"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message

On 3 Sep 2006 10:19:47 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
<redsky@virtualhosts.net> in news message

Mr. Young wrote:

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If the mom should
have
the freedom to kill her baby before the birth process, the dad should at
least have the freedom to tell the child to do the same to the mom.

The babies of the world tracking down their mothers to abort them. I
like it. I like it a lot. Watch the liberals squeal. But, hey,
turnabout is fair play.

Interesting that you are advocating the death of women who chose to
give birth. Isn't that against your own position? Or do you just
dislike women in general?

The anti-abortion movement styles itself "pro-life" and also argues against
euthanasia. The fact is that in thiry year's time there will be too many old
people for the workers to easily support. There will be a strong economic
pressure for euthansia to prevent grannie's house being swallowed up by her
nursing home bills, and moral justifications will be invented. You may well
find yourself as such a grannie.

If a woman aborts all her children, obviously there will be no grandchildren
trying to collect on the inheritance, so that particular danger won't apply.
If she aborts some and lets the others live, then the action of abortion can
be seen as helping to bring about the sort of climate where euthansasia is
accepted. Don't say you weren't warned, but ultimately it comes down largely
to economics. Marx was right there.

If a fetus is biologically independent then you will have no problem
with removing it intact from a woman's body and leaving it to get on
with its busy life. -- Frank O'Dwyer

And if an adult is biologically independent they will have no problem going
to the African jungle and living on the food the catch. Humans are social
animals, only a few exceptional young adults are able to survive on their
own for any length of time, even in an ideal environment like an African
forest.

Liz wrote:

Interesting that you are advocating the death of women who chose to
give birth. Isn't that against your own position? Or do you just
dislike women in general?

Nah, I love women. What I'm saying is that if they gave children the
reciprocal unfettered freedom and right to, on a whimsical whim, have
their mother's skull cracked open and their brains sucked out, a lot of
pro-choice people would become pro-life lickity split. Think about it.

Liz wrote:

Interesting that you are advocating the death of women who chose to
give birth. Isn't that against your own position? Or do you just
dislike women in general?

Nah, I love women. What I'm saying is that if they gave children the
reciprocal unfettered freedom and right to, on a whimsical whim, have
their mother's skull cracked open and their brains sucked out, a lot of
pro-choice people would become pro-life lickity split. Think about it.

Liz wrote:

Interesting that you are advocating the death of women who chose to
give birth. Isn't that against your own position? Or do you just
dislike women in general?

Nah, I love women. What I'm saying is that if they gave children the
reciprocal unfettered freedom and right to, on a whimsical whim, have
their mother's skull cracked open and their brains sucked out, a lot of
pro-choice people would become pro-life lickity split. Think about it.