gadgetlady

Why is posting questions and challenging answers considered getting "walloped severely"? Again, why do you feel as if you've been beaten to a bloody pulp? Unless you feel the responses of the pro-life side have substantial merit and you can't defend the abortion position? I don't feel like I've been beaten to a bloody pulp or walloped severely about the head, neck and shoulders. I feel like I've been challenged and have responded to that challenge with simple facts and arguments. Sometimes I do feel alone, but I don't feel like what's been said to me or asked of me -- or how I've responded -- has been unfair. May I remind you, although you keep claiming the minority, that the poll is still running about 60/40 in your favor (the pro-life percentage has increased slightly in the past few days, but it's held pretty steady at about 60/40 since the early days of this thread). While I'd love it if you were the minority, it's quite simply not the case.

Oops, sorry. I already did re-ask the questions that were never answered. I read from the last thing read, not everything that's been said, before I post. I understand you won't be answering. I sure would like it if someone would, though.

Here are 4 I can think of just off the top of my head, without even going back in the thread: 1. When do YOU think life begins and what criteria do you use to support your position? 2. What, other than avoiding some vaginal stretching, is a valid reason for a partial-birth abortion? 3. What criteria or criterion were used to support the notion that black people are fully human? 4. You said that you felt abortion was sad or something along those lines (I don't remember your exact words -- maybe you said tragic?). I asked why.

Thanks, Elena. I do sometimes feel all alone on this thread.

Nobody said you've been "put on report". I reported you for a personal attack. I feel that your above post was snidely calling me intolerant and judgmental. Thank you for your apology. I'm glad to hear it wasn't your intent. I realize things can get heated. I just don't appreciate being singled out and called intolerant. And that is not MY intent, either. I just would prefer if you stop attacking me personally. I think the point has been made and beaten to death, so IMO we should just move on.

Then why weren't mothers charged pre-Roe?

If you ever decide to come back, I'd love it if you would answer the few questions I asked, since I always patiently answered every single one of yours. Let me know if I can help with that

That's some spin! I believe what she said was directed at your post to me, considering I reported you for attacking me because I'm quite tired of it. It's an expression. I'm sorry you'd never heard it before. Thank you for acknowledging that, especially considering intolerance is what you accused me of. I will apologize, in advance, to the moderators. I realize this post may be a bit out of line but I feel it is not unwarranted based on the prior post and previous history.

Once again, pre-Roe the abortionists were charged but generally not the mothers. I have no reason to believe that would change. Well, despite your implication, those "people" aren't me. I said on the other thread that I thought it was a case of neglect, not murder. Ergo, mitigating circumstances and intent come into play.

You're a very odd bird, BJean. I'm not even sure what to say here because you are so far out in left field.

That's because your clearly consider me a judgmental, heartless monster without compassion who cares nothing for the mothers or the babies after they're born, but only cares for the undeveloped "blob of tissue". And nothing could be further from the truth. As with every case of the death of one human being at the hands of another, there are varying degrees of culpability and prosecution. Otherwise, our justice system would be simple: someone dies, no matter what the circumstances, and it's instant death penalty for someone else. But that's just not how it works. Once again, this is a cute little diversion, but my focus is stopping abortion, not how the legislature and the courts will come down on those who disobey the law.

I agree that that is the primary reason for pursuing a criminal complaint in this matter. Um, yeah, but for Jesus, death IS irreversible. Those who die on this earth cease to live on this earth. That doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife, and while I personally believe that afterlife holds glorious things for believers, it is not any human being's purvue to decide for another human being that they should be pushed into that afterlife prematurely. Furthermore, being a "true believer" (as stated above), I also believe that the afterlife contains both a heaven and a hell, and that those who have not yet accepted Jesus Christ don't go to heaven -- all the more reason for being opposed to preemptive death.

OK, no problem. We'll throw mitigating circumstances and intent out the window. Throw the book at them, that's what I say. You ladies are so intent on making sure women are charged with murder after abortion is illegal, I expect to see you on the front lines pushing for harsher sentences. NOW will you answer any of my questions, snuffy?

This is what I'd buy, or maybe several of them: Garden Stake Hose Animal Pest Repeller Motion Sensor - eBay (item 330224509465 end time Apr-07-08 12:46:57 PDT)

There are such things as mitigating circumstances and lesser charges such as manslaughter and negligent homicide. I would absolutely support convicting abortionists of murder and even serial murder. However, as I stated earlier, pre-Roe any laws against abortion held only the abortionists liable. Would that change were Roe reversed? I don't know, and it's not really my focus. My focus is stopping abortion, not how the legislature and the courts will come down on those who disobey the law.

It IS a fact. There is no such thing as "potential life". Life either IS or it IS NOT. Just like you can't have a "potential thought". Either you have a thought or you don't. Yes, you could potentially become president. That is a vocation you might aspire to and work towards, but it does not define the essence of your being. It is simply a job, not a statement of your humanity. You cannot potentially become a person. You ARE and you always WERE a person, since the time that your mother's egg and your father's sperm combined and created a new being with neither your father's DNA nor your mother's DNA, but with your own unique DNA. Biologically, life begins when the sperm joins the egg and a new entity is in existence. It is a fact. It's when your life began and it's when my life began. You may believe your life or my life didn't have value until we were born (or whatever other arbitrary criterion you choose), but that doesn't change the fact that we can medically, scientifically, and biologically pinpoint the inception of our lives at conception.

I'm glad you posted an update, green. I've been praying for you. I have a very dear friend who was just diagnosed with cancer as well, so I think of both of you often. Please keep us updated.

laurend, I'm sure people don't often say this to you, but AMEN! I've said it before and I'll say it again: we do not OWN our children and we do not have unlimited power to do with them what we wish, even to the point of death. They are in our care but they are not our property. Death is irreversible.

I can't imagine what they're perceiving. They have a DEAD CHILD because of their poor decisions. I want to reiterate: I do not have a problem with the practice of religion. But if that practice kills an innocent child who had no say in the decision, then it's negligence at the least. There's a difference between reasonable and unreasonable government intrusion. If your practice of your religion causes you to have a poorly dressed or unfashionable child, intrusion on the part of the government would be unreasonable. If your practice of your religion causes a child's death, the government has a right to intrude.

What I said was: The PRACTICE of their beliefs killed her. Just as the PRACTICE of the beliefs of the parents who were just indicted for the death of their 15-month old killed that child.

Actually, insurance protects both. If you don't like the analogy, what about seat belt laws?

No, I don't believe the government should decide which religions are wacky. People have the right to practice whatever kind of wacky beliefs they subscribe to. Except when the practice of those beliefs kill people.

It's an unanswerable question. My religious belief is that if one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and lives their life for Him, they will go to heaven. There's nothing a medical procedure could do to negate that. What one person (e.g. a doctor) does to another person can't interfere with the second person's salvation.

I'm going to have to cite Wheetsin here in that that's a bit more like a DNR than standard medical treatment. For want of simple medical procedures, these children died.

Great analogy, laurend. Perfect.