The author is just standing in the middle of the room and screaming "Listen to me! Listen to ME!! LISTEN TO MEEE!!!" like most of the other immature, overmedicated, spoiled brats in this country.
Posted on 08/02/2006 3:19:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
ANN ARBOR, August 2, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a July 26 column that reads almost like a parody of the slogans of the abortion movement, a sophomore at Michigan State University has declared that the unborn child is a parasite, similar to a tapeworm that should be "annihilated."
Writing for The State News, the campus paper of Michigan State University, one of the largest univerities in the U.S., Shane Krouse writes, "The fetus is merely a wad of cells. A mere wad of cells doesn't equate to a fully functioning, living human being. A wad of cells cannot make its own cognitive decisions… Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?"
Krouse asks rhetorically, "How can you kill something that is not yet living?" He answers his own question saying that the child after birth is "alive" because it no longer receives nutrients and oxygen through the umbilical cord from the mother. He does not clarify how a thing that processes nutrients and oxygen, grows, moves independently and replicates its own cells – the usual criteria for living things established by the biological sciences – can be not alive in the womb but suddenly alive at the moment of birth.
Nick Mrozowski, the editor for The State News, told LifeSiteNews.com that Krouse's piece does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the newspaper itself. "When we publish a columnist it is their view," he said. "We routinely publish columns that the paper does or does not agree with."
"[Krouse] has reinvigorated a debate in our community that is important. A debate is good."
Mrozowski said that the reponse to Krouse's inflammatory language has been a mere handful of letters, some opposed and some in favor.
One woman wrote to the State News to say that she agreed with Shane Krouse that the unborn child is a parasite that may be killed with impunity.
Clementine Ford of Adelaide, Australia wrote in response that because the "reasoning for abortion is personal…there can be no definable ‘valid’ reason for having one."
"Personally, I aborted my parasite because of failed contraception and a fervent desire not to breed right now. I feel no guilt for my actions."
See the original State News story at
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=36986
No argument from me, friend, I just thought it was kinda weird, it being a HE rather than a SHE.
Nice that the student paper gave space to a total asocial dweeb.
The author is just standing in the middle of the room and screaming "Listen to me! Listen to ME!! LISTEN TO MEEE!!!" like most of the other immature, overmedicated, spoiled brats in this country.
Because you don't punish a child for the crimes of its father.....ever.
And yes, in order to avoid the snide comments I have received in the past, I have had to face this possibility and it is extreme selfishness to kill your baby no matter who the child's father is. Adoption is always an option.
Somebody been killing homosexuals at the rate of 1.5 million per year in the USA?
If the sign is true, given the value placed on the protection of life in society, then all truth proposition must be questioned - incl. the entire basis of our legal system.
Yes women have the right to their own bodies. However, after the civil war it was determined that no one has the right to another human being. That's slavery. The child is an independantly growing human, just smaller than the rest of us.
And the health complications from incest are rare....that's one useful thing I learned from Dr. Phil.
And the cases of abortion due to rape and incest are less than 1% of all abortions.
Obviously I think all three of us reject the ridiculous "POOF! It's now magically, suddenly, a human being" theory, or Marxist dogma about things and beings deriving value from the subjective opinions of others (e.g. mom think's it's a baby, it's a baby; mom think's its a blob, it's a blob).
Well, sure, because just exactly like unborn children, parasites and tapeworms mature and separate themselves from their host organisms and live independently from them. Riiiiight... /sarcasm
Correct. So less than 1% of our discussion should be devoted to it. Let's stay united on the 99% of babies killed whose mothers weren't rape victims, whatever differences we may have on the remainder.
You know, I had my wisdom teeth out a few years ago, I have never told anyone how I don't feel guilt about it. I don't, the thought has never occured to me.
When you have to say that you don't feel guilt removing a painful or destructive thing in your life, I tend not to believe you. If his child really was just a tapeworm he wouldn't have to write such an angry and bitter column. It's like my friend who told me he was totally at peace with his girlfriend'd abortion three years earlier.....while tears were running down his face.
He supported the murder of his child, he knows it and he is trying to deflect the guilt.
What is your source for this utter nonsense?
The fact that you just joined FR today makes me very suspicious.
Kinda like these pro-abortionists are cultural parasites. Gotta love the irony.
And abortion leads to no life at all.
You're comparing the certainty of ending up as medical waste in a landfill with the possibility of a difficult life ... and deciding that you're okay with putting a child you admit is innocent of any crime into a landfill.
Discussion of rape/incest muddies the water for the other 99% and slows progress. That is a possible rationale for your suspicion, wagglebee, although I'm inclined to give jumpstart the benefit of the doubt.
Mark
Ah, I don't think you understand that the procedure of abortion is performed by the chopping up of (vacuum curettage, and dilatation and curettage (D&C) ) or application of acid to (saline amniocentesis ) the fetus. Educate yourself. Google those terms.
But my belief of when life begins is when it is able to function on it's own outside of the womb. I was born 2 months early, not by abortion but because I was a premature birth. I had to be put into an incubator at 4lbs. I'm glad my mother didn't abort me, but I also beleive that if she absolutely beleived that she didn't want to be a mother, or that she'd be a bad mother, then I support that choice.
Look at your own words. You want to believe that life begins only when it can exist outside of the womb. But you yourself had to be put in an artificial womb for the first two months after your birthday!
Don't you see that it would be wrong for someone - your mother even - to smash that incubator and kill you during those two months? And that if it is wrong then for you- in that external incubator - that it would be equally wrong to smash someone else at that age in a womb? If it's wrong at that age - 2 months premature - then the method by which one should determine something right or wrong has nothing to do with age. After all, more and more exteremly premature babies are able to be saved....
Regarding your overall point that it isn't wrong to kill a baby so long as it can't function outside of a womb, what makes you think a newborn can function even outside of a womb? It can't! It has to rely on parents constant, 24/7/365 attention for the most basic of life's nessecities! To do otherwise is child abuse, and to the sane that's considered a bad thing.
Of course, abortion guru Pete Singer ( the Ida W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University) thinks it's OK to off post-birth children until (by my memory) their first birthday or so.....
See where that outlook gets you? If you apply arbitrary rules to the value of human life, you get arbitrary results.
All humans deserve the right to exist!
- Children resulting from rape and incest included - no matter how "guaranteed miserable" some like you say their life will be.
-Killers and those waging war against us excluded, because they've proven that they don't value our life.
Yes, because otherwise you have to assume some form of moral hierarchy. That was soundly rejected in the Emancipation Proclamation and, sadly, was a major factor in the War Between the States.
There are nearly 1.5 MILLION abortions performed in the US each year, I would seriously question if even 1% of those are a result of rape or incest. However, I agree with the premise that the pro-death crowd uses rape and incest as a "red herring" to avoid the real issue and that is that we have lost nearly 50 million people in the past 33 years. When you consider that statistically about half of them would have been female and many of them would now have children of their own, the loss is staggering.
At least we've got the illegals to fill the void...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.