JJ and Pretty Shaved Ape and their pro-abortion commenters are bowled over laughing at the idea that an unborn child can be compared, in any way, to a television set.
They're bowled over laughing at the comparison, never imaginging that anyone could picture the loss of a fetus as something at least as bad as losing a television set.
JJ had written:
Party-pooper that I am, I feel obliged to point out that the "victim" in this little scenario is still the guy who got attacked, not the TV set that got smashed in the commission of the assault.
The point was not about the victimhood of the "tv set", but about the fact that if you destroy something belonging to another, you get charged, and the same rule should apply to unborn children.
However, they all got hung up on the notion that this would signify that the fetus is property. Human tissue is not "property". That doesn't mean it's not yours. There are other forms of possession-- semantic and otherwise-- other than property. But don't try to explain that to these literal-minded abortion fundamentalists.
And JJ, tries to ascribe the notion of victimhood to the tv. That wasn't what the analogy was about-- simply that the fetus should be valued like any other worthwhile thing.
Someone should have caught that, but no. They're too busy trying to defend their stance with their poorly thought out ridicule rather than actual facts and logic.
Fetal victimhood is a joke to them. Their thoughts can be summed up this way:Waahaaahaha! Fetus suffering a stab wound or a gunshot is a victim and bleeds to death! That's too hilarious! Fetuses suffering! Who'd ever heard of that! Victim! Ahaa haa haa! Arresting a man for destroying a television set-- why that makes sense. But a fetus being hurt or killed as a crime? Oh my God don't make me laugh! That's just stupid! An unborn baby with feelings and suffering injustice! Why not care about living, breathing babies, not "blobs of tissue"like this:
Pretty Shaved Ape says so:
this is the most ludicrous thing i've yet seen to try and justify a bad law.but thanks, you've provided your opponents a great deal of fodder for laughter and rebuttal.
Yeah. My unborn child at least as valuable as a television set. That must be the most ludicrous thing she's ever heard of in that hardcore extremist pro-abortion world of hers.
No, no, no: my unborn child must be counted as less than a television set. Her location in my womb makes her less valuable. Destroying that unborn child should not be a crime.
I wonder how all those women who lost their unborn children would feel if they read their comments.
The woman who has lost her unborn child to a criminal act might think: a person who destroys a television is charged with a separate crime, why not the destroyer of my unborn child?
According to the opponents of C-484, she's a nut if she thinks of her unborn child as a victim-- because a tv can't be a victim. Therefore her unborn child can't be a victim! Ha ha ha! Unborn television sets as victims, too funny! (Never mind that her unborn child suffered and was killed and she lost a precious being--- just focus on the alleged absurdity of it all).
That's what their ridicule betrays about them.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca
