Crow Endorses Baby Killing

[Freak]

"I'm not even to the far far right on abortion--I believe that if the fetus cannot survive long enough to be viable because a pregnancy will be fatal to the mother and an abortion might save the mother's life, go for it."

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21566&page=4&pp=15 (post #60)

Crow, tells us that we should "go for it" in killing a baby if we can save a life. Strange logic!

Should TOL have a moderator that believes baby killing is permissable in certain cases?

I think this is a healthy debate!

I personally think Crow should resign or repent.

 

[Freak]

Abortion might Save a Life--Crow's slogan.

 

[Frank Ernest]

"I'm not even to the far far right on abortion--I believe that if the fetus cannot survive long enough to be viable because a pregnancy will be fatal to the mother and an abortion might save the mother's life, go for it."

I personally think Crow should resign or repent.

I personally think you should read what she said. :doh:

 

[BillyBob]

Is it too late to abort Freak?

 

[Granite]

Freak, give it up. Given the choice between both mother and child dying and being able to save only one of them, Crow would save one of them. Get over yourself.

 

[Greywolf]

"I'm not even to the far far right on abortion--I believe that if the fetus cannot survive long enough to be viable because a pregnancy will be fatal to the mother and an abortion might save the mother's life, go for it."

Might as well post the rest of what Crow posted:

Don't let two people die to prove a point about one. Preserve innocent live whenever you can and save who you can save even if you can't save both.

Crow, tells us that we should "go for it" in killing a baby if we can save a life. Strange logic!

How is it strange? All she said was that if we know the fetus won't make it, and it poses a threat to the mother's life, we may as well save who we can. What's the point of sitting back and letting both die when we can save at least one? Is the mother's life any less valuable than the fetus's?

Should TOL have a moderator that believes baby killing is permissable in certain cases?

That depends, does holding that point of view interfere with her ability to enforce the rules of TOL?

I personally think Crow should resign or repent.

I think I'm going to go give Crow a positive rep for her post in the other thread.

 

[cattyfan]

Way to take something completely out of context and divorce a statement from the author's true belief. Why post something that any rational person knows is a blatant lie? There are so many people on the board who actually believe abortion is fine....why completely misrepresent someone else's viewpoint?

Try reading, with comprehension, what Crow wrote.

Get back to me after you've taken your meds.

 

[taoist]

Is it too late to abort Freak?

Maybe, but it's never too late to Sacrifice Freak to the Devil. Not that I'm heading any such conspiracy, y'unnerstand. (Hey, don't sit on the marshmallows, Redneck!)

 

[fool]

Freak;
how is this going to be anything but a repeat of the thread you lifted that from ?
If you need to spit venom at someone try the attack fool thread.

 

[taoist]

Crow thinks we should "go for it" in saving a mother's life. Freak thinks women aren't worth saving. Knight thinks trying to save the mother is lazy.

:bang:

Yo, Jay!!!!

Abortion, as a medical term, will be used in its medical sense by a medical practitioner. Get over it. Or crack a book, preferably not over a bonfire this time.

 

[fool]

Or crack a book, preferably not over a bonfire this time.

:rotfl:

 

[Poly]

Freak, this thread sickens me. And let me say right up front...DO NOT twist this making it look as if I feel a certain way about abortion in which I do not.

It seems to me that you are more interested in "HA! Knight is strongly disagreeing with you, a mod and he's agreeing with me!" than expressing your heartfelt convictions on abortion with comments such as these.

Didn't answer my question Miss Moderator.

Deal with his points! I'll expose you just like I exposed Goose (an ex-Moderator).

I wonder were you saddened at all for the reason Goose was exposed? Was it devistating to you that somebody could have changed their thinking in such a way or were you all too happy to see him gone to even realize the tragedy that had taken place with the way he now believes?

And now you've wasted no time starting this pathetic thread calling for Crow to resign. It's as if you're obsessed with making mods look bad around here.
Unfortunately disagreements can occur even between Christians who are usually like-minded over most things and it's sad when this happens. But you almost seem to get some kind of pleasure in it especially if it's one mod/admin against another. :down:

 

[docrob57]

"I'm not even to the far far right on abortion--I believe that if the fetus cannot survive long enough to be viable because a pregnancy will be fatal to the mother and an abortion might save the mother's life, go for it."

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21566&page=4&pp=15 (post #60)

Crow, tells us that we should "go for it" in killing a baby if we can save a life. Strange logic!

Should TOL have a moderator that believes baby killing is permissable in certain cases?

I think this is a healthy debate!

I personally think Crow should resign or repent.

This is ridiculous. It turns a deliberate blind eye to the very specific medical circumstances of which Crow spoke. You want to pretend that such circumstances do not exist or that there is some medically viable alternative that does not, in fact, exist.

This is not a healthy debate. It is an argument made from ignorance.

 

[Emo]

Crow thinks we should "go for it" in saving a mother's life. Freak thinks women aren't worth saving. Knight thinks trying to save the mother is lazy.

I think that Freak has hugely distorted Crow's view on this subject.

Most people on TOL are well aware of Crow's stance on abortion. She hates it & cherishes human life. I'm not sure what the argument is about really. It's seems like pure common sense to save 1 life if you can not save both, plain & simple. If an infant is lost during a medical emergency so that the mother can be spared then it should be done, but not before all means of saving both parties have been utilized. Look on the bright side, if the woman survives she can still, hopefully, conceive another child. On the other hand, if both parties perish, then you are at a total loss. Since Crow works in the medical field I believe that she has a much firmer understanding of the different emergency scenarios.

 

[Turbo]

These are lies:

Freak thinks women aren't worth saving. Knight thinks trying to save the mother is lazy.

 

[docrob57]

These are lies:

I agree, but so is this isn't it?

Crow Endorses Baby Killing

 

[taoist]

These are lies:

Greetings, Turbo, but no.

They are misintepretations made deliberately in the context of this thread. It's a subtlety thing, and I'm glad docrob at least caught it. Neither of those misinterpretations, by the way, were as outrageous as Freak's misread of Crow's comments.

"Freak thinks women aren't worth saving."

This is hyperbole and done quite deliberately. Freak has yet to show any consideration that a woman's life is on the line in the situations Crow described. If that fetus doesn't go, she's gonna die! Ignoring somebody who's going to die says something about how much you value her life and I thought and still think, in the context of THIS thread, that pointing it out in a somewhat abrasive manner was entirely appropriate.

"Knight thinks trying to save the mother is lazy."

Knight's focus on the fetus first and the mother second has some kind of grounding in his faith, but calling a medical team "lazy" while they're frantically trying to save a mother's life is both naturally absurd and poorly grounded in fact. Knight's insistence that a medical specialist use "abortion" in anything other than a medical sense is equally absurd. If the use of the term "abortion" is confusing, then those using it incorrectly should do the changing, IMHO.

Anything else would be pandering to ignorance.

Sorry, Turbo, but you missed it badly on this one.

In peace, Jesse

 

[Freak]

Freak, this thread sickens me.

Then don't read it.

I wonder were you saddened at all for the reason Goose was exposed?

I rejoiced that truth prevailed.

Was it devistating to you...

devistating :chuckle: Take a deep breath, Poly.

And now you've wasted no time starting this pathetic thread calling for Crow to resign. It's as if you're obsessed with making mods look bad around here.

If Crow honestly believes that abortion is permitted in certain cases, then yes, she should resign.

Next.

 

[Turbo]

Greetings, Turbo, but no.

They are misintepretations made deliberately in the context of this thread. It's a subtlety thing, and I'm glad docrob at least caught it. Neither of those misinterpretations, by the way, were as outrageous as Freak's misread of Crow's comments.

"Freak thinks women aren't worth saving."

This is hyperbole and done quite deliberately. Freak has yet to show any consideration that a woman's life is on the line in the situations Crow described. If that fetus doesn't go, she's gonna die! Ignoring somebody who's going to die says something about how much you value her life and I thought and still think, in the context of THIS thread, that pointing it out in a somewhat abrasive manner was entirely appropriate.

"Knight thinks trying to save the mother is lazy."

Knight's focus on the fetus first and the mother second has some kind of grounding in his faith, but calling a medical team "lazy" while they're frantically trying to save a mother's life is both naturally absurd and poorly grounded in fact. Knight's insistence that a medical specialist use "abortion" in anything other than a medical sense is equally absurd. If the use of the term "abortion" is confusing, then those using it incorrectly should do the changing, IMHO.

Anything else would be pandering to ignorance.

Sorry, Turbo, but you missed it badly on this one.

In peace, Jesse

So Freak misrepresents Crow and to illustrate that point you misrepresent Freak and Knight.

You are rightly outraged by Freaks misrepresentations, but in response you've returned evil for evil and made yourself a hypocrite. Well done. :freak:

 

[erinmarie]

If Crow honestly believes that abortion is permitted in certain cases, then yes, she should resign.

Next.

Okay, so Freak, let's say that you're the OBGYN in charge of a woman in her 16th week pregnancy. She begins to hemmorage for whatever reason, and the baby is either dead, or will soon be either because of the trauma or because a 16 week old baby cannot live outside the womb.
Crow has seen cases like this, and plainly states that there is nothing you can do to save the baby, in any instance. But, if you abort the baby, the mother has a better chance of emerging unscathed.

So, what would you do?