War News from the Home Front

[Nabobalis]

Well, I'm not so sure. If I had a child, my own flesh and blood residing in my anus (nothing dirty here, MODS; just a hypothetical alternate physiological universe to answer the gentleman's question), and I wanted to kill the child instead of trying to save him, if some instrument could enlighten me as to his or her condition within my anus, said instrument being smaller and therefore less "intrusive" than that which about 10% of men allow for pleasure, I think I might allow it. Besides, people also allow enemas into that area to eliminate feces, and SURELY my own child, even if I did pay someone to kill him or her, is worth more than my own feces.

The point is, to get an abortion you don't need to do an ultrasound. To force women to have an ultrasound which requires the insertion of an ultrasound wand against her wishes is so wrong it remarkable that (mostly) men are happy to have to done to women but if the reverse was true, they would never let it happen to them. We aren't talking about some small object either. They are on average about 10-12 inches long.

 

[stiggywiggy]

The point is, to get an abortion you don't need to do an ultrasound. To force women to have an ultrasound which requires the insertion of an ultrasound wand against her wishes is so wrong it remarkable that (mostly) men are happy to have to done to women but if the reverse was true, they would never let it happen to them. We aren't talking about some small object either. They are on average about 10-12 inches long.

All right. You win. It's wrong to require women to view their child before paying to have him or her killed. Why do they need to see who they're killing, anyway? Just because their child might experience a bit of pain while being put to death, it hardly means the mother must be made to experience any discomfort, even if only for a minute or two.

Plus, I hear it's only human nature not to want to look at the people we know we're about to kill. I believe Ted Bundy did, but many serial killers have too tender a heart to do so. How tender must be the hearts of these parents who cannot force themselves to view the child they are about to destroy.

See? I think more highly of these folks than even you. I attribute their adversion to the ultra-sound to a true sensitivity (akin to averting your eyes to roadkill), while you seem to think it's just a desire to avoid an uncomfortable moment.

 

[Nabobalis]

All right. You win. It's wrong to require women to view their child before paying to have him or her killed. Why do they need to see who they're killing, anyway? Just because their child might experience a bit of pain while being put to death, it hardly means the mother must be made to experience any discomfort, even if only for a minute or two.

It is wrong to try and emotionally blackmail women who have made a heavy decision. They have are already experiencing discomfort, women don't choose abortion easily. The child won't feel any pain, the nervous system doesn't form till the 24th week which is the legal limit in the UK.

Plus, I hear it's only human nature not to want to look at the people we know we're about to kill. I believe Ted Bundy did, but many serial killers have too tender a heart to do so. How tender must be the hearts of these parents who cannot force themselves to view the child they are about to destroy.

I suspect many serial killers have no issue with looking at the faces of their victims. Not being able to look at their victim faces indicates hesitant and serial killers tend not to hesitate.

See? I think more highly of these folks than even you. I attribute their adversion to the ultra-sound to a true sensitivity (akin to averting your eyes to roadkill), while you seem to think it's just a desire to avoid an uncomfortable moment.

I try to avoid the state (mostly men) forcing upon women unnecessary and horrible procedures just so they can feel better about themselves and try to force their views on to other people.

 

[stiggywiggy]

It is wrong to try and emotionally blackmail women who have made a heavy decision.

I agree. But we're not talking about emotional blackmail. Blackmail requires a threat to expose the one threatened, unless he or she enriches the blackmailer in some way. Obviously nothing like that takes place if women are required to at least view their chidren before having them put to death.

They have are already experiencing discomfort, women don't choose abortion easily.

Some do easily choose to kill their children, and some struggle with it.

The child won't feel any pain,

Neither will you if I sneak into your bedroom tonight and smother you with a pillow. Or at least not much.

the nervous system doesn't form till the 24th week which is the legal limit in the UK.

The old "kill 'em before they know what hit 'em" philosophy. I'm familiar with it.

I try to avoid the state (mostly men) forcing upon women unnecessary and horrible procedures just so they can feel better about themselves

I agree. Feeling better about yourself sounds like a really poor reason to oppose the freedom to have your child slaughtered before he or she has a chance to enter the world into which the mother and her hired killer entered, unimpeded by killing machines.