FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

NotThatOld saidI can't help thinking of the Biblical story of baby Jacob grasping the heel of his brother Esau as their mother Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, was giving birth.

GQjock saidUmmmm .....

In case you didn't know babies are born with a clutch reflex

i was..

GQjock saidUmmmm .....

In case you didn't know babies are born with a clutch reflex

chuckystud saidFalse belief systems and their followers, have long used questionable propaganda as a tool to manipulate other weak minded folks.

Many organisms (including plants) have reflex responses. So?

I'm not sure I'd file this under "Gay News and Events." A more suitable topic header might be "More Voodoo From The Religious Right."

MunchingZombie said

GQjock saidUmmmm .....

In case you didn't know babies are born with a clutch reflex

and a gag reflex

TigerTim saidThe sheer insanity of the anti-abortion crowd could not be more manifest.

USMmmm said

TigerTim saidThe sheer insanity of the anti-abortion crowd could not be more manifest.

I find it more insane that a civilized society would suck that little guy out of his Mom with a vacuum. Are you shocked to see there is an actual human inside the belly? Better keep this pic under wraps so we can continue to marginalize the "fetus" as something non-human.

G_Force said

chuckystud saidWhere do you see any religion in this surgical procedure performed on this fetus? This is about the advancement of medical technology, which has allowed us to perform surgery on the unborn. No religion is even mentioned here.

Well they gotta blame someone for being anti-abortion... so it has to be religious nuts, right? Because of course, everyone who is anti-abortion must be a religious nut. Although... most religious nuts are usually anti-gay too... right? Uh-oh, so realjock.com, a site for gay fitness MUST have been invaded by straight religious nuts!

Ok... so a little sarcasm to say, he posted this having nothing to do with religion. Its a matter of opinions based on facts when people feel the "fetus" is a living person.

But I've had the whole abortion debate on this site, and other places... and I think I'm just reminded here that people are not gonna change their opinions on this one too easily. You'll get different people in office for and against it that will take one side to the lead, then someone else will take over and move the opposing team forward.

coolarmydude saidhttp://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/babysamuel.htm


The Truth: The surgery cited in this story did take place, but the accounts of what actually happened are hotly disputed.

Dr. Joseph Bruner at Vanderbilt is known for his work in fetal surgery, especially on babies with spina bifida, a condition in which the spine does not close properly during development.

Vanderbilt confirms that little Samuel Armus was 21 weeks-old in the womb when this surgery took place in 1999, which made the surgery very risky because if anything went wrong, the baby could survive on its own. Dr. Bruner and his colleagues, however, had done numerous successful spina bifida surgeries on fetuses that are not yet viable.

In this particular surgery, photographer Michael Clancy was in the operating room to document surgery on such a young fetus.

Clancy said that "out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist."

The picture became a sensation as a forwarded email especially among opponents of abortion. The surgeon, Dr. Bruner, told USA Today in 2000 that the picture was being treated like an urban legend and that he'd even received a report that a team of medical experts had called it a hoax. Bruner confirmed that the surgery and the photo were real but said that it was "not true" that the baby reached out of the womb and grabbed his hand, as some of the forwarded emails alleged. "Samuel and his mother, Julie, were under anesthesia and could not move," he said. "The baby did not reach out. The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on."

Michael Clancy, who owns the copyright to the photo, was stunned by Bruner's comments and maintains that they do not fit what he saw happen during the surgery and when he took his pictures. On his website at www.michaelclancy.com, Clancy said he knows what he saw and also quoted a nurse at Vanderbilt who told him that she'd seen babies do that "all the time."

The surgery was successful and little Samuel Armas was born on December 2, 1999.





THE MORAL OF THE STORY: When you have to fabricate the facts, or pass on a fabrication of facts in order to persuade a point of view, then the point of view is weak to begin with.

G_Force said

Blackguy4you saidwhat i've always found interesting is that when the baby is not wanted it is referred to as a fetus.

but when it is not wanted, it is referred to as a fetus

USMmmm said

TigerTim saidThe sheer insanity of the anti-abortion crowd could not be more manifest.

I find it more insane that a civilized society would suck that little guy out of his Mom with a vacuum. Are you shocked to see there is an actual human inside the belly? Better keep this pic under wraps so we can continue to marginalize the "fetus" as something non-human.

Devon_Fury said
Those of us who are pro-choice do not marginalize the fetus as something "non-human." We marginalize it as a biological entity with fewer rights than that of an actual adult on whom it is dependent for survival.

Do you marginalize everyone else under the age of 18 then? Really?

Devon_Fury saidWe may be many (73.5% of the global population) and crazy, but at least we have the majority!

styrgan said

Devon_Fury said
Those of us who are pro-choice do not marginalize the fetus as something "non-human." We marginalize it as a biological entity with fewer rights than that of an actual adult on whom it is dependent for survival.

Do you marginalize everyone else under the age of 18 then? Really?

Not nearly the same.

A child, even a baby several weeks old is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on a single provider for survival. The fetus has a nearly parasitic relationship with the mother that is not replicated anywhere else.

GotBiceps saidI find it utterly repulsive that babies have largely become thought of as unintended consequences.

styrgan said

USMmmm said

TigerTim saidThe sheer insanity of the anti-abortion crowd could not be more manifest.

I find it more insane that a civilized society would suck that little guy out of his Mom with a vacuum. Are you shocked to see there is an actual human inside the belly? Better keep this pic under wraps so we can continue to marginalize the "fetus" as something non-human.

Those of us who are pro-choice do not marginalize the fetus as something "non-human." We marginalize it as a biological entity with fewer rights than that of an actual adult on whom it is dependent for survival.

flex89 said

GotBiceps saidI find it utterly repulsive that babies have largely become thought of as unintended consequences.

That's nothing new, but it is definitely repulsive. A lot of people are incredibly irresponsible when it comes to sex, and even more so with the kids, themselves. A lot of times it looks more like the idiot will keep the kid and fuck 'em up real good with their bad parenting rather than at least give it up for adoption so it can have a real shot at life. I'd much rather see a kid with adopted parents than a fetus in a blender and even more so than in the hands of a person who isn't ready to be a parent.

Devon_Fury saidHI! I'm the religious nut here to stand up for myself and my fellow pagans who believe all life is sacred. HI! I am the religious nut here to stand up for myself and my fellow Jains who believe all life is sacred. HI! I'm the religious nut here to stand up for myself and my fellow Hindus who believe all life is sacred. HI! I'm the religious nut here to stand up for myself and my fellow Christians who believe all Human life is sacred. HI! I'm the religious nut here to stand up for myself and my fellow Muslims who believe all Human life is sacred. HI! I'm the religious nut here to stand up for myself and my fellow Buddhists who believe all life is sacred. We may be many (73.5% of the global population) and crazy, but at least we have the majority!

Mostly, though, I am here to stand up for those of us who feel that Human life at any stage should be acknowledged as precious- regardless of your religion or whether you have the sense to not wear brown shoes with a black belt. If I can use my iphone to order plane tickets while riding the subway then surely we can come up with a better solution than abortion. I hope.

GotBiceps said

styrgan said

Devon_Fury said
Those of us who are pro-choice do not marginalize the fetus as something "non-human." We marginalize it as a biological entity with fewer rights than that of an actual adult on whom it is dependent for survival.

Do you marginalize everyone else under the age of 18 then? Really?

Not nearly the same.

A child, even a baby several weeks old is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on a single provider for survival. The fetus has a nearly parasitic relationship with the mother that is not replicated anywhere else.

Well then the mother should have thought a little harder before allowing the "parasite" to infect her body. If she didn't want to have a baby, she should have never had unprotected sex with a man. Simple. If it's inconvenient to have a growing baby inside of you, then you more than likely aren't fit to be a parent.
Choice starts before you decide to have sex with someone, much like responsibility. But who needs responsibility when you can get rid of all evidence? Wouldn't that get in the way of all that hedonistic fun you so whole-heartedly embrace??

I find it utterly repulsive that babies have largely become thought of as unintended consequences.

styrgan said

GotBiceps said

styrgan said

Devon_Fury said
Those of us who are pro-choice do not marginalize the fetus as something "non-human." We marginalize it as a biological entity with fewer rights than that of an actual adult on whom it is dependent for survival.

Do you marginalize everyone else under the age of 18 then? Really?

Not nearly the same.

A child, even a baby several weeks old is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on a single provider for survival. The fetus has a nearly parasitic relationship with the mother that is not replicated anywhere else.

Well then the mother should have thought a little harder before allowing the "parasite" to infect her body. If she didn't want to have a baby, she should have never had unprotected sex with a man. Simple. If it's inconvenient to have a growing baby inside of you, then you more than likely aren't fit to be a parent.
Choice starts before you decide to have sex with someone, much like responsibility. But who needs responsibility when you can get rid of all evidence? Wouldn't that get in the way of all that hedonistic fun you so whole-heartedly embrace??

I find it utterly repulsive that babies have largely become thought of as unintended consequences.

With that logic, if you view it as inconvenient to have HIV, you should never have sex with a man again. It's easy for someone who's gay to come down hard on women who have abortions when they don't have to worry about a similar set of responsibilities.

Spare us the hysteria. Most of us who are pro-choice are arguing for a certain degree of sense - not for free abortion on demand in as many cases as possible.

Sex is messy and no contraception is 100 percent. Some forms of contraception (such as NFP) barely reach above 80 percent. Who are you to determine what forms should be used in a sexual relationship in violation of people's religious beliefs or cultural customs?

Do you really want more unwanted children in this world? Sure, it's easy to argue yes. But what happens to these kids who are being raised themselves by children or unprepared parents or a lousy adoption system? Poor adjustment, drugs, crime, prison?

If you and other "pro-lifers" really argued for real respect for life from conception to natural death, I might take your arguments seriously. But all it amounts to is exactly what your last line implies - further sexual oppression of women, further attempts to control their lives and their bodies.

Blackguy4you saidThere are times when abortion could be necessary.

But the use of abortion as a means of whole sale mass contraception is ridiculous and disgustingly shameful.

And we are supposed to be an enlightened society.

gymlocker saidThe rest of the story....

The surgery occurred in 1999. Samuel's parents are still trying to pay off the $257,000 medical bill that the surgery incurred, but was not covered by insurance because the insurance company said Samuel's operation was an "experimental" procedure.
In that same time, thousands of babies and mothers suffered because they lacked adequate prenatal and pediatric care. Apparently, the religious righties are more concerned about birthing the unborn, than in caring for the fetuses that do eventually see the light of day.
Every day I drive by a corner that has an abortion clinic on one corner and a rescue mission on the other. Religious righties are picketing the abortion clinic constantly, even on the coldest days, showing pictures of aborted fetuses to cars of children driving by.
I've never been inside the abortion clinic but I've served dinners on holidays to people at the rescue mission. I've often wondered how much the picketers could contribute to the general human condition if they put their signs down and came across the street and served meals.
Religious righties are more concerned about promoting their viewpoint than they are in promoting God's viewpoint. When Jesus said, feed the hungry, what do these people think that he meant? That it's better to picket against abortion or against gay people than to really help a fellow human being?Wealthy people aren't getting abortions. It's the poor and destitute that know that they can't provide for a child that are driven to that end. Once those potential aborted fetuses are saved and end up on the other side of the street as adults, they are quickly forgotten by the religious righties.

G_Force saidIf the argument for abortion is so that we don't have unwanted children, then when children are in abusive homes, why don't we just take all of these kids and painlessly put them to death, too, so that they are not abused? And while we are doing this, many gays are not wanted either, so lets take all of them, too, and painless end their life, because then we won't have any gays feeling unwanted. And then lets gather all the elderly that are finacially burdening their families and painlessly end their life. And while we are doing that why don't we all just kill ourself because then nobody will be financially burdened at all.

GotBiceps said

styrgan said

GotBiceps said

styrgan said

Devon_Fury said
Those of us who are pro-choice do not marginalize the fetus as something "non-human." We marginalize it as a biological entity with fewer rights than that of an actual adult on whom it is dependent for survival.

Do you marginalize everyone else under the age of 18 then? Really?

Not nearly the same.

A child, even a baby several weeks old is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on a single provider for survival. The fetus has a nearly parasitic relationship with the mother that is not replicated anywhere else.

Well then the mother should have thought a little harder before allowing the "parasite" to infect her body. If she didn't want to have a baby, she should have never had unprotected sex with a man. Simple. If it's inconvenient to have a growing baby inside of you, then you more than likely aren't fit to be a parent.
Choice starts before you decide to have sex with someone, much like responsibility. But who needs responsibility when you can get rid of all evidence? Wouldn't that get in the way of all that hedonistic fun you so whole-heartedly embrace??

I find it utterly repulsive that babies have largely become thought of as unintended consequences.

With that logic, if you view it as inconvenient to have HIV, you should never have sex with a man again.

I'm not trying to control anyone's life or anyone's body.

So, to be completely safe about it, don't have sex. I completely support that position. It's like anything else in life that inherently has risks: If you don't agree with facing potential consequences, don't engage in the behavior. It's simple, really. If I don't want to run the risk of getting a speeding ticket, you know what I do? I don't go above the speed limit.

styrgan said

G_Force saidIf the argument for abortion is so that we don't have unwanted children, then when children are in abusive homes, why don't we just take all of these kids and painlessly put them to death, too, so that they are not abused? And while we are doing this, many gays are not wanted either, so lets take all of them, too, and painless end their life, because then we won't have any gays feeling unwanted. And then lets gather all the elderly that are finacially burdening their families and painlessly end their life. And while we are doing that why don't we all just kill ourself because then nobody will be financially burdened at all.

There's a big difference between a sentient human being and an only somewhat developed one that's not capable of being biologically self-sustaining.

The luxury of that choice does not exist when the child is a year old.

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force saidIf the argument for abortion is so that we don't have unwanted children, then when children are in abusive homes, why don't we just take all of these kids and painlessly put them to death, too, so that they are not abused? And while we are doing this, many gays are not wanted either, so lets take all of them, too, and painless end their life, because then we won't have any gays feeling unwanted. And then lets gather all the elderly that are finacially burdening their families and painlessly end their life. And while we are doing that why don't we all just kill ourself because then nobody will be financially burdened at all.

There's a big difference between a sentient human being and an only somewhat developed one that's not capable of being biologically self-sustaining.

The luxury of that choice does not exist when the child is a year old.

Why not? The 1 year old is still not able to biologically sustain himself at that age. He is still TOTALLY dependent on other for his very life. Try to let a 1 year old survive on his own. He would die.

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force saidIf the argument for abortion is so that we don't have unwanted children, then when children are in abusive homes, why don't we just take all of these kids and painlessly put them to death, too, so that they are not abused? And while we are doing this, many gays are not wanted either, so lets take all of them, too, and painless end their life, because then we won't have any gays feeling unwanted. And then lets gather all the elderly that are finacially burdening their families and painlessly end their life. And while we are doing that why don't we all just kill ourself because then nobody will be financially burdened at all.

There's a big difference between a sentient human being and an only somewhat developed one that's not capable of being biologically self-sustaining.

The luxury of that choice does not exist when the child is a year old.

Why not? The 1 year old is still not able to biologically sustain himself at that age. He is still TOTALLY dependent on other for his very life. Try to let a 1 year old survive on his own. He would die.

A one-year old is dependent on others, but not in an anatomical sense. He's not physically connected to another single person, sharing her nutrients and resources - existing in a way as a part of her organism.

You could take that one year old and give him to your aunt (or a perfect stranger) to take care of for the rest of his childhood, without serious physical consequence.

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force saidIf the argument for abortion is so that we don't have unwanted children, then when children are in abusive homes, why don't we just take all of these kids and painlessly put them to death, too, so that they are not abused? And while we are doing this, many gays are not wanted either, so lets take all of them, too, and painless end their life, because then we won't have any gays feeling unwanted. And then lets gather all the elderly that are finacially burdening their families and painlessly end their life. And while we are doing that why don't we all just kill ourself because then nobody will be financially burdened at all.

There's a big difference between a sentient human being and an only somewhat developed one that's not capable of being biologically self-sustaining.

The luxury of that choice does not exist when the child is a year old.

Why not? The 1 year old is still not able to biologically sustain himself at that age. He is still TOTALLY dependent on other for his very life. Try to let a 1 year old survive on his own. He would die.

A one-year old is dependent on others, but not in an anatomical sense. He's not physically connected to another single person, sharing her nutrients and resources - existing in a way as a part of her organism.

You could take that one year old and give him to your aunt (or a perfect stranger) to take care of for the rest of his childhood, without serious physical consequence.

What difference does it make whether you receive your nutrients through the mouth and organs of your mother or your own? No baby is able to get any nutrients into him without someone giving those nutrients to him. No matter how you get those nutients is inmaterial. In either case it SUSTAINS YOUR LIFE AND KEEPS YOUR OWN HEART BEATING AND PUMPING.
At times even adults are not able to get nutrients through their own bodily functions and have rely on being fed intravenously. This DOES NOT make them less of a human being just because all of their own organs are not able to process food themselves.

styrgan saidNo, we're talking about the difference between complete biological dependence and dependence on a caretaker.

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force saidIf the argument for abortion is so that we don't have unwanted children, then when children are in abusive homes, why don't we just take all of these kids and painlessly put them to death, too, so that they are not abused? And while we are doing this, many gays are not wanted either, so lets take all of them, too, and painless end their life, because then we won't have any gays feeling unwanted. And then lets gather all the elderly that are finacially burdening their families and painlessly end their life. And while we are doing that why don't we all just kill ourself because then nobody will be financially burdened at all.

There's a big difference between a sentient human being and an only somewhat developed one that's not capable of being biologically self-sustaining.

The luxury of that choice does not exist when the child is a year old.

Why not? The 1 year old is still not able to biologically sustain himself at that age. He is still TOTALLY dependent on other for his very life. Try to let a 1 year old survive on his own. He would die.

A one-year old is dependent on others, but not in an anatomical sense. He's not physically connected to another single person, sharing her nutrients and resources - existing in a way as a part of her organism.

You could take that one year old and give him to your aunt (or a perfect stranger) to take care of for the rest of his childhood, without serious physical consequence.

What difference does it make whether you receive your nutrients through the mouth and organs of your mother or your own? No baby is able to get any nutrients into him without someone giving those nutrients to him. No matter how you get those nutients is inmaterial. In either case it SUSTAINS YOUR LIFE AND KEEPS YOUR OWN HEART BEATING AND PUMPING.
At times even adults are not able to get nutrients through their own bodily functions and have rely on being fed intravenously. This DOES NOT make them less of a human being just because all of their own organs are not able to process food themselves.

Actually, it does. Science recognizes self-sustaining biological processes as an unequivocal definition of "life." An organism without self-sustaining processes cannot truly be considered "alive." A fetus that is unable to consume food by way of its mouth without the help of an umbilical cord cannot be considered self-sustaining in the same way as a child who is fed by a caretaker. It is completely sustained by the biological processes of someone else. The distinction is abstract, but it represents the fundamental basis for the philosophy behind being pro-choice.

G_Force said

styrgan saidNo, we're talking about the difference between complete biological dependence and dependence on a caretaker.

There are some LIVING ADULTS who at times are temporarily completely biologically dependent on another life support system other than their own. So during that time are they no longer a human being because biologically they are not sustaining themself? This is nonsense.

G_Force saidWow, according to you then we got lots of people in hospitals dead and nobody is burying them because they are going to come back to life. lol

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan saidNo, we're talking about the difference between complete biological dependence and dependence on a caretaker.

There are some LIVING ADULTS who at times are temporarily completely biologically dependent on another life support system other than their own. So during that time are they no longer a human being because biologically they are not sustaining themself? This is nonsense.

And those adults on whom they are dependent should not be FORCED to continue that relationship in the same way that a woman in the first few months of pregnancy should be forced to continue to sustain a fetus.

Either way, do not confuse illness with "biologically self-sustaining processes." Usually, in the case of illness, those processes are in place; they are simply not functioning within normal operational parameters.

styrgan said

G_Force saidWow, according to you then we got lots of people in hospitals dead and nobody is burying them because they are going to come back to life. lol

I have no idea what that means.

Guy101 saidCorrect me if I'm wrong but isn't everyone regardless of what age they are dependent of someone or something?

I'm curious now.

G_Force saidAnd so according to you, if someone murdered a person in that condition, he could not be charged with murder because according you there technically there was no life at that moment. I'd like to see that presented as a case in court for why that wasn't a murder and see if the court will agree with that argument. lol

styrgan saidNot technically correct. Take a common example of serious illness.

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

Note the language. Ischemia (RESTRICTION in blood supply) and Oxygen SHORTAGE.

Your heart is in fact continuing circulation, just not enough to keep you alive indefinitely. But the process is there...

G_Force said

styrgan saidNot technically correct. Take a common example of serious illness.

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

Note the language. Ischemia (RESTRICTION in blood supply) and Oxygen SHORTAGE.

Your heart is in fact continuing circulation, just not enough to keep you alive indefinitely. But the process is there...

This is true of the unborn as well. My daughter's heart was functioning very healthy and well at 12 weeks after conception. The doctor knew what her sex was by the sound of her heart. He's able to determine the sex of babies with a 90% accurancy just by the sound of their heart. He
was right again.

styrgan said

G_Force saidAnd so according to you, if someone murdered a person in that condition, he could not be charged with murder because according you there technically there was no life at that moment. I'd like to see that presented as a case in court for why that wasn't a murder and see if the court will agree with that argument. lol

Someone who was in what condition?

I've just presented an argument as to why someone who is having a heart attack is more alive than a fetus. I don't know what else you want me to do.

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force saidAnd so according to you, if someone murdered a person in that condition, he could not be charged with murder because according you there technically there was no life at that moment. I'd like to see that presented as a case in court for why that wasn't a murder and see if the court will agree with that argument. lol

Someone who was in what condition?

I've just presented an argument as to why someone who is having a heart attack is more alive than a fetus. I don't know what else you want me to do.

I am talking about people in the hospital who are not biologically sustaining themself for a time. According to you they are not alive in that condition so according to you if they were murdered in that condition ,they could not be charged with murder because according to you when they are in that condition they are not alive, even though they will get well and will once again biologically be able to sustain themself.

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan saidNot technically correct. Take a common example of serious illness.

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

Note the language. Ischemia (RESTRICTION in blood supply) and Oxygen SHORTAGE.

Your heart is in fact continuing circulation, just not enough to keep you alive indefinitely. But the process is there...

This is true of the unborn as well. My daughter's heart was functioning very healthy and well at 12 weeks after conception. The doctor knew what her sex was by the sound of her heart. He's able to determine the sex of babies with a 90% accurancy just by the sound of their heart. He
was right again.

And if your daughter had been removed from her mother at 12 weeks, would she have survived?

That is by definition not self-sustaining.

coolarmydude saidDoes a woman have the right to defend her life if complications of the pregnancy risk her life?

styrgan said

G_Force said

styrgan said

G_Force saidAnd so according to you, if someone murdered a person in that condition, he could not be charged with murder because according you there technically there was no life at that moment. I'd like to see that presented as a case in court for why that wasn't a murder and see if the court will agree with that argument. lol

Someone who was in what condition?

I've just presented an argument as to why someone who is having a heart attack is more alive than a fetus. I don't know what else you want me to do.

I am talking about people in the hospital who are not biologically sustaining themself for a time. According to you they are not alive in that condition so according to you if they were murdered in that condition ,they could not be charged with murder because according to you when they are in that condition they are not alive, even though they will get well and will once again biologically be able to sustain themself.

So you're saying like a Terri Schiavo or a PVS kind of case?

Obviously, all those situations are different so it's difficult to use them, but as long as someone is on life support, they are by definition alive. Their processes are simply being sustained by artificial means. I'm not advocating their murder...

coolarmydude saidDoes a woman have the right to defend her life if complications of the pregnancy risk her life?

G_Force saidBut you think its ok to end the life support system that the fetus has through its mother, but you don't think its ok to end the life support of the adult.

styrgan said

G_Force saidBut you think its ok to end the life support system that the fetus has through its mother, but you don't think its ok to end the life support of the adult.

Being that there is another person involved in the former circumstance, I think it's logical to consider her desires as well.

And same thing with the PVS scenario. If someone decides they do not want to live like that or have a family member live like that, I don't think you or I should stand in the way.

jprichva saidI think it is unseemly and in bad taste for men to make pronouncements about abortion.

As someone said once, if men could bear children, abortion would be a sacrament.

McGay saidLife is not sacred. It's abundant, cheap, and rather easy to create. Additionally, overpopulation is destroying the Earth.

G_Force saidBabies that are born are not able to survive on their own any more than before they are born.

G_Force said
So do babies that are born have less rights to live than adults who can survive on their own?

G_Force said
Will we next legalize infanticide with the argument that infants are not able to survive on their own yet?.

GQjock saidUmmmm .....

In case you didn't know babies are born with a clutch reflex