Honest to God, what are you supposed to do with this?
But if there were a 100% safe method of administering water to a fetus, without mixing the amniotic fluid to the water, it would be possible to baptize a baby.
It’s not excluded, it’s just that parishes don’t have the equipment/know-how.
Yes, that's our Little Suzie Retard, calmly and dispassionately explaining why, no, there's no real reason that parishes can't baptize fetuses (while sneakily transmogrifying the word "fetus" into the word "baby" in that first sentence and hoping no one notices). But, dear God, it gets so much better:
There is a shortage of infants to adopt. There are many older kids. But those older kids were wanted in the first place, but their parents’ parenting rights were terminated. Unwantedness does not lead to unadopted children.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck does that even mean? Can someone identify the point in that gibberish?
I have not adopted any but adoption is not a single-person decision.
Translation: Adoption is a noble calling that will make a difference in the life of someone's unwanted child and will mean one less abortion. I'm sorry, me adopt? Fuck, no, why would I want someone else's squalling brat?
There are many older children to adopt, but the reason they remain unadoptable has nothing to do with the shortage of people wanting to adopt.
No, Suzie, it has to do with the fact that your holier-than-thou, sanctimonious Bible-whomping buddies have no interest in anything less than lily-white perfection.
It's truly amusing to read condescending shrews like SUZANNE diss everyone else's heart-rending decision to terminate a pregnancy because of obvious physical disabilities in the fetus, but who have absolutely no interest in adopting and are clearly not all that keen on the thought of adopting anyone that falls anywhere short of their idea of perfection. If the hypocrisy were any thicker, you could do the backstroke in it. But Suzie's not done with Teh Stupid:
The difference is that while sexual intercourse might not always be desired, children should always be wanted.
That’s the difference. Every child who exists (including those in the womb) should be wanted. And I’m not just stating an ideal. I am stating what everyone should do.
Dear Suzie: You are so incredibly fucking stupid, words almost fail me at this point. When you speak of your idea of what the perfect world "should" be like, you are by definition "stating an ideal." That's what the word means, you jaw-dropping imbecile.
Is it too late to call Social Services and have Suzie's children taken away? For their own protection?