I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

But why is an exception for incest so popular? If the female is a
minor, and the male more than a year or two older, it's statutory rape
and covered by the rape exception. If it's not forcible rape and the
female is over 18, she's thought to know what's she's doing, so why does
she deserve an exception?
Do people want the exception
a) just for the sake of voluntary sex between minors and siblings
who are no more than 1 or 2 years older (in states where that is not
rape)?
b) because of possible birth defects.


I think b is more likely that a, but no one ever mentions either reason.
They just say incest.

So what do you think the reason is?

On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky
wrote:

I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas,
I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . .



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/

usenet groups exist and are active for your topic :
alt.abortion
alt.abortion.inequity
Good luck with your discourses ...
John T.

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with
incest. Previously you asked, why would anyone want to have a child
who was fathered by a rapist, but you think there is no similar issue
with having a child fathered by your father?

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

Replies to your remarks at the top are just as obvious.


incest. Previously you asked, why would anyone want to have a child
who was fathered by a rapist, but you think there is no similar issue
with having a child fathered by your father?

You didn't read my post very carefully or you would have seen the
difference.

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:45:16 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky
wrote:

I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas,
I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . .



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/

usenet groups exist and are active for your topic :
alt.abortion
alt.abortion.inequity
Good luck with your discourses ...
John T.

I'm not sure but I think I asked this question at the first of these
groups years ago and got nowhere. IIRC, they ignored the question and
harangued me something like Trader just did. So I thought passions
might run lower here.

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:45:16 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky
wrote:

I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas,
I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . .



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/

usenet groups exist and are active for your topic :
alt.abortion
alt.abortion.inequity
Good luck with your discourses ...
John T.

I'm not sure but I think I asked this question at the first of these
groups years ago and got nowhere. IIRC, they ignored the question and
harangued me something like Trader just did. So I thought passions
might run lower here.

Harangued? You said:

'I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist."


That position is totally illogical, and it should be especially illogical
for those that oppose abortion, that write the laws with the exception.
It says essentially that the inconvenience, that it would be uncomfortable
to have to give birth to the baby of a rapist, justifies killing it.
The unborn baby didn't do anything to cause the situation either.

All I did is point that out, silly snowflake lib.

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

On 9/9/19 12:23 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:45:16 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:28:33 -0400, micky
wrote:

I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas,
I can't think of who else to ask. A popular position on abortion . .



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6564017/

usenet groups exist and are active for your topic :
alt.abortion
alt.abortion.inequity
Good luck with your discourses ...
John T.

I'm not sure but I think I asked this question at the first of these
groups years ago and got nowhere. IIRC, they ignored the question and
harangued me something like Trader just did. So I thought passions
might run lower here.



Aside from being a rabid Trump hater, Trader_4 is mild. Butch up, Snowflake.

On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child
cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to
visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an
abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going.

Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her
life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life,
influencing the child's development?

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child
cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to
visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an
abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going.

Who is this judge and what evidence do you have that he's right wing?
Sounds more like what silly lib judges do to me, ie favor criminals.




Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her
life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life,
influencing the child's development?

I would appeal the decision. You have the actual case? And I would
favor legislation to change the law so stupid, crazy judges can't do
this. We don't frame other laws around what one stupid judge might do.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child
cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to
visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an
abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going.

Who is this judge and what evidence do you have that he's right wing?
Sounds more like what silly lib judges do to me, ie favor criminals.




Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her
life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life,
influencing the child's development?

I would appeal the decision. You have the actual case? And I would
favor legislation to change the law so stupid, crazy judges can't do
this. We don't frame other laws around what one stupid judge might do.

It is the kind of idiotic decisions you get when sperm has civil
rights just because it bumped into an egg.
As far as I am concerned if you don't have a uterus you don't have the
right to tell people that do, who can live there.

I agree with the left on this when they say most right to lifers think
life starts at conception and public responsibility stops at birth.

On 9/9/2019 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child
cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to
visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an
abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going.

Who is this judge and what evidence do you have that he's right wing?
Sounds more like what silly lib judges do to me, ie favor criminals.




Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her
life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life,
influencing the child's development?

I would appeal the decision. You have the actual case? And I would
favor legislation to change the law so stupid, crazy judges can't do
this. We don't frame other laws around what one stupid judge might do.

It is the kind of idiotic decisions you get when sperm has civil
rights just because it bumped into an egg.
As far as I am concerned if you don't have a uterus you don't have the
right to tell people that do, who can live there.

I agree with the left on this when they say most right to lifers think
life starts at conception and public responsibility stops at birth.


Opinion can also come from life circumstances. Both my kids are against
abortion. Their reasoning is simple. Both had a birth mother that got
pregnant at a young age. If abortion was easy back then the mother may
have taken that course and they would not exist. They like the life
they were born into and grew up with,

On 9/9/2019 10:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child
cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to
visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an
abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going.

Who is this judge and what evidence do you have that he's right wing?
Sounds more like what silly lib judges do to me, ie favor criminals.




Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her
life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life,
influencing the child's development?

I would appeal the decision. You have the actual case? And I would
favor legislation to change the law so stupid, crazy judges can't do
this. We don't frame other laws around what one stupid judge might do.


If you really are incapable of finding the details you need, tell me
that and I will do the research for you. I caution you, it could take up
to 3 seconds to find it.

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 10:50:26 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/9/2019 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:11:53 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 9/9/2019 9:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:28:40 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist.


I don't understand the exception for rape. The unborn baby did nothing
wrong and if you believe abortion is wrong, that it's taking a human life,
then how the hell do you sanction murder because a woman doesn't want to
give birth to the child of a rapist?




OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist.

Well, obviously someone who doesn't want to keep the child fathered
by the rapist. Seems turning the baby over for adoption is humane
and preferable to killing it.





And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

Maybe you should figure this out first? AFAIK, no one has shown any
such genetic trait.





But why is an exception for incest so popular?

Amazing that you see no issue with an exception for rape, but do with

As usual, you jump to conclusions. I didn't say I had no issue with it.
I said I understood it. And then I explained it. While one might not
think that the reason is adequate, a normal person ought to be able to
see that it's a reason.

You certainly framed it in a way that seems more than simply "understanding it":


"I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away? "


And all I did was say that I don't understand it, that there is no logic
there. Butch up snowflake. I mean you make a post which you say
involves "landmines", then you bitch about a very benign reply?
Might be a good idea to choose a title that actually reflects what the
post is about too.

A judge has recently ordered that a rape victim who kept her child
cannot move away from her rapist, and has to give him rights to
visitation to her child. I can't think of a better motivation for an
abortion if that's where the insanity of right wing "justice" is going.

Who is this judge and what evidence do you have that he's right wing?
Sounds more like what silly lib judges do to me, ie favor criminals.




Would you accept your daughter having to deal with that invasion of her
life? Having to accept her rapist as part of her child's life,
influencing the child's development?

I would appeal the decision. You have the actual case? And I would
favor legislation to change the law so stupid, crazy judges can't do
this. We don't frame other laws around what one stupid judge might do.

It is the kind of idiotic decisions you get when sperm has civil
rights just because it bumped into an egg.
As far as I am concerned if you don't have a uterus you don't have the
right to tell people that do, who can live there.

I agree with the left on this when they say most right to lifers think
life starts at conception and public responsibility stops at birth.


Opinion can also come from life circumstances. Both my kids are against
abortion. Their reasoning is simple. Both had a birth mother that got
pregnant at a young age. If abortion was easy back then the mother may
have taken that course and they would not exist. They like the life
they were born into and grew up with,

I'm pretty sure that if abortion had been readily available in 1956, I
wouldn't be here to type this.

The thought doesn't bother me. I wasn't sitting around some cosmic
waiting room ready to be inserted into a body.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/9/19 8:28 AM, micky wrote:
I hate to bring up a subject loaded with landmines, but alas, I can't
think of who else to ask.

A popular position on abortion is that there should be an exception for
rape and incest.

I certainly understand an exception for rape. The girl or woman didn't
do anything to cause the pregnancy and who wants to give birth to the
child of a rapist. OTOH, who wants to give up for adoption one's own
child, even if the father was a rapist. And is what makes a man a
rapist even slightly genetic? If so, who wants to keep it or even give
it away?

But why is an exception for incest so popular? If the female is a
minor, and the male more than a year or two older, it's statutory rape
and covered by the rape exception. If it's not forcible rape and the
female is over 18, she's thought to know what's she's doing, so why does
she deserve an exception?
Do people want the exception
a) just for the sake of voluntary sex between minors and siblings
who are no more than 1 or 2 years older (in states where that is not
rape)?
b) because of possible birth defects.


I think b is more likely that a, but no one ever mentions either reason.
They just say incest.

So what do you think the reason is?



Hi Micky,

I think you are being sincere, so I will answer. It is about
emotion and compromise.

A rape/incest pregnancy is the LEAST wanted pregnancy that
abortionists can think of, so they throw it out there
for its emotional impact.

Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against
another human being unless they are protecting themselves
or others against deadly force. And indeed there are
times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would
be justified in using deadly force to take her child's
life. It is up to the mother.

And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child
is punishing the wrong person. What we should do as
a society is bend over backwards to support her and
put the child up for adoption if she so desires.

As far as compromise goes. It is a simple numbers game.
Come up with a way to prove a rape/incest pregnancy and
we will trade you birth control abortions for rape/incest
abortions. It is all about saving as many lives as we
can.

And you know, the abortionists will never go for the
compromise because they are *just that callous* to human
suffering. The children they murder try to run from the
pain and scream with their unformed mouths. The abortionists
want the ability to butcher human lives at will. The
"karma" on that one will be a thing to behold.

And Liberals wonder why human life is denigrated elsewhere
as well. Abortion rolls over into other areas of life too.
We now have godless mass murders who think no more of human
life than squashing a bug.

It is about emotion and compromise. How another human being
can murder such a helpless human being is beyond me. But
somehow they have found a way -- they have abandoned their
souls. We are look at the face of pure evil here.

"you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them
when born"
-- Teaching of the Apostles 2:2

€œYou shall not murder."
-- Exodus 20:13

-T

On 9/10/2019 7:25 AM, T wrote:


Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against
another human being unless they are protecting themselves
or others against deadly force.Â* And indeed there are
times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would
be justified in using deadly force to take her child's
life.Â* It is up to the mother.

And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child
is punishing the wrong person.Â* What we should do as
a society is bend over backwards to support her and
put the child up for adoption if she so desires.

-T

You make a lot of sense, but, one question remains. When is it a child?
Some say the moment the egg is fertilized, others say it is weeks later.

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass? At what
point does it change.

Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend
its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever?

Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed?

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:38:54 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/10/2019 7:25 AM, T wrote:


Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against
another human being unless they are protecting themselves
or others against deadly force.Â* And indeed there are
times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would
be justified in using deadly force to take her child's
life.Â* It is up to the mother.

And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child
is punishing the wrong person.Â* What we should do as
a society is bend over backwards to support her and
put the child up for adoption if she so desires.

-T

You make a lot of sense, but, one question remains. When is it a child?
Some say the moment the egg is fertilized, others say it is weeks later..

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass? At what
point does it change.

Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend
its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever?

Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed?

Thanks, Ed. I now have "Every Sperm Is Sacred" playing in my head.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/10/19 9:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/10/2019 7:25 AM, T wrote:


Now, NO ONE has the right to use deadly force against
another human being unless they are protecting themselves
or others against deadly force.Â* And indeed there are
times that a pregnancy can kill a mother, so she would
be justified in using deadly force to take her child's
life.Â* It is up to the mother.

And back to rape/incest pregnancies, killing the child
is punishing the wrong person.Â* What we should do as
a society is bend over backwards to support her and
put the child up for adoption if she so desires.

-T

You make a lot of sense, but, one question remains.Â* When is it a child? Â*Some say the moment the egg is fertilized, others say it is weeks later.

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what point does it change.

Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever?

Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed?





Many months before I was born, I remember being in a swimming contest. Selfish competitor that I am, I won. Unfortunately the other swimmers lost. Poor snowflakes didn't even get trophies for participating.

On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend
its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever?

That is not your call. You can not say it is okay
to kill anyone because they are unloved or whatever
other excuse you come up with. You only get to
use deadly force when protecting yourself or others
who are being threatened with deadly force.

Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed?

No conception so not a human being.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

Is it morally better to abort early and not make a baby that will spend
its life suffering a poor life being abused, starved, whatever?

That is not your call. You can not say it is okay
to kill anyone because they are unloved or whatever
other excuse you come up with. You only get to
use deadly force when protecting yourself or others
who are being threatened with deadly force.

Is masturbation a crime because all those little sperms are killed?

No conception so not a human being.

IDK where human life begins, but I find it hard to believe that it begins
at conception, that it's already a human being, when there is nothing more
than the DNA of a mother and father in a couple of cells. If you believe
in god, how do you know that god doesn't insert a soul, make it a human
at 8 weeks or at birth? Who exactly came up with the "at conception" part?

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton

For breakfast this morning I had two partially formed chickens, fried,
over easy.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:14:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton

For breakfast this morning I had two partially formed chickens, fried,
over easy.

Poultry abortionist ;-)

On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.

On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too. You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back. Sick!

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT), Cindy
Hamilton wrote:

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans

That's not so. Life began a long time ago and has continued without
interruption ever since.

look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:14:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?* At what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals? Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton

For breakfast this morning I had two partially formed chickens, fried,
over easy.

Remember when we were little and we thought the yolk was the chicken and
the white was the food it ate before hatching?

On 9/10/19 8:52 PM, micky wrote:
It is killing a human child. Life starts at conception. Humans

That's not so. Life began a long time ago and has continued without
interruption ever since.

You are a silly billy

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:37:18 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too. You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back. Sick!

Of course I would kill an animal for food. Happily, I live in
21st Century America and we have people who specialize in that.

I've got pictures of a dead deer hanging in the garage both
before and after my husband butchered it.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/11/19 3:26 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:37:18 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too. You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back. Sick!

Of course I would kill an animal for food. Happily, I live in
21st Century America and we have people who specialize in that.

I've got pictures of a dead deer hanging in the garage both
before and after my husband butchered it.

Cindy Hamilton


Sorry, got you mixed up with a veganut.

But he sick comment still holds. When did you get so
callous to the sufferings of other human beings?

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 3:25:19 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:26 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:37:18 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too. You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back. Sick!

Of course I would kill an animal for food. Happily, I live in
21st Century America and we have people who specialize in that.

I've got pictures of a dead deer hanging in the garage both
before and after my husband butchered it.

Cindy Hamilton


Sorry, got you mixed up with a veganut.

But he sick comment still holds. When did you get so
callous to the sufferings of other human beings?

There's more suffering after birth than before. An abortion lasts
a few minutes.

Cindy Hamilton

On 9/11/2019 3:29 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 3:25:19 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:26 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:37:18 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too. You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back. Sick!

Of course I would kill an animal for food. Happily, I live in
21st Century America and we have people who specialize in that.

I've got pictures of a dead deer hanging in the garage both
before and after my husband butchered it.

Cindy Hamilton


Sorry, got you mixed up with a veganut.

But he sick comment still holds. When did you get so
callous to the sufferings of other human beings?

There's more suffering after birth than before. An abortion lasts
a few minutes.

Cindy Hamilton

Paul Harvey used to often talk about "abortion after the fact"
Unwanted, unloved, abused children that would be dead in the first year
or two. Would it have been better if they were aborted in the first few
weeks? Certainly less pain and suffering.

On 9/11/19 12:29 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 3:25:19 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:26 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:37:18 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too. You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back. Sick!

Of course I would kill an animal for food. Happily, I live in
21st Century America and we have people who specialize in that.

I've got pictures of a dead deer hanging in the garage both
before and after my husband butchered it.

Cindy Hamilton


Sorry, got you mixed up with a veganut.

But he sick comment still holds. When did you get so
callous to the sufferings of other human beings?

There's more suffering after birth than before. An abortion lasts
a few minutes.

Cindy Hamilton


So it is okay to butcher another human being if he doesn't
suffer for very long? No are sick.

On 9/11/19 2:16 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Paul Harvey used to often talk about "abortion after the fact" Unwanted,
unloved, abused children that would be dead in the first year or two.
Would it have been better if they were aborted in the first few
weeks?Â*Â*CertainlyÂ*lessÂ*painÂ*andÂ*suffering.

So you are actually doing the child a favor? Get his
permission by chance? Murder me my life sucks?

And when you get old and enfeebled it is alright to murder
you because your quality of life sucks? My evaluation
of your situation, yours does not count?

This is not your call, be it a child or any other stage
of human development. "Thou salt not murder!"

On 9/11/19 2:59 PM, T wrote:
Â*NoÂ*areÂ*sick.
"You" not "no"

On 9/11/19 2:59 PM, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 12:29 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 3:25:19 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:26 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:37:18 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:09 PM, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 1:30 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:38 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Is abortion killing a child or is it removing some tissue
mass?Â* At
what
point does it change.

It is killing a human child.Â* Life starts at conception.Â* Humans
look different as they age and that goes all the way to our
deaths.

In what way are humans different from animals?Â* Should we refrain
from
killing animals because their lives begin at conception?

Cindy Hamilton


You are sick.


And I mean that too.Â* You would not kill and animal for food
(but you will kill plants), but you don't hesitate to
kill another human being because they cause you "inconvenience"
and they are small and can't fight back.Â* Sick!

Of course I would kill an animal for food.Â* Happily, I live in
21st Century America and we have people who specialize in that.

I've got pictures of a dead deer hanging in the garage both
before and after my husband butchered it.

Cindy Hamilton


Sorry, got you mixed up with a veganut.

But he sick comment still holds.Â* When did you get so
callous to the sufferings of other human beings?

There's more suffering after birth than before.Â* An abortion lasts
a few minutes.

Cindy Hamilton


So it is okay to butcher another human being if he doesn't
suffer for very long?Â* You are sick.

Ever hear of the concept of "karma". What goes around comes
around?

..

snip

snip

On 9/11/2019 6:06 PM, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:16 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Paul Harvey used to often talk about "abortion after the fact"
Unwanted, unloved, abused children that would be dead in the first
year or two. Would it have been better if they were aborted in the
first few weeks?Â*Â*CertainlyÂ*lessÂ*painÂ*andÂ*suffering.

So you are actually doing the child a favor?Â* Get his
permission by chance?Â* Murder me my life sucks?


Do you like seeing children abused and killed by abuse? Better battered
than aborted? Born with a drug addiction?



And when you get old and enfeebled it is alright to murder
you because your quality of life sucks?Â* My evaluation
of your situation, yours does not count?

Some states allow you to pull the plug yourself if you think it is time.


This is not your call, be it a child or any other stage
of human development.Â* "Thou salt not murder!"

Have you ever watched a person die? Close up? In the bed next to you?
If you have, we can discuss it. If not, STFU as you have no idea what
is is like.

On 9/11/19 3:47 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/11/2019 6:06 PM, T wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:16 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Paul Harvey used to often talk about "abortion after the fact"
Unwanted, unloved, abused children that would be dead in the first
year or two. Would it have been better if they were aborted in the
first few weeks?Â*Â*CertainlyÂ*lessÂ*painÂ*andÂ*suffering.

So you are actually doing the child a favor?Â* Get his
permission by chance?Â* Murder me my life sucks?


Do you like seeing children abused and killed by abuse?Â* Better battered
than aborted?Â* Born with a drug addiction?

They can survive this, especially if adopted out. Not
your call!




And when you get old and enfeebled it is alright to murder
you because your quality of life sucks?Â* My evaluation
of your situation, yours does not count?

Some states allow you to pull the plug yourself if you think it is time.


This is not your call, be it a child or any other stage
of human development.Â* "Thou salt not murder!"

Have you ever watched a person die?Â* Close up?Â* In the bed next to you?
If you have, we can discuss it.Â* If not, STFU as you have no idea what
is is like.

Again. Not your call. You want to kill yourself,
go ahead. Eat kale for all I care. Just make sure
those you have made commitments to are taken care
of first.

And these children ARE wanted. There is a long, long
for adoption. Murdering a child because you do not
want to put up with the inconvenience in beyond
callous and lacking in any humanity. "Thou shalt not murder!"

If you are pregnant and find it too "inconvenient", call any
local Christian church, they will bend over backwards
to assist you through the pregnancy and adopt out the child
for you.

And by the way, when a women sees her child on a
sonogram it is extremely unlikely that she will
proceed to murder it. Utah use to require this,
but got shut down by activist judges. Abortions
will almost nil.

Stop making excuses for murder.