Poor-Choicers Want Their License To Kill

Looks like I was too quick to say that the pro-abort side couldn't find any new arguments against the pro-life essay which Suzanne had quoted on her blog. Believe it or not, they do have something else to say beside "my body, my choice" and "the Supreme Court said so, case closed". Here's some more input from the pro-abortion side:

It's NOT A BABY, but even if it were, as long as it's inhabiting MY body, it's a parasite, and I will dispose of it as I see fit.

The author of the comment, Gorgon, then elaborates:

A parasite, like a weed, is anything that grows where it is not wanted, and where it sucks life energy from its host without giving any benefit in return.

If I say it's a parasite, it's a parasite to me. You call it whatever you want, but you don't get to call it on my behalf.

Wow! I don't recall hearing that one before. Oh, wait, I do! I've read that in history books. You see, some 70 years ago, there too, was lots of talk about certain people living where they weren't wanted, of which certain European nation wished to "dispose" as they saw fit. But I couldn't imagine anyone saying such things about their own children...

Other pro-abortion commenters however don't find anything disturbing or immoral in the above comment. One of them, Joe Agnost, finds our opposition to euthanasia to be far more outrageous than referring to a child as "parasite" and wishing to "dispose of it".

I see something TERRIBLY immoral about suzanne (for instance) wanting tracy latimer to continue to suffer so that suzanne can feel better about herself. It's disgusting and cruel.

So it's all about "feeling better for ourselves", eh? What about such a simple notion that every one of us (including the elderly and the disabled and the unborn and the terminally ill) has the right to live as many years as God gave them? That if our courts won't sentence even a serial killer to death - how could one justify putting someone to death just because he wasn't lucky to be born as healthy as we are?

They say it's to end their suffering. From their prospective, one would rather be dead than miserable. How could one determine who is miserable to such extent that his life is no longer worth living? How could one prove that he's not yet miserable enough to be put to death? Judging from the rest of the conversation, occasional smiles don't count; paraphrasing Russia's dark humor - if doctors and relatives say "to the morgue" then to the morgue you go...

Interestingly enough, the very same Joe Agnost is actually on a long arduous quest for morality. Too bad he keeps looking in all the wrong places:

Man - has anyone checked out that loony site (religion and morality)?? What a nice window into the views of bigoted christians!
Just a vile, vile site....

The only reason I checked it out was because I (wrongly) assumed (joking) that the site was dedicated to finding SOME (ANY?) morals in religion. I assumed they'd spend their lifetimes looking in vain.

I'm not sure what kind of morals a pro-euthanasia guy who sees nothing immoral with regarding a baby as "parasite" could even look for. As for his description of the religion and morality blog — his own comments as well as the comments of his fellow poor-choicers too could be seen as a window into the views of bigoted atheists and agnostics. I took a peek, and I saw nothing but selfishness and crushing spiritual void.