Big Blue Wave's Comments
With due respect Suzanne, apparently one does not become a fetus until about the 8th week, post fertilization. I guess you are just a fertilized blob of flotsam and jetsam until then.
The Reuters Handbook of Journalism is full of sh?t, and trying to be PC. I am not interested in being PC, and stand full on PRO-LIFE from conception to natural death, as I know you are as well.
Keep up your good work. You are a light shining in the darkness, and the darkness shall never overcome it.
Amen for people from the most miniscule to the eldest.
It is true that technically, the unborn become fetuses at 8 weeks.
However, political labels are not meant to be taken that literally.
Considered women's rights activists. They fight for the rights of girls, who are not women.
Or consider gay rights activists who fight for transvestites.
"Fetal rights" encompasses the rights of all the unborn. You could subsitute prenatal rights or some other word. Until I come up with something more satisfactory, I am happy with "fetal rights".
What about the Terry Schiavos? Aren't you leaving the veggie-people out?
Veggie people. Sounds like characters from a B-movie.
The label "Anti-abortion" does leave out the disabled. "Pro-life" is a philosophy of which fetal rights is only one aspect.
Since we are on the same side, I sure do not want to quibble on semantics.
Life is Life, on that we agree. Life is precious.
Where we do not split hairs, our opponents do, as it suits them.
Fetus, baby, unborn child. Don't murder him or her, whatever you call him or her.
mrbrandon, here at SUZY's 24-Hour Dead Fetus Pr0n Cafe, fetuses are always Male. Must be a Catholic thing. . .
In French, foetuses are always masculine.
Is that sexist, too?
(Hint: linguistic convention)
And what's this obsession with the word "porn"? Sheesh.
"And what's this obsession with the word "porn"? Sheesh."
Has it reached the point where you are not repulsed by the photos you post on your blog.
I would wonder where all these photos came from, and if the women that aborted them know you are using them for your own purposes. You consider them "unborn babies", so would this mean that you would post photos of "born" children without their parents consent. Interesting question, eh?
southern quebec: somewhere, I think in the comments at JJ's, deBeauxOs cracked that if that dead fetuses were being paid royalties for HER use of their images, they'd be very rich dead fetuses.
Has it reached the point where you are not repulsed by the photos you post on your blog.
They're supposed to be repulsive, because abortion is repulsive. It kills a human being. That should be obvious from the picture.
I do get somewhat used to pictures of dead babies-- kind of like coroners get used to dead bodies. It's just part of the "job".
I would wonder where all these photos came from,
The dead unborn child on my sidebar comes from a thesis published at Laval University.
and if the women that aborted them know you are using them for your own purposes.
I doubt it. Given that it would violate the mother's patient confidentiality to identify the unborn child. It's not something women would want to admit to, generally.
As a matter of fact, I have a picture of an aborted fetus who is a victim of PBA. Her mother regretted her decision and posted it to show the world.
You consider them "unborn babies", so would this mean that you would post photos of "born" children without their parents consent. Interesting question, eh?
There are lots of pictures of children roaming the internet. They are mostly anonymous.
If a woman were to ask me not to post the picture of her unborn child, chances are I wouldn't do it.
I was thinking of that actually yesterday as I was reading a textbook on perinatal medicine. There were many pictures of unborn children, and I wondered if their parents had been asked before they had been published. I would be thrilled to have a picture of my unborn child in a textbook, but I would definitively want to be asked first. Just to know where it's going.
I often wonder about the identities of the fetuses in the images that I come across. In fact, I think that the anonymity of the fetus is one factor that facilitates abortion and his non-recognition as a person.
Mr. or Ms. Southern Quebec: There is something about your remarks that seem to make me want to respond.
Your comment about would she post pictures of born children without their parents' consent, roused my interst. Does this mean that you think that people should always get the consent of a child's parents before they use a picture of the child?
If you really believe this, then what do you think of the hate mongers who photoshopped pictures of Sarah Palin's Downs Syndrome baby to make him look really warped? Should they have gotten Sarah's permission first? Or is it different when the mother is a pro-life politician whose popularity threatens the pro-abort death culture?
Commenting by HaloScan
