If any one of these women decided her puppy was inconvenient and publicly executed it, would the media and elite "support her decision?" No, there would be a national news blurb, and outraged letters to the editor, breathless reporting and tut-tutting from local television reporters, and a stern judge lecturing and sentencing. Yet BHO supports even killing children born alive after a "botched" third trimester abortion.
33 comments
Er, lots of people have had their pets put down. Myself included.
Granted, I don't know anyone who had their puppy put down in public, but then I've never heard of a public abortion either.
Late term abortions are usually done in cases where the fetus is hopeless deformed or handicapped, so I suppose there could be some correlation drawn between having a terminally ill animal put to sleep and aborting a terminally ill fetus. If we care enough about a beloved pet to put it out of its misery, don't we care enough about a potential child to spare it a short lifetime that would consist of nothing but pain and misery?
1) Women don't give birth to puppies.
2) People put their pets down all the time. I've had to do it several times.
3) Neither euthanesias nor abortions are typically done in public.
Bitch PLEASE! People euthanize puppies REGULARLY for a variety of reasons...they can't get them paper trained...they bark...they aren't cute anymore. Ask any vet you want...they'll back me. And as for killing after a botched Third Trimester abortion...aren't those illegal in the first place? And even if they're not, you're aware that a baby even a few weeks premature may face major health issues due to a lack of development. Extend that to a few months, and see what that gets you. For Christ sakes, in my eyes it seems more like a mercy than anything else...
To clarify before I get flamed...I'm not saying anyone who puts a pet down is callous, and does it out of inconvenience. Just saying that she's saying how we would put outrage on that but not an abortion, when to be frank, people do what she's screeching about ALREADY.
If any one of these women decided her puppy was inconvenient and publicly executed it, would the media and elite "support her decision?"
A puppy is different from a two month old fetus, which looks like a seahorse.
No, there would be a national news blurb, and outraged letters to the editor, breathless reporting and tut-tutting from local television reporters, and a stern judge lecturing and sentencing.
And that's bad?
Yet BHO supports even killing children born alive after a "botched" third trimester abortion.
If that's true, that's one of the things I don't agree with Obama about. But I still voted for him, because the things I agreed with him about outweighed the things I didn't.
Third trimester abortions are illegal in all states except in very rare cases usually involving the life of the mother or severe congenital problems with the fetus (e.g., the fetus was alive but had failed to develop a brain). In one study in Georgia, they examined about 70,000 abortions, of which only 78 (1/10th of 1%) were reported as third term abortions. Upon investigation, they found that 15 were misreported and weren't third term. Another 58 were actually third term natural fetal deaths (miscarriages) and two others were statistical errors. Only 3 were third term abortions. In another case, a 12 year old girl was raped by her brother, attempted to get an abortion, and was prevented by right-to-lifers until she was in her third trimester.
Work a day on the intake desk of your local animal shelter, then you'll realize how many puppies are executed on a daily basis.
BTW, they do abortions on animals all the time. If you're purebred dog happens to have fun with a mutt, you can get an abortion for your dog. We also spay/neuter puppies on a regular basis for not having the right markings, not being the right build, etc. Should we equate that to people too?
Edit:
I remember, early in the school year, this kitten followed a pair of my students to school, and in good conscience, I couldn't leave it on the street, so I took it home and called the Animal Shelter, who informed me that because of the large number of kittens they receive, it was almost guaranteed that it, like thousands before it, would be put down, basically because it was a burden the shelter was not willing to undertake as it was already stretched to it;s limits.
So, bullshit claims aside, your analogy fails anyway. Small, cute things are killed every day for being an 'inconvenience' and no one bats an eyelash so long as the death is 'humane'. (Also, for those curious, I didn't have the kitten put down, as my moral high grounds wouldn't let me. She lives with my neighbor now.)
I hate to break it to you, El Gallo, but death is the natural fate of the majority of your analogous cute puppies, along with the majority of the young of just about every other species - making far too many and then killing off the excess is the only effective way nonsentient populations can stay at sustainable levels, given a high probabilistic infant mortality rate, and still guarantee the continued existence of the species. Unfortunately, this has instilled a "breed like crazy" instinct at the most basic level of the human mind (and the collective minds of our earlier civilisations - Exhibit A, fucking "go forth and multiply"), and it's damn hard to consciously exert control over something like that, either individually or at a population level.
In this light, birth control and abortion are entirely in keeping with nature (but better than the options arising naturally - creatures other than humans obviously have no ability to perform early term abotions, and must kill excess young after birth) and, until we are completely in control of the aforementioned fundamental instinct, which may never happen, given that it has probably been built into the very nature of all known life at the most basic level since abiogeneis, also necessary in cases where a pregnant woman, for whatever reason, recognises that she cannot fully support a child and give it a chance at a decent life - what you would derisively call being "inconvenient."
IIRC Obama voted against a "Born-alive infant protection act" in Illinois when he worked in the state house. What rabid conservative wackjobs fail to specify is that the same bill also specified criminal penalties for doctors who performed other legal forms of abortion and was unconstitutional on those grounds. Also I seem to remember hearing there were already provisions in Illinois's legal code relating to fetal viability and life-saving techniques, so the bill was basically superfluous.
@TheReligiousCommie
Forgive me...I didn't mean to imply that preemies are doomed or should be killed, or anything of the sort. I fully acknowledge many premature babies grow up healthy and normal. What I did mean, though, is that the people advocating that if a child aborted at the third trimester, there's usually a BIG reason...and compounding that, there are bound to be complications due to underdevelopment. People shouting they should be "saved" at that point seems irresponsible to me. With that being said, though, again, I apologize for my poor choice of words, and lack of clarification.
Oh, Jesus, clumps of cells are puppies now?
This reminds me of PETA's initiative to call fish "sea kittens".
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
