At least she didn't abort, right?

[Scrabaholic]

Whether killed 20 minutes before it leaves the womb or 20 minutes after it, it's the same being.

I was responding to the claim it's an abortion. smh

 

[X Factor]

Are you claiming all pro-choice are taking a pot-shot or supporting a pot-shot at pro-life advocates?

What the hell is there to pot-shot about? I haven't found too much worth of being a pot-shot by most pro-life in any thread.

Have you read the ABORTION FORUM Titles in their entirety? Do you really want to go there? Do you want me to start raising hell about all of the POT-SHOT AT PRO-CHOICE TITLES listed in this forum. Its it really, really necessary?

I don't care. I'm not the one doing the lecturing. I just have no reason to worry too much about your diatribes if they're going to be entirely one sided.

 

[MaggieD]

Stop what? You cant just pretend that killing a baby in the womb legally has any different end result as killing the baby in a partial or post birth procedure. You just cant. Dead is dead.

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate here. Killing a baby who feels pain and tries desperately to live with what little tiny resources it has is NOT the same as aborting a four-month fetus. If you want to think that way? I'm surprised you can even sleep at night thinking of the horror of it all.

 

[Removable Mind]

I don't care. I'm not the one doing the lecturing. I just have no reason to worry too much about your diatribes if they're going to be entirely one sided.

Sure you care...you instigated all of this nonsense.

 

[X Factor]

Sure you care...you instigated all of this nonsense.

What!?!!? I didn't start the thread here. Good grief, go take a nap or something.

 

[Scrabaholic]

From your OP:

I also wonder how her now ex husband did not notice she was pregnant. Did they not share a bed, did they not have sex? How could he not notice her expanding girth?

What was the purpose of that comment, other than to deflect fault to a man? You didn't ask similar questions about the couple's three daughters who also lived in the home - nor did you ask questions about her neighbours, girlfriends, blood relatives, etc. Especially since it was the ex-husband who discovered the first murdered child and immediately reported it to the police who, according to the article you posted, isn't believed to be involved at all. Seems a little strange to suggest he knew about it at the time, went to prison for several years without saying anything, and then came home and pointed it out.

I never suggested he knew about it and I in no way, shape or form blamed him. I merely wondered how he could not have known. Their daughters, neighbours etc did not share a bed with the woman nor were they intimate with her - presumably, he was. When a couple is intimate, they are usually undressed so her belly would not be hidden by clothes.

 

[Removable Mind]

What!?!!? I didn't start the thread here. Good grief, go take a nap or something.

No, you didn't x. But what you did do is CRY POT-SHOT against the pro-lifer. That is on you. I'll choose "or something"...how about that.

So...you really want to do a game on all of the titles in the Abortion Forum on whom was pot-shotting whom?

It would hone your slur making skills.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Well, to be fair, you have to admit it's curious that this thread is posted in the abortion forum when it has zero to do with abortion and is simply an attempt to troll it as pro-life extremism somehow.

It is quite relevant to abortion, since this woman *should* have aborted early term rather than kill them after birth.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It is quite relevant to abortion, since this woman *should* have aborted early term rather than kill them after birth.

How so? So you're saying that the woman in this case shouldn't have choice? Are you saying choice is or can be selectively determined by other than the woman involved?

 

[Scrabaholic]

It's clear from the thread title, that it's a poke at pro-lifers. I don't personally care either way that the op intended it that way, but to deny it is disingenuous at best.

Your crystal ball is broken.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Maybe the woman was obese. Obese women often lose rather than gain weight during pregnancy, so their size will remain about the same. It's not always easy to tell a woman is pregnant just by looking.

My niece is quite big and she gave birth last fall - it was very apparent looking at her that she was pregnant. I would imagine it was even more apparent to her husband when they were naked in bed. Fat chicks still change shape in the latter stages of pregnancy.

 

[Scrabaholic]

How so? So you're saying that the woman in this case shouldn't have choice? Are you saying choice is or can be selectively determined by other than the woman involved?

Where did I say she shouldn't have a choice?

 

[Removable Mind]

Tell the baby that.

Vance, "you can tell a baby that" because born children are sentient (regardless of its limitation). They can hear, learn, and react to exogenous experiences. The unborn, for the vast majority of its development isn't aware that it exist. And even it late development there's no way to really determine what it can absorb from things in the outer environment. We do know that it isn't learning to talk, walk, or do other motor skill activities while in the womb. We do know that the instinct to suckle exists because ultra-sound images show thumb sucking. That's a good skill to learn. It's life will depend on it.

I, as a pro-choice person, believe what has happened with the 7 born babies is horrible. It's extremely tragic. I can't believe that any sane person would not feel exactly as I have just stated. And it's clear that you see those incidents of murdering born children no different than abortion.

I know you're pro-life. I've read your posts. I know you feel strongly about the issue of abortion. It's a real life dilemma that isn't going away until there is the technologies way more advanced than available now...our entire society engages in educating kids to grow up truly understanding the consequences of having sex. All of the consequence. Not just the ones related to reproduction. It's much more complex than that.

But please keep in mind that over 85% of abortion occur 12 weeks and under. Of that number just over 60% are 10 weeks and under. None of the stages of development come close to having the characteristics of a latter stage fetus. Not even close. They barely have a brain stem at that stage.

I know that none of aforementioned really means that much to you. You see abortion as a violation of life at any stage of development. I get that. I believe all pro-choice gets that. But pro-choice also see issues that could negatively impact women's lives before an abortion ever happens.

Thanks

 

[CanadaJohn]

Where did I say she shouldn't have a choice?

You said she should have aborted them. She clearly didn't want to. You seem to be wanting to pass judgement on her choices. Isn't that what you accuse others of all the time?

 

[choiceone]

My niece is quite big and she gave birth last fall - it was very apparent looking at her that she was pregnant. I would imagine it was even more apparent to her husband when they were naked in bed. Fat chicks still change shape in the latter stages of pregnancy.

I knew an obese woman who lost a huge amount of weight during pregnancy and said that people did not see her pregnancy.

And lots of people in the US wear nightgowns or pyjamas to bed rather than sleeping naked, so this issue might not emerge except when the couple wanted to have sex, and even then the difference might be just rationalized away, as human bodies change over time.

 

[X Factor]

Your crystal ball is broken.

If you didn't intend to make some statement about abortion, why put this story in this forum? Scrab, please, the title is a dig at pro-lifers like we're somewhat comforted by the fact that, at least, she didn't abort them. It really is no big deal. Both sides take shots at the other all the time.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate here. Killing a baby who feels pain and tries desperately to live with what little tiny resources it has is NOT the same as aborting a four-month fetus. If you want to think that way? I'm surprised you can even sleep at night thinking of the horror of it all.

I sleep remarkably well. Very good at compartmentalizing. Sort of have to be, really.

This thread was started as a snarky pro abortion commentary. It deserves the abortion treatment.

 

[choiceone]

You said she should have aborted them. She clearly didn't want to. You seem to be wanting to pass judgement on her choices. Isn't that what you accuse others of all the time?

A woman has a choice between aborting or continuing a pregnancy because pregnancy is a condition of the woman's body. The choice to abort also means that a child isn't going to be born and a choice to continue means that a child is really likely to be born alive. That's all.

If you choose to continue the pregnancy to term and give birth, and the child is born alive, you don't have a choice to end that child's life because it is unrelated to your body after birth. It does not cause any particular condition of your body or, indeed, affect your body in the slightest degree any more. Because it is outside of and not attached to your body, it has its own life independent of yours.

If the woman didn't want the babies after she gave birth, she could have put them up for adoption or dropped them off at safe haven site or asked somebody else to take care of them.

The woman had been offered legal choices by society - abort or carry to term, if you carry to term, keep or give away. She chose to carry to term instead of abort - okay, that's a choice - but when she gave birth, she had two legal choices, to keep or to give away, and she chose to kill them, which is illegal - it's a choice against the law and it's not okay. She had no justification for killing them because she had a legal option to give them away.

This is thus completely different from having an abortion, especially in early pregnancy, because there is no way to give away embryos to others. Scrab is just saying that if she didn't want to keep the babies, she could have chosen not to continue her pregnancies at all, which is a legal choice because ending a pregnancy is ending a particular state of one's own body.

 

[VanceMack]

Vance, "you can tell a baby that" because born children are sentient (regardless of its limitation). They can hear, learn, and react to exogenous experiences. The unborn, for the vast majority of its development isn't aware that it exist. And even it late development there's no way to really determine what it can absorb from things in the outer environment. We do know that it isn't learning to talk, walk, or do other motor skill activities while in the womb. We do know that the instinct to suckle exists because ultra-sound images show thumb sucking. That's a good skill to learn. It's life will depend on it.

I, as a pro-choice person, believe what has happened with the 7 born babies is horrible. It's extremely tragic. I can't believe that any sane person would not feel exactly as I have just stated. And it's clear that you see those incidents of murdering born children no different than abortion.

I know you're pro-life. I've read your posts. I know you feel strongly about the issue of abortion. It's a real life dilemma that isn't going away until there is the technologies way more advanced than available now...our entire society engages in educating kids to grow up truly understanding the consequences of having sex. All of the consequence. Not just the ones related to reproduction. It's much more complex than that.

But please keep in mind that over 85% of abortion occur 12 weeks and under. Of that number just over 60% are 10 weeks and under. None of the stages of development come close to having the characteristics of a latter stage fetus. Not even close. They barely have a brain stem at that stage.

I know that none of aforementioned really means that much to you. You see abortion as a violation of life at any stage of development. I get that. I believe all pro-choice gets that. But pro-choice also see issues that could negatively impact women's lives before an abortion ever happens.

Thanks

I also believe what happened to the babies was horrible. I just dont dissemble. I think it equally horrible when you chop and rend an unborn child. Dead is dead. Thos kids could have grown up in horribly tragic circumstances. They arent better off dead. But when you start a thread commentary advocating that if only she had aborted them they wouldnt have been killed at birth...

well....

 

[X Factor]

I sleep remarkably well. Very good at compartmentalizing. Sort of have to be, really.

This thread was started as a snarky pro abortion commentary. It deserves the abortion treatment.

Amen, Brother. The tone of the thread was set from the OP.

 

[JayDubya]

It is quite relevant to abortion, since this woman *should* have aborted early term rather than kill them after birth.

It doesn't ****ing matter at what age the victims died... their homicides would have been just as wrong.

You obviously still want the kids dead, and dead they already are anyway. Your bloodlust should be satisfied.

Is the only problem that your heroes the contract killers didn't get paid, or what?

What possible difference could this make to any rational person?

 

[nota bene]

So killing 7 living, born and breathing children is better than aborting 7 non-developed fetuses?

I would argue anyone who holds that position has no right to call anyone psycho.

Wow, was that really necessary?

Any woman who kills seven times and stores bodies in boxes in a garage is mentally ill. She's sick.

 

[CanadaJohn]

A woman has a choice between aborting or continuing a pregnancy because pregnancy is a condition of the woman's body. The choice to abort also means that a child isn't going to be born and a choice to continue means that a child is really likely to be born alive. That's all.

If you choose to continue the pregnancy to term and give birth, and the child is born alive, you don't have a choice to end that child's life because it is unrelated to your body after birth. It does not cause any particular condition of your body or, indeed, affect your body in the slightest degree any more. Because it is outside of and not attached to your body, it has its own life independent of yours.

If the woman didn't want the babies after she gave birth, she could have put them up for adoption or dropped them off at safe haven site or asked somebody else to take care of them.

The woman had been offered legal choices by society - abort or carry to term, if you carry to term, keep or give away. She chose to carry to term instead of abort - okay, that's a choice - but when she gave birth, she had two legal choices, to keep or to give away, and she chose to kill them, which is illegal - it's a choice against the law and it's not okay. She had no justification for killing them because she had a legal option to give them away.

This is thus completely different from having an abortion, especially in early pregnancy, because there is no way to give away embryos to others. Scrab is just saying that if she didn't want to keep the babies, she could have chosen not to continue her pregnancies at all, which is a legal choice because ending a pregnancy is ending a particular state of one's own body.

I know the distinctions and my response was to Scarbaholic simply because it was inconsistent with previous views. Now, if she'd said if she didn't want the babies she "could" have aborted them early term, simply identifying the option, that would have been different. She said she "should" have aborted them, putting her judgement before the woman's. I was simply pointing out that pro-life people aren't the only ones who make judgements in certain circumstances about the choices some women make.

 

[X Factor]

"What."

If only because this is a CONSTANT problem, not just today.

I equated this act with having 7 abortions and stated they should be prosecuted the same - what happens? It's suggested that I hate abortion but love me some infanticide.

Can't win for losing 'round here.

You should go back and look at who liked that post. It's like they share the same brain (I mean that as they're remarkably...ah...unified).

 

[JayDubya]

You should go back and look at who liked that post. It's like they share the same brain (I mean that as they're remarkably...ah...unified).

If it's snarky, it's about me, and it's borderline b/f/t, you can always expect the same woodwork crawlers to "like" it.