To Hell With the National Organization for Women.

It seems that The National Organization for Women (NOW) oppose a double murder charge against Scott Peterson claiming that the 8 month old fetus that he killed along with his wife was NOT a person.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm

Are they out of thir goddamn minds?!? As women, as human beings, how could they possibly say that shit?? Basically, they're just using this situation in an effort to further enhance their pro-abortion agenda. Hell, the bloodthirsty cunts even support partial-birth abortions:

http://www.now.org/press/03-03/03-13b.html

Partial-birth abortions are abortions that are preformed towards the end of the pregnancy, when the baby is already partially a living being. And at 8 months old, a fetus is certainly a fucking person! Kids are born prematurely earlier than that and live. Collin Peterson (yes, the kid even had a name) WAS a person, and he was murdered.

Now, I'm NOT anti-abortion in any way, shape or form. I'm of the opinion that it's the woman's body and she can do with it as she sees fit. Women should NEVER be denied that right. Fuck, get all the abortions you want, up until a certain point anyway. I mean, if you want an abortion, get one early when the kid is still just a blob of protoplasm. I could only see a partial-birth abortion as being okay if the life of the mother was in danger in some way.

NOW has done some good, such as raising awareness of sexual assault in this country, but this statemant about the Peterson murder case is just over the edge. Fuck those feminist bitches.

If you have a flight of steps in your home, you'll never need an abortion clinic.

lol @ "bloodthirsty cunts" - I know about those man.... oooh I know.

Well, most of them say that they're only protesting it because they think banning partial-birth will necessarily lead to a full ban of all types of abortion. The idea is, if one sort of abortion is wrong, then it's only a short step to saying all abortion is wrong - "slippery slope" theory, all that.

Similar to the way people justify not supporting homosexual marriage - once you allow one form of deviant marriage, then what's keeping all of the other forms of deviant marriage from being okay. What happens when bigamy's permitted?

I mean, I think it should be banned, yeah, but I sort of understand why they're protesting against it. It's characteristically left-wing thinking, shouldn't be surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kidnemo
If you have a flight of steps in your home, you'll never need an abortion clinic.

---

Oooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............god, that's bad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
I mean, I think it should be banned, yeah, but I sort of understand why they're protesting against it. It's characteristically left-wing thinking, shouldn't be surprising.

---

Very good points, and I understand where they're coming from. I didn't mean for this to be an abortion thread, I was just using the whole partial-birth abortion thing to illustrate their views.

It's just that, when NOW says "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," about an 8 MONTH OLD fetus, well, that's fucked up. The kid was just ONE MONTH shy of being born.

I'm gonna play devils advocate here and go against my gut for a sec, so understand that this is NOT my position on this issue.

However, they are arguing that in the name of abortion rights, which I DO support. Their aim is to use this as a means to maintain what few abortion rights currently existing and have partial birth abortions legalized by claiming that any "fetus" not having taken its first breath is not legally alive, and thus cannot be "murdered." If they get a judge to rule that the "child" was not alive at the time of the murder it'll open up the window for an abortion procedure that would terminate the partially birthed fetus before it fully exits through the birth canal.

You have to understand that this ruling can be used as a means to end abortion rights and that NOW needs to take the extremists route on this issue for the sake of maintaining abortion rights. Every organization needs to do this. In order to maintain civil liberties the ACLU needs to take the sides of murderers and pedophiles that they feel have been denied due process or their individual rights. For the sake of all the cute little animals PETA needs to take stupid positions on how milking cows is cruel (despite that if they are not milked their udders swell and cause them great pain,) and that we as humans we need to stop eating animals all together.

EDIT: Stone beat me to it and said it in fewer words. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShineAqua
EDIT: Stone beat me to it and said it in fewer words. :(

---

Plus, if you'll look at my reply to Stone, I said "Very good points, and I understand where they're (NOW) coming from."

I feel VERY strongly that defending abortion rights is important, but some lines shouldn't be crossed. I just think saying that murdering a woman pregnant with an 8 month child isn't a double homicide is just a heartless attempt to further their own political agenda at the expense of a human life. The extremist route you say is needed is taken by pro-lifers as well when they murder doctors that perform abortions and bomb abortion clincs. ;) Maybe they should send a letter to Laci Peterson's mother and tell her that her grandson wasn't a person and his death doesn't matter. I'm sorry, but an 8 month old can feel pain and emotions just as a newborn can.

Abortion is one of those "If it don't involve me then to hell with it" issues with me. It's a complete waste of my time and energy to argue with people about it because no one's going to convince the other of their point of view. So if it isn't the life my child on the butcher's block then do whatever you want and deal with God about it afterwards.

As a Christian I hold the same view of abortion as I do of same-sex marriages. It's unnatural, amoral, and not what God intended (Shut up! I'm just stating my point of stance). That said, if a woman chooses to abort her pregnancy, that's her own business. It doesn't necessarily concern me and she'll receive no condemnation from me because of it.

I know a woman who chose to have an abortion (primarily because her boyfriend is an irresponsible asshole) and tried to talk her out it beforehand. I tried to convince her to just let the baby be born and give it up for adoption, but unfortunately she comes from an unforgiving asian culture. She was more afraid of her family finding out that she was having pre-marital sex than concerned for the life growing inside her.

Ultimately, I knew the decision was her own. All I could do was play God's advocate. I told her I was very disappointed and sad about the choice she'd made, but I didn't comdemn her. Rather I condemned the bullshit culture that made her feel she had no other choice. Parents should love their children no matter what they do. Disowning them because of one mistake is just so fucking wrong.

That said, I agree. NOW is full of bloodthirsty cunts.:evil:

NOW is just standing up for their beliefs. I'm pro-choice myself and I don't think it really matters whether it's one murder or two. If he's found guilty of either, he'll get the harshest penalty available. I don't support the death penalty so either way I hope he rots away in prison.

SC

Don't you think that the term "bloodthirsty cunts" sounds stupid, considering that the blood there typically flows in the opposite direction?