Couple Sentenced For Murder of 15 Day Old Baby...No Different Than Abortion

[Crixus]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Then you'd be guessing wrong, ASSHOLE.

Why ?

 

[Crixus]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Liberal? Look at the guy:

He looks like a tiki torch carrying republican directly from Charlottesville.

You libs get off on dead baby’s.

 

[emilynghiem]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Dear Bush92
One difference is when babies are killed after birth,
the fathers could also be held responsible, not just the mothers.

With abortion, the laws only affect and target the mothers.

The mother’s who make an individual choice to commit homicide against their own child.

When the fathers are complicit in the coercion and it's under duress,
that's no longer an "individual" decision but CONSPIRACY. And if
it against the women's will, then it isn't hers. It's the will of the father coercing the woman into it.

What ROE V WADE struck down was the inability of Govt to investigate/pursue prosecution
without violating Substantive Due Process, because in the process of DEFENSE based on
"mitigating factors" (as in done with murder charges similarly) this already violates the woman's
rights before she has been convicted.

When laws and Govt are restricted to only pursuing violations, prosecution and enforcement
AFTER PREGNANCY OCCURS
This DISPROPORTIONATELY affects WOMEN more than MEN.

Bush92 The problem remains that at the point where MEN and WOMEN could be held
EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention is BEFORE making the decision to have sex where pregnancy and children are NOT WANTED.
The problem is GOVT has no authority to police people AT THAT POINT WHEN BOTH PARTNERS COULD BE HELD
EQUALLY REPSONSIBLE. The only time the Govt can intervene is AFTER a violation occurs; so this keeps targeting
and implicating WOMEN MORE THAN MEN.

What will allow both MEN AND WOMEN to be treated equally responsibly is
preventing abortion by abstaining from or barring sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or abortion.
Govt cannot police or ban sex at that level except if PEOPLE AGREE TO THAT POLICY.

So basically the PROLIFE advocates are right in teaching ABSTINENCE
and RESPONSIBILITY for sex for procreation only. That can't be legislated by Govt
but is a matter of personal free choice and responsibility that individuals must make,
not expect Govt to mandate it. Because of this desire to have Govt mandate laws against
abortion, the process ends up targeting women after pregnancy because Govt cannot intervene in the decision to have sex.

It would be up to PEOPLE to decide on AGREED POLICIES to ban sex that results in abortion,
and start holding BOTH PARTNERS equally responsible, especially MEN in the cases of coercion, sex abuse, rape,
relationship abuse and relationship fraud.

 

[Faun]

Your question is stupid. It's based on the premise that no law is right.

Again, society decides which laws are right. And our society has decided that women's rights should supersede the rights of a fetus until it can viably survive outside of the womb. You don't have to like that, but then TFB.

Wrong, my premise was "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine" - which I have now explicitly stated for you THREE times. You're the one hiding behind the law as a justification for abortion. Why won't you do the same for slavery or Nazi atrocities, hmm?

Hypocrite.

No, your premise was to pick an unpopular law and use that as a metric with which to compare other laws you don't like. But the reality is in doing that, one can compare unpopular laws with any law once you delve into such a ridiculous position. There are some people who are against current gun laws. Not saying I agree with them, but they too could compare slavery with gun laws under the guise of ... at one time, society wanted slavery.

It's a stupid position taken by stupid people who don't think their argument all the way through.

For the 4th time, my premise was: "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine". Period. Throw out all the bullshit word salad you want to try and twist my statement, it won't work. Furthermore, my position is not limited to a singular unpopular law. I can list you a plethora of repugnant laws that have plagued this country since it's founding and would serve to re-enforce my premise - laws are NOT a metric of morality. Quit hiding behind "this is what society has decided". Societies have decided atrocious things since time began, that does NOT justify them and you fucking well know it.

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

 

[deanrd]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Liberal? Look at the guy:

He looks like a tiki torch carrying republican directly from Charlottesville.

You libs get off on dead baby’s.

No we don’t. We’re not the ones who are fighting for the rights of school shooters to carry extra bullets.
We believe children should have education and healthcare. Your kind believes they should have babies.

 

[deanrd]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Dear Bush92
One difference is when babies are killed after birth,
the fathers could also be held responsible, not just the mothers.

With abortion, the laws only affect and target the mothers.

The mother’s who make an individual choice to commit homicide against their own child.

When the fathers are complicit in the coercion and it's under duress,
that's no longer an "individual" decision but CONSPIRACY. And if
it against the women's will, then it isn't hers. It's the will of the father coercing the woman into it.

What ROE V WADE struck down was the inability of Govt to investigate/pursue prosecution
without violating Substantive Due Process, because in the process of DEFENSE based on
"mitigating factors" (as in done with murder charges similarly) this already violates the woman's
rights before she has been convicted.

When laws and Govt are restricted to only pursuing violations, prosecution and enforcement
AFTER PREGNANCY OCCURS
This DISPROPORTIONATELY affects WOMEN more than MEN.

Bush92 The problem remains that at the point where MEN and WOMEN could be held
EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention is BEFORE making the decision to have sex where pregnancy and children are NOT WANTED.
The problem is GOVT has no authority to police people AT THAT POINT WHEN BOTH PARTNERS COULD BE HELD
EQUALLY REPSONSIBLE. The only time the Govt can intervene is AFTER a violation occurs; so this keeps targeting
and implicating WOMEN MORE THAN MEN.

What will allow both MEN AND WOMEN to be treated equally responsibly is
preventing abortion by abstaining from or barring sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or abortion.
Govt cannot police or ban sex at that level except if PEOPLE AGREE TO THAT POLICY.

So basically the PROLIFE advocates are right in teaching ABSTINENCE
and RESPONSIBILITY for sex for procreation only. That can't be legislated by Govt
but is a matter of personal free choice and responsibility that individuals must make,
not expect Govt to mandate it. Because of this desire to have Govt mandate laws against
abortion, the process ends up targeting women after pregnancy because Govt cannot intervene in the decision to have sex.

It would be up to PEOPLE to decide on AGREED POLICIES to ban sex that results in abortion,
and start holding BOTH PARTNERS equally responsible, especially MEN in the cases of coercion, sex abuse, rape,
relationship abuse and relationship fraud.

The Bible says the guy who rapes the woman should marry her for life and they can never get divorced. Do you believe that too?

 

[satrebil]

Wrong, my premise was "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine" - which I have now explicitly stated for you THREE times. You're the one hiding behind the law as a justification for abortion. Why won't you do the same for slavery or Nazi atrocities, hmm?

Hypocrite.

No, your premise was to pick an unpopular law and use that as a metric with which to compare other laws you don't like. But the reality is in doing that, one can compare unpopular laws with any law once you delve into such a ridiculous position. There are some people who are against current gun laws. Not saying I agree with them, but they too could compare slavery with gun laws under the guise of ... at one time, society wanted slavery.

It's a stupid position taken by stupid people who don't think their argument all the way through.

For the 4th time, my premise was: "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine". Period. Throw out all the bullshit word salad you want to try and twist my statement, it won't work. Furthermore, my position is not limited to a singular unpopular law. I can list you a plethora of repugnant laws that have plagued this country since it's founding and would serve to re-enforce my premise - laws are NOT a metric of morality. Quit hiding behind "this is what society has decided". Societies have decided atrocious things since time began, that does NOT justify them and you fucking well know it.

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

 

[Faun]

No, your premise was to pick an unpopular law and use that as a metric with which to compare other laws you don't like. But the reality is in doing that, one can compare unpopular laws with any law once you delve into such a ridiculous position. There are some people who are against current gun laws. Not saying I agree with them, but they too could compare slavery with gun laws under the guise of ... at one time, society wanted slavery.

It's a stupid position taken by stupid people who don't think their argument all the way through.

For the 4th time, my premise was: "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine". Period. Throw out all the bullshit word salad you want to try and twist my statement, it won't work. Furthermore, my position is not limited to a singular unpopular law. I can list you a plethora of repugnant laws that have plagued this country since it's founding and would serve to re-enforce my premise - laws are NOT a metric of morality. Quit hiding behind "this is what society has decided". Societies have decided atrocious things since time began, that does NOT justify them and you fucking well know it.

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

 

[Bush92]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Dear Bush92
One difference is when babies are killed after birth,
the fathers could also be held responsible, not just the mothers.

With abortion, the laws only affect and target the mothers.

The mother’s who make an individual choice to commit homicide against their own child.

When the fathers are complicit in the coercion and it's under duress,
that's no longer an "individual" decision but CONSPIRACY. And if
it against the women's will, then it isn't hers. It's the will of the father coercing the woman into it.

What ROE V WADE struck down was the inability of Govt to investigate/pursue prosecution
without violating Substantive Due Process, because in the process of DEFENSE based on
"mitigating factors" (as in done with murder charges similarly) this already violates the woman's
rights before she has been convicted.

When laws and Govt are restricted to only pursuing violations, prosecution and enforcement
AFTER PREGNANCY OCCURS
This DISPROPORTIONATELY affects WOMEN more than MEN.

Bush92 The problem remains that at the point where MEN and WOMEN could be held
EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention is BEFORE making the decision to have sex where pregnancy and children are NOT WANTED.
The problem is GOVT has no authority to police people AT THAT POINT WHEN BOTH PARTNERS COULD BE HELD
EQUALLY REPSONSIBLE. The only time the Govt can intervene is AFTER a violation occurs; so this keeps targeting
and implicating WOMEN MORE THAN MEN.

What will allow both MEN AND WOMEN to be treated equally responsibly is
preventing abortion by abstaining from or barring sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or abortion.
Govt cannot police or ban sex at that level except if PEOPLE AGREE TO THAT POLICY.

So basically the PROLIFE advocates are right in teaching ABSTINENCE
and RESPONSIBILITY for sex for procreation only. That can't be legislated by Govt
but is a matter of personal free choice and responsibility that individuals must make,
not expect Govt to mandate it. Because of this desire to have Govt mandate laws against
abortion, the process ends up targeting women after pregnancy because Govt cannot intervene in the decision to have sex.

It would be up to PEOPLE to decide on AGREED POLICIES to ban sex that results in abortion,
and start holding BOTH PARTNERS equally responsible, especially MEN in the cases of coercion, sex abuse, rape,
relationship abuse and relationship fraud.

The Bible says the guy who rapes the woman should marry her for life and they can never get divorced. Do you believe that too?

We’re back. The “D nor retard has jumped in.”

 

[Bush92]

For the 4th time, my premise was: "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine". Period. Throw out all the bullshit word salad you want to try and twist my statement, it won't work. Furthermore, my position is not limited to a singular unpopular law. I can list you a plethora of repugnant laws that have plagued this country since it's founding and would serve to re-enforce my premise - laws are NOT a metric of morality. Quit hiding behind "this is what society has decided". Societies have decided atrocious things since time began, that does NOT justify them and you fucking well know it.

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

The argument is a moral one. Do we accept the Holocaust as a natural state of being? OR do we reject it as an abomination. Abortion no difference.

 

[emilynghiem]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Dear Bush92
One difference is when babies are killed after birth,
the fathers could also be held responsible, not just the mothers.

With abortion, the laws only affect and target the mothers.

The mother’s who make an individual choice to commit homicide against their own child.

When the fathers are complicit in the coercion and it's under duress,
that's no longer an "individual" decision but CONSPIRACY. And if
it against the women's will, then it isn't hers. It's the will of the father coercing the woman into it.

What ROE V WADE struck down was the inability of Govt to investigate/pursue prosecution
without violating Substantive Due Process, because in the process of DEFENSE based on
"mitigating factors" (as in done with murder charges similarly) this already violates the woman's
rights before she has been convicted.

When laws and Govt are restricted to only pursuing violations, prosecution and enforcement
AFTER PREGNANCY OCCURS
This DISPROPORTIONATELY affects WOMEN more than MEN.

Bush92 The problem remains that at the point where MEN and WOMEN could be held
EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention is BEFORE making the decision to have sex where pregnancy and children are NOT WANTED.
The problem is GOVT has no authority to police people AT THAT POINT WHEN BOTH PARTNERS COULD BE HELD
EQUALLY REPSONSIBLE. The only time the Govt can intervene is AFTER a violation occurs; so this keeps targeting
and implicating WOMEN MORE THAN MEN.

What will allow both MEN AND WOMEN to be treated equally responsibly is
preventing abortion by abstaining from or barring sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or abortion.
Govt cannot police or ban sex at that level except if PEOPLE AGREE TO THAT POLICY.

So basically the PROLIFE advocates are right in teaching ABSTINENCE
and RESPONSIBILITY for sex for procreation only. That can't be legislated by Govt
but is a matter of personal free choice and responsibility that individuals must make,
not expect Govt to mandate it. Because of this desire to have Govt mandate laws against
abortion, the process ends up targeting women after pregnancy because Govt cannot intervene in the decision to have sex.

It would be up to PEOPLE to decide on AGREED POLICIES to ban sex that results in abortion,
and start holding BOTH PARTNERS equally responsible, especially MEN in the cases of coercion, sex abuse, rape,
relationship abuse and relationship fraud.

The Bible says the guy who rapes the woman should marry her for life and they can never get divorced. Do you believe that too?

deanrd
Don't forget the Biblical Commandments against adultery or lust/coveting thy neighbor's spouse ie who is not yours.

If the man and woman in the situation agree they are husband and wife,
I would recommend counseling to reconcile their issues so they get their relationship straightened out.
Regardless what that relationship is, it should be stable for life.
This is a highly sensitive spiritual process that requires voluntary participation and consent,
and CANNOT be regulated or mandated through Govt.
If someone doesn't believe in following Biblical laws on this, then
whatever methods they follow to resolve PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS should be respected as part of their spiritual path and process.

This SPIRITUAL PROCESS of reconciling relationships (especially after rape or abuse) should NOT be dictated either by "church or state authority" but should be based on the consent and beliefs of the PERSON(S) in order to work. If there is coercion from outside sources, that tends to exacerbate the abuse and oppression, and obstruct the recovery and healing process.

If the relationships is "adulterous" or "abusive" the man and woman should ESPECIALLY be able to receive counseling support
to resolve the causes of abuse, so they can restore natural health to themselves individually and to their relationship with each other and with other people. Once that root cause is resolved, this improves the health of both people and all their other relationships.

Both offenders and victims in rape/abuse case require special one-on-one spiritual counseling that, again, GOVT cannot dictate or regulate, but only the individual people can decide and work through by their own choice of process. This is TOO highly sensitive.

Whatever their relationship is, the people deserve access to "redress grievances" to resolve ANY issues of abuse
so they can restore natural healthy relations.

That to me is the meaning of Biblical teachings on Restorative Justice in relations with our neighbors.
SEE
Matthew 18:15-20 on redressing grievances, trespasses and rebukes to restore good faith relations by establishing truth
James 5:16 confess faults to one another and pray for one another that ye may be healed
These passages describe the spiritual process of resolving and healing relations after wrongs have caused injury and damage.

 

[Bush92]

No, your premise was to pick an unpopular law and use that as a metric with which to compare other laws you don't like. But the reality is in doing that, one can compare unpopular laws with any law once you delve into such a ridiculous position. There are some people who are against current gun laws. Not saying I agree with them, but they too could compare slavery with gun laws under the guise of ... at one time, society wanted slavery.

It's a stupid position taken by stupid people who don't think their argument all the way through.

For the 4th time, my premise was: "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine". Period. Throw out all the bullshit word salad you want to try and twist my statement, it won't work. Furthermore, my position is not limited to a singular unpopular law. I can list you a plethora of repugnant laws that have plagued this country since it's founding and would serve to re-enforce my premise - laws are NOT a metric of morality. Quit hiding behind "this is what society has decided". Societies have decided atrocious things since time began, that does NOT justify them and you fucking well know it.

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

Hollywood and MSNBC, CNN, limousine liberals want to push their ideology on the rest of America. They are the people that shoot smack because they know they are wrong and the pain is too much. They just mimic these words because it gets them “in with the in crowd.” Bullshit. Your no different than Dr. Joseph Mengele you sick, disconnected, out of touch with reality liberal slocums.

 

[Faun]

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

The argument is a moral one. Do we accept the Holocaust as a natural state of being? OR do we reject it as an abomination. Abortion no difference.

Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

 

[ph3iron]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Republicans I think.
Confederate land? Gotta be

 

[ph3iron]

For the 4th time, my premise was: "using law as a metric of morality is downright asinine". Period. Throw out all the bullshit word salad you want to try and twist my statement, it won't work. Furthermore, my position is not limited to a singular unpopular law. I can list you a plethora of repugnant laws that have plagued this country since it's founding and would serve to re-enforce my premise - laws are NOT a metric of morality. Quit hiding behind "this is what society has decided". Societies have decided atrocious things since time began, that does NOT justify them and you fucking well know it.

Every time you ask that you will get the same answer... I never referred to the law as moral. So g'head and ask it again.

And again, comparing laws you don't like with laws that are unpopular is a fail. It's a false comparison and a desperate attempt by losers who can't adequately find a legitimate fault in the law their trying to disparage. Evidence of that...? Poll Americans and a majority will respond that slavery laws were awful. Poll Americans about Roe v. Wade and a majority will respond they are in favor of it. Rendering your false comparison DOA.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

Hollywood and MSNBC, CNN, limousine liberals want to push their ideology on the rest of America. They are the people that shoot smack because they know they are wrong and the pain is too much. They just mimic these words because it gets them “in with the in crowd.” Bullshit. Your no different than Dr. Joseph Mengele you sick, disconnected, out of touch with reality liberal slocums.

And you darlin have no idea of the def of liberal.
Pathetic.
Clue Latin, liber, free?
Try reading

 

[Bush92]

I’m guessing liberals think this termination of life was the choice of the parents. No different than abortion.
Georgia couple found guilty of murdering 15-day-old daughter while on meth

Dear Bush92
One difference is when babies are killed after birth,
the fathers could also be held responsible, not just the mothers.

With abortion, the laws only affect and target the mothers.

The mother’s who make an individual choice to commit homicide against their own child.

When the fathers are complicit in the coercion and it's under duress,
that's no longer an "individual" decision but CONSPIRACY. And if
it against the women's will, then it isn't hers. It's the will of the father coercing the woman into it.

What ROE V WADE struck down was the inability of Govt to investigate/pursue prosecution
without violating Substantive Due Process, because in the process of DEFENSE based on
"mitigating factors" (as in done with murder charges similarly) this already violates the woman's
rights before she has been convicted.

When laws and Govt are restricted to only pursuing violations, prosecution and enforcement
AFTER PREGNANCY OCCURS
This DISPROPORTIONATELY affects WOMEN more than MEN.

Bush92 The problem remains that at the point where MEN and WOMEN could be held
EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention is BEFORE making the decision to have sex where pregnancy and children are NOT WANTED.
The problem is GOVT has no authority to police people AT THAT POINT WHEN BOTH PARTNERS COULD BE HELD
EQUALLY REPSONSIBLE. The only time the Govt can intervene is AFTER a violation occurs; so this keeps targeting
and implicating WOMEN MORE THAN MEN.

What will allow both MEN AND WOMEN to be treated equally responsibly is
preventing abortion by abstaining from or barring sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy unwanted children or abortion.
Govt cannot police or ban sex at that level except if PEOPLE AGREE TO THAT POLICY.

So basically the PROLIFE advocates are right in teaching ABSTINENCE
and RESPONSIBILITY for sex for procreation only. That can't be legislated by Govt
but is a matter of personal free choice and responsibility that individuals must make,
not expect Govt to mandate it. Because of this desire to have Govt mandate laws against
abortion, the process ends up targeting women after pregnancy because Govt cannot intervene in the decision to have sex.

It would be up to PEOPLE to decide on AGREED POLICIES to ban sex that results in abortion,
and start holding BOTH PARTNERS equally responsible, especially MEN in the cases of coercion, sex abuse, rape,
relationship abuse and relationship fraud.

The Bible says the guy who rapes the woman should marry her for life and they can never get divorced. Do you believe that too?

deanrd
Don't forget the Biblical Commandments against adultery or lust/coveting thy neighbor's spouse ie who is not yours.

If the man and woman in the situation agree they are husband and wife,
I would recommend counseling to reconcile their issues so they get their relationship straightened out.
Regardless what that relationship is, it should be stable for life.
This is a highly sensitive spiritual process that requires voluntary participation and consent,
and CANNOT be regulated or mandated through Govt.
If someone doesn't believe in following Biblical laws on this, then
whatever methods they follow to resolve PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS should be respected as part of their spiritual path and process.

This SPIRITUAL PROCESS of reconciling relationships (especially after rape or abuse) should NOT be dictated either by "church or state authority" but should be based on the consent and beliefs of the PERSON(S) in order to work. If there is coercion from outside sources, that tends to exacerbate the abuse and oppression, and obstruct the recovery and healing process.

If the relationships is "adulterous" or "abusive" the man and woman should ESPECIALLY be able to receive counseling support
to resolve the causes of abuse, so they can restore natural health to themselves individually and to their relationship with each other and with other people. Once that root cause is resolved, this improves the health of both people and all their other relationships.

Both offenders and victims in rape/abuse case require special one-on-one spiritual counseling that, again, GOVT cannot dictate or regulate, but only the individual people can decide and work through by their own choice of process. This is TOO highly sensitive.

Whatever their relationship is, the people deserve access to "redress grievances" to resolve ANY issues of abuse
so they can restore natural healthy relations.

That to me is the meaning of Biblical teachings on Restorative Justice in relations with our neighbors.
SEE
Matthew 18:15-20 on redressing grievances, trespasses and rebukes to restore good faith relations by establishing truth
James 5:16 confess faults to one another and pray for one another that ye may be healed
These passages describe the spiritual process of resolving and healing relations after wrongs have caused injury and damage.

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

The argument is a moral one. Do we accept the Holocaust as a natural state of being? OR do we reject it as an abomination. Abortion no difference.

Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

So you claim that “most of so” agrees with baby murder?

 

[ph3iron]

Collateral damage is the same as abortion also..
and..
Acts of God..

This was a conscious and deliberate act to terminate a helpless innocent human life. Just like abortion.

And when God wanted the slaves of Israel freed he aborted the first born of Egypt..

Your trying to compare an act of Almighty God to actions of simple mortals. Don’t think so.

Almighty God?
Can't think for yourself?
Say no more

 

[emilynghiem]

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

The argument is a moral one. Do we accept the Holocaust as a natural state of being? OR do we reject it as an abomination. Abortion no difference.

Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

RE: Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

Dear Faun: And so should the liberals pushing LGBT and Socialist beliefs
also follow the SAME Constitutional standards against abusing govt
to establish THOSE beliefs either to impose on others with equal right to disagree!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What's bad for conservatives is also bad for liberals to do!

 

[ph3iron]

You're the moron presenting 'law' as justification for abortion, yet somehow the same logic does not apply to other situations? A majority approved of them at one time in history you dipshit.

At this point I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse or are just incredibly fucking stupid. I suspect the latter, and I bet if you were alive in 1800 you'd have been out in the fields cracking whips with the best of them "because the law says I can".

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

The argument is a moral one. Do we accept the Holocaust as a natural state of being? OR do we reject it as an abomination. Abortion no difference.

Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

And these are the darlings who believe in small gov

 

[Bush92]

LOLOLOL

^^^ another unhinged rightie.

Unhinged rightie, you offered up a false equivalency as an argument and got bitch-slapped for it. Ranting in protest now doesn't help you. Your argument is a failure since it can literally be used on any law .... why is it legal to drive a car? There was a time when slavery was legal and a majority approved of it, now we think otherwise. Same might happen with driving cars. See how moronic that sounds? See why you like an idiot using that line of reasoning?

Try again if you ever come up with an actual lucid argument.

The laws I compared were those that determined or affected human rights, not inanimate objects - THAT is a false equivalency. Try harder, idiot.

It's the same concept, replacing a law you don't like with one accepted as unpopular, because you have no rational argument.

The argument is a moral one. Do we accept the Holocaust as a natural state of being? OR do we reject it as an abomination. Abortion no difference.

Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

RE: Again, you don't get to pass what you believe is moral onto most of society who disagrees with you.

Dear Faun: And so should the liberals pushing LGBT and Socialist beliefs
also follow the SAME Constitutional standards against abusing govt
to establish THOSE beliefs either to impose on others with equal right to disagree!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What's bad for conservatives is also bad for liberals to do!

PREACH IT EMILY!