Posted on 07/18/2004 11:39:14 AM PDT by dennisw
To answer your question, "If it doesn't look human to you is abortion and stem cell research okay as long as you get it done before it looks somewhat human?", I would say no, I personally draw the line before that. I'm a bit confused by your question, though, since you seem to suggest that your answer is that it is not OK, but you wrote in your original post that "Once the fetus attains all human being characteristics it qualifies as a human being to me."
What I don't get is the "boyfriend" of this check must be the most emasculated metrosexual on earth. How she ever coaxed three sperm out of any man is news to me.
I have e-mailed her. You just didn't get far enough into the posts yet!
I want to say I don't believe this, but I know it's true. What we see here is what we are seeing over and over again. People killing babies, divorcing, etc. because of their selfish desires. Of course it would not be easy. There are many people with a special needs child that will never be able to support itself or live alone and they don't kill it. Of course, Peter Singer would advocate killing it since he's fine with killing kids up to two years of age.
I'm still reeling from this.
Geez, you aren't kidding when you say the enemy of all that is good. How can a soul be so deceived or worse yet, so evil, to suggest such a thing. The problem is enough young women don't hear that vitriol--I know even as a very rebellious young woman, hearing that would have troubled me in to reality or close to it.
That leaves me with no doubt that this woman has probably been asked for her hand in marriage, probably even by the man who fathered her THREE children, but she has flatly refused him. What's sad is deep down she may not even believe it anymore, but keeps up appearances for MONEY and PRESTIGE. That is evident enough from the reasons she easily talked her consience into doing away with two of her children recently.
Okay what I meant was that a fetus that is viable has all the traits that make it qualify. In my opinion viability is the correct line. Viability is the ability to live outside the womb. Technology that attempts to cheat to act as an artifical womb doesn't change the fact that it isn't viable. Either way 90 something percent of all abortions and stem cell research use embryos. There is no way they come close to qualifying.
So what stage do you, personally, define viability at?
And yet she supports the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I wonder if that was just to give a public show of support to her husband, or if she's come around.
Rush read this article today, so it'll be preserved in his transcript archives.
LMAO. I hope she responds.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Thanks for the ping. I saw the article earlier and it just made me ill. She cheerfully killed her twins and thinks the rest of us will be just as happy about that as she.
Wow-didn't get a chance to listen. Will check out.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I define viability as the ability to live outside the womb without breathing tubes and extensive medical equipment to act as artificial womb. I'm not sure exactly how many weeks that is. The ability to keep it's own body alive proves it graduated from fetus to human being.
My wife, daughter of the NARAL-supporting in-laws I mentioned, was repelled by this article. That says something significant about the impact that this article may have on the abortion debate in favor of the unborn.
Even the illustration at the top of the article was evocotive.
Yeah, since according to Andrea Dworkin, all sex with men is "rape," right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.