CDZ Are we teaching our children the right things?

[Moonglow]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

There is no such thing as an after birth abortion at that point it turns to homicide.

 

[Moonglow]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

It's absurd because the govt. would never let them do it, they dissect other creatures what makes a human more valuable?

So you're okay with It; we already know Democrats are completely baffled as to why it's wrong, we wouldn't want you to lose all your associates over a fashion diffrence.

They do it in med class and have for hundreds of years I can't help it you're squeamish...You damn sure don't mind sending them off to war to die for corporate profits.

 

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.

Also, what are the stipulations, precisely, with these sorts of abortions? What are the criteria? It might not matter, but hey, it may who knows....best to know these things in order to defeat the potential problem.

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

 

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

It's absurd because the govt. would never let them do it, they dissect other creatures what makes a human more valuable?

So you're okay with It; we already know Democrats are completely baffled as to why it's wrong, we wouldn't want you to lose all your associates over a fashion diffrence.

They do it in med class and have for hundreds of years I can't help it you're squeamish...You damn sure don't mind sending them off to war to die for corporate profits.

lol still won't address the issue. And quit pretending you and your ilk ever gave a fuck about 'The Soldiers n Stuff'; you didn't.

 

[G.T.]

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.

Also, what are the stipulations, precisely, with these sorts of abortions? What are the criteria? It might not matter, but hey, it may who knows....best to know these things in order to defeat the potential problem.

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

 

[Picaro]

If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.

How absurd from an absurd mind.

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

There is no such thing as an after birth abortion at that point it turns to homicide.

We already know you'll be the first on the board to run around shilling for it as soon as Daily Kos and Democratic Underground tell all you sickos ti's the Next Big Thing.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"


It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.

Also, what are the stipulations, precisely, with these sorts of abortions? What are the criteria? It might not matter, but hey, it may who knows....best to know these things in order to defeat the potential problem.

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

As I've said it's the coming thing, especially after the passage of this bill. you can doubt all you want.

 

[G.T.]

Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.

Also, what are the stipulations, precisely, with these sorts of abortions? What are the criteria? It might not matter, but hey, it may who knows....best to know these things in order to defeat the potential problem.

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

As I've said it's the coming thing, especially after the passage of this bill. you can doubt all you want.

Am I to take it that you have no empirical data you can point to?

 

[anynameyouwish]

No! Actually we are not! Did you notice how the white Christian children were excoriated by the left? No questions asked!
We are a nation divided. The Democrats have done their thing!

right

the dems and libs divided us.

and it was NOT roger ailles and rush limbaugh and hate radio and fox news and breitbart and pjmedia who just spent the last 30 years demonizing and vilifying everyone who isn't a conservative.

 

[anynameyouwish]

As this country becomes more and more polarized, is this infecting our children too?

Should we be teaching them to shun and avoid people who don't think like we do?

Seems to me that young people should always be curious and open to new ideas. The only way to do that is by communicating with people face to face, in real life.

Is that what we're doing, or would this now be considered a bad idea?
.

I teach my kids to hate right wing conservatives.

I am doing the right thing.

 

[Mac1958]

I teach my kids to hate right wing conservatives.
I am doing the right thing.

Well, there ya go.
.

 

[WillowTree]

No! Actually we are not! Did you notice how the white Christian children were excoriated by the left? No questions asked!
We are a nation divided. The Democrats have done their thing!

right

the dems and libs divided us.

and it was NOT roger ailles and rush limbaugh and hate radio and fox news and breitbart and pjmedia who just spent the last 30 years demonizing and vilifying everyone who isn't a conservative.

I don’t listen to Limbaugh! I don’t listen to hate radio. I do listen to Fox News and they do not demonize anyone. You seemed to have listed everything you think conservative and which you do not agree with as hate. You have effectively demonstrated my point. You have blurted out the left wing talking points. You are the divisive group.

 

[Picaro]

I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.

Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.

Also, what are the stipulations, precisely, with these sorts of abortions? What are the criteria? It might not matter, but hey, it may who knows....best to know these things in order to defeat the potential problem.

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

As I've said it's the coming thing, especially after the passage of this bill. you can doubt all you want.

Am I to take it that you have no empirical data you can point to?

Dont' care how you take it. the Peanut Gallery can google up 'partial birth abortion', wherein they pull the baby out until only its head is left inside the canal, and then they shove a pair of scissors or something into its head. It's a distinction without a difference from 'after birth abortion', and that is what Obama and his followers enthusiastically supported. I don't give a shit whether they had 'polls' or not. It's coming, and if you don't know it that's your problem, not mine. We already see Moonbeam here who can't imagine why we shouldn't, and apparently as long as there isn't some 'Poll' you'll be okay as well.

 

[G.T.]

Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.

Also, what are the stipulations, precisely, with these sorts of abortions? What are the criteria? It might not matter, but hey, it may who knows....best to know these things in order to defeat the potential problem.

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

As I've said it's the coming thing, especially after the passage of this bill. you can doubt all you want.

Am I to take it that you have no empirical data you can point to?

Dont' care how you take it. the Peanut Gallery can google up 'partial birth abortion', wherein they pull the baby out until only its head is left inside the canal, and then they shove a pair of scissors or something into its head. It's a distinction without a difference from 'after birth abortion', and that is what Obama and his followers enthusiastically supported. I don't give a shit whether they had 'polls' or not. It's coming, and if you don't know it that's your problem, not mine. We already see Moonbeam here who can't imagine why we shouldn't, and apparently as long as there isn't some 'Poll' you'll be okay as well.

I'm not characterizing anything - I'm asking for us both not to characterize it and let's see the actual Law you're talking about and what it exactly stipulates.......

Not someone's article about it - the actual Law so that we're not duped by the fake news....

Anything wrong with researching something before we make an analysis?

 

[Picaro]

There is no such thing as an after birth abortion at that point it turns to homicide.

Well that's why they changed the name, so you could have something to call it that you can feel good about, instead of calling it what it is, baby murdering, like they did with 'homosexual sex fetishists', re-naming them 'gays'.

 

[Picaro]

I've already posted several academics on this, and where they go the pesuedo0inellectual 'progressives soon follow; very few will oppose it, and for the same excuses they give now. the vast majority of those babies are being killed because of 'inconvenience', not threats to the mothers' life or serious birth defects or whatever; it's not rocker science to see the kind of ongoing desensitization and declining human empathy something as sick as murdering babies has on a society, and that will manifest itself in other social beliefs. Not much one can limit when your 'culture' is fine with murdering millions of infants.

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

As I've said it's the coming thing, especially after the passage of this bill. you can doubt all you want.

Am I to take it that you have no empirical data you can point to?

Dont' care how you take it. the Peanut Gallery can google up 'partial birth abortion', wherein they pull the baby out until only its head is left inside the canal, and then they shove a pair of scissors or something into its head. It's a distinction without a difference from 'after birth abortion', and that is what Obama and his followers enthusiastically supported. I don't give a shit whether they had 'polls' or not. It's coming, and if you don't know it that's your problem, not mine. We already see Moonbeam here who can't imagine why we shouldn't, and apparently as long as there isn't some 'Poll' you'll be okay as well.

I'm not characterizing anything - I'm asking for us both not to characterize it and let's see the actual Law you're talking about and what it exactly stipulates.......

Not someone's article about it - the actual Law so that we're not duped by the fake news....

Anything wrong with researching something before we make an analysis?

You think there is no evidence Obama supported 'partial birth abortion', AKA infanticide? Yes, you are behind the learning curve. Now the next step is extending the number of years one can murder babies, mostly for the crime of 'Being Inconvenient'.

 

[G.T.]

Man, all I'm looking for is how many folks per capita support these after-birth abortions - and the stipulations from the actual law itself....

Educate me, I'm curious -

As I've said it's the coming thing, especially after the passage of this bill. you can doubt all you want.

Am I to take it that you have no empirical data you can point to?

Dont' care how you take it. the Peanut Gallery can google up 'partial birth abortion', wherein they pull the baby out until only its head is left inside the canal, and then they shove a pair of scissors or something into its head. It's a distinction without a difference from 'after birth abortion', and that is what Obama and his followers enthusiastically supported. I don't give a shit whether they had 'polls' or not. It's coming, and if you don't know it that's your problem, not mine. We already see Moonbeam here who can't imagine why we shouldn't, and apparently as long as there isn't some 'Poll' you'll be okay as well.

I'm not characterizing anything - I'm asking for us both not to characterize it and let's see the actual Law you're talking about and what it exactly stipulates.......

Not someone's article about it - the actual Law so that we're not duped by the fake news....

Anything wrong with researching something before we make an analysis?

You think there is no evidence Obama supported 'partial birth abortion', AKA infanticide? Yes, you are behind the learning curve. Now the next step is extending the number of years one can murder babies, mostly for the crime of 'Being Inconvenient'.

I'd like to see the Law - I didnt say anything that you just said I said - I simply asked for the text of the Law.

 

[progressive hunter]

As this country becomes more and more polarized, is this infecting our children too?

Should we be teaching them to shun and avoid people who don't think like we do?

Seems to me that young people should always be curious and open to new ideas. The only way to do that is by communicating with people face to face, in real life.

Is that what we're doing, or would this now be considered a bad idea?
.

who is the WE you are referring too???

 

[Mac1958]

As this country becomes more and more polarized, is this infecting our children too?

Should we be teaching them to shun and avoid people who don't think like we do?

Seems to me that young people should always be curious and open to new ideas. The only way to do that is by communicating with people face to face, in real life.

Is that what we're doing, or would this now be considered a bad idea?
.

who is the WE you are referring too???

Everyone but you.
.

 

[Picaro]

Well, since GT here is embarrassed and shifting around trying to look like he knows stuff and playing semantic games about stuff nobody said, the usual tactic for those who can't discuss what is being said, the Peanut Gallery can look at what is going on in real life.

After-Birth Abortions: College Students Increasingly Support Infanticide | LifeNews.com

De-valuing life at any stage is okay with the same demographics that support partial-birth abortion, i.e. Obama's fan club and most Democrats. IT's getting airplay all over left wing media, and since this current 'milestone' in mass murder has been passed, it's next in line on the abortion front.