rights. It is not born.