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

[Faun]

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.

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?

Most feel Roe v. Wade should stay.

 

[Faun]

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!

No one is forcing anyone to get an 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

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.

Yup, you do. Espresso black and brown babies. That’s why you advocate building planned parenthood’s in minority neighborhoods.

 

[satrebil]

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.

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

 

[emilynghiem]

And these are the darlings who believe in small gov

Dear ph3iron
The DIFFERENCE is
* when confronting Conservatives on their OWN principles of limited govt, due process, and not abusing govt to establish faith based beliefs
THE CONSERVATIVES TEND TO RECEIVE REBUKE AND COMPLY
Christians especially believe in Civil Obedience to civil laws,
so when Constitutional laws are CITED to CORRECT their "overreaches"
these BELIEVERS tend to respond and ACCEPT REBUKE and correction.

* however, ph3iron cc: Faun
when asking LIBERALS to comply with their OWN principles of
-- freedom of choice and not giving that up to govt to mandate regulate or control
-- separation of church and state, and not discriminating by creed by
legislating ONE set of beliefs if they don't agree with letting OTHER GROUPS legislate THEIR BELIEFS

guess what?

Instead of compliance, I get BLANK STARES.

I get people complaining that Christian beliefs in favor of creation, crosses and prayers should be kept OUT of govt
while LGBT beliefs in favor of homosexual orientation and transgender identity should be RECOGNIZED by govt.

I get people justifying "right to health care" mandated through Govt "to save lives"
as morally necessary with compelling public interest,
but pushing "right to life" (or even spiritual healing) endorsed through Govt
"violates separation of church and state" and is NOT a compelling interest but religious imposition.

This is clearly Discrimination by Creed.

But the left generally does not recognize this is going on.

The cases where someone on the liberal left actually ACCEPTED this argument,
I can count on two fingers:
* Thomas Wayburn argued with me for several months before I finally gave up trying to explain to him that
pushing leftwing beliefs was as much a violation of the establishment clause as pushing Christian beliefs he blamed for being
authoritarian and abusing govt to push and oppress others. Only AFTER I let go and accepted that his beliefs were just
biased that way, he finally thought it through WITHOUT PRESSURE FROM ME which I gave up on. And he finally decided
I was right, that those DID constitute BELIEFS and were equally wrongful to establish through Govt.
* Janis Richards, Green Party candidate for Gov and now Mayor, was arguing that everyone needed to pay for health care without exceptions for abortion, because then people would argue not to fund other procedures, and it would be impossible to manage.
I said that's why health care should NOT be through govt, except where all people AGREE on policy; because there are TOO MANY areas
of personal choices that govt cannot regulate or force anyone to pay for collectively. She disagreed because she believe in universal care through Govt, as the only way.
It took another person explaining that ELECTIVE CHOICES are not the same as medical procedures that are necessary and not a choice. So it makes sense that some health care options cannot be made mandatory.
She finally agreed that "as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of people who believe in universal care through govt"
then it made sense to allow options to defund SOME terms that people consider a choice, which they don't believe in funding.

That's TWO people on the left.
Compared with the maybe two people I've met on the right who COULD NOT help their beliefs
and still wanted to push them through govt DESPITE the establishment clause. One was head
of the Christian Party who believes in electing Christians to govt to ensure laws are consistent and not in conflict.
And another Constitutionalist I met recently who absolutely insists that to be Christian means not
compromising that for secular laws and standards.

Most of the others on the Right (Conservative, Christian, Constitutionalist) are able to accommodate this rebuke at least PARTIALLY.
And only 2 could not budge at all because of their beliefs.

Most of the others on the Left are the opposite.
Most still believe that they depend on Govt endorsing their beliefs in order to have those rights,
and they don't believe they are able to manage equal access to social programs WITHOUT going through Govt.

Very few can handle or acknowledge this argument about free choice
as applying to leftwing ideology. They believe their views are right and the truth
and belong in govt as the ideal for everyone. They generally do not get the comparison
with Christians who see their ways as the TRUTH and not a religion or choice of belief either!

 

[satrebil]

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.

No?

Do explain Prop 8 then, when a majority of Californians in 2008 voted AGAINST same-sex marriage and the courts overruled them.

 

[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.

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

 

[satrebil]

Q

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.

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

 

[Faun]

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.

No?

Do explain Prop 8 then, when a majority of Californians in 2008 voted AGAINST same-sex marriage and the courts overruled them.

The courts overturned it based on unconstitutionality. That's what courts do. Even if a majority of people want something, it has to be constitutional.

 

[Faun]

Q

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.

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

LOLOL

You based your argument on completely unrelated laws that were overturned. You want me to show you an example with human rights? Easy... your bizarre argument can be used to disallow Jews from voting. Why is it legal for Jews to vote? Just because laws allow it? Slavery was once legal but that was overturned. Well then Jews should not be allowed to vote. There, succinctly used your argument to show it should be illegal for Jews to vote.

Are you feeling stupid yet?

 

[satrebil]

Q

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.

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

LOLOL

You based your argument on completely unrelated laws that were overturned. You want me to show you an example with human rights? Easy... your bizarre argument can be used to disallow Jews from voting. Why is it legal for Jews to vote? Just because laws allow it? Slavery was once legal but that was overturned. Well then Jews should not be allowed to vote. There, succinctly used your argument to show it should be illegal for Jews to vote.

Are you feeling stupid yet?

Your "jews cannot vote" law would be also be an infringement of human rights, just like the laws that supported slavery, and just as current abortion law infringes human rights. That's been the whole point all along you fucking RETARD.

You have got to be the dumbest SOB I've yet to converse with on here. Holy shit.

 

[Faun]

Q

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

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

LOLOL

You based your argument on completely unrelated laws that were overturned. You want me to show you an example with human rights? Easy... your bizarre argument can be used to disallow Jews from voting. Why is it legal for Jews to vote? Just because laws allow it? Slavery was once legal but that was overturned. Well then Jews should not be allowed to vote. There, succinctly used your argument to show it should be illegal for Jews to vote.

Are you feeling stupid yet?

Your "jews cannot vote" law would be also be an infringement of human rights, just like the laws that supported slavery, and just as current abortion law infringes human rights. That's been the whole point all along you fucking RETARD.

You have got to be the dumbest SOB I've yet to converse with on here. Holy shit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, I used your strategy of relying on unrelated overturned laws to prop up a reason to bar Jews from voting. You're such a retard, you don't even get it.

According to your reasoning, Jews should not be allowed to vote ... because of... you know.... slavery.

 

[satrebil]

Q

Laws are struck down all the time on the basis of previous ones that were found to be unacceptable. It's called precedence and is entirely rational. You might as well call the entire American judicial system irrational for all the sense you make. You really are a fucking tool.

Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

LOLOL

You based your argument on completely unrelated laws that were overturned. You want me to show you an example with human rights? Easy... your bizarre argument can be used to disallow Jews from voting. Why is it legal for Jews to vote? Just because laws allow it? Slavery was once legal but that was overturned. Well then Jews should not be allowed to vote. There, succinctly used your argument to show it should be illegal for Jews to vote.

Are you feeling stupid yet?

Your "jews cannot vote" law would be also be an infringement of human rights, just like the laws that supported slavery, and just as current abortion law infringes human rights. That's been the whole point all along you fucking RETARD.

You have got to be the dumbest SOB I've yet to converse with on here. Holy shit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, I used your strategy of relying on unrelated overturned laws to prop up a reason to bar Jews from voting. You're such a retard, you don't even get it.

According to your reasoning, Jews should not be allowed to vote ... because of... you know.... slavery.

Our entire conversation has been about laws being justified on the basis of human rights. I presented evidence on how previous laws that violated human rights were overturned, and you think a valid counterpoint is proposing a hypothetical law that would further restrict human rights with the implication that it's even remotely the same? Put the fucking pipe down you crackhead.

Throw all the "LOLOLLOLOLOLLSS" you want on your posts, you're still a Class A moron. And the only response you will get from me going forward is just that: Moron.

 

[Slyhunter]

Today's Liberal Strategy: Distract.

 

[Faun]

Q
Of course they are. But only an idiot with no ability to defend their position relies on that to claim a law they don't personally like, is wrong.

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

LOLOL

You based your argument on completely unrelated laws that were overturned. You want me to show you an example with human rights? Easy... your bizarre argument can be used to disallow Jews from voting. Why is it legal for Jews to vote? Just because laws allow it? Slavery was once legal but that was overturned. Well then Jews should not be allowed to vote. There, succinctly used your argument to show it should be illegal for Jews to vote.

Are you feeling stupid yet?

Your "jews cannot vote" law would be also be an infringement of human rights, just like the laws that supported slavery, and just as current abortion law infringes human rights. That's been the whole point all along you fucking RETARD.

You have got to be the dumbest SOB I've yet to converse with on here. Holy shit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, I used your strategy of relying on unrelated overturned laws to prop up a reason to bar Jews from voting. You're such a retard, you don't even get it.

According to your reasoning, Jews should not be allowed to vote ... because of... you know.... slavery.

Our entire conversation has been about laws being justified on the basis of human rights. I presented evidence on how previous laws that violated human rights were overturned, and you think a valid counterpoint is proposing a hypothetical law that would further restrict human rights with the implication that it's even remotely the same? Put the fucking pipe down you crackhead.

Throw all the "LOLOLLOLOLOLLSS" you want on your posts, you're still a Class A moron. And the only response you will get from me going forward is just that: Moron.

Dumbfuck, the law you propose would restrict the human rights of women.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Wrong !!!!!! The mother is in total control of a human being that is growing inside of her body, and only she can kill that which is growing inside of her body by whatever means she deems appropriate for her to do so. Now the consequences for her actions is what is being discussed or debated here as to whether she is wrong or she is right to end her pregnancy (all depending on the circumstances), for ending that pregnancy. Only rape and the act of manipulative incest should justify the immediate end to a potential pregnancy resulting from such attrocious acts. If not the case, and the baby begins forming in her womb, I can't see any justification for her ending her pregnancy once that happens.

The fathert thus far has very little to no input on what the mother does with hers and his baby for which is now forming in her womb, and that should change also unless he raped her or committed incest.... Now either of those two acts that could result in a possible pregnancy is something that should have been taken care of immediately after the act of such an attrocity took place (morning after pill administered ?) or steps taken at the emergency room that would ensure no pregnancy would be a result of.

After that he should pay the price for such an act if he had done such a thing found in either of the two acts mentioned.

Outside of a rape situation or the act of incest, the father should have a say over his baby just being killed by the mother once the baby is forming within her womb. He should agree of course to taking responsibility for his coming child, and should support her and the baby in which he has taken responsibility for.

As for her she is still responsible for taking care of the baby forming in her body in which was concieved from an act of consentual sex that was committed out of the two participants understanding the awesome responsibilities that go along with such an act that creates a miracle in which is life as a result of.

 

[satrebil]

I defended it quite succinctly - using previous laws that infringed or stripped away human rights and were ultimately tossed, as has happened countless times throughout history. But go on, keep ignoring that so you can stroke your e-peen some more.

LOLOL

You based your argument on completely unrelated laws that were overturned. You want me to show you an example with human rights? Easy... your bizarre argument can be used to disallow Jews from voting. Why is it legal for Jews to vote? Just because laws allow it? Slavery was once legal but that was overturned. Well then Jews should not be allowed to vote. There, succinctly used your argument to show it should be illegal for Jews to vote.

Are you feeling stupid yet?

Your "jews cannot vote" law would be also be an infringement of human rights, just like the laws that supported slavery, and just as current abortion law infringes human rights. That's been the whole point all along you fucking RETARD.

You have got to be the dumbest SOB I've yet to converse with on here. Holy shit.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, I used your strategy of relying on unrelated overturned laws to prop up a reason to bar Jews from voting. You're such a retard, you don't even get it.

According to your reasoning, Jews should not be allowed to vote ... because of... you know.... slavery.

Our entire conversation has been about laws being justified on the basis of human rights. I presented evidence on how previous laws that violated human rights were overturned, and you think a valid counterpoint is proposing a hypothetical law that would further restrict human rights with the implication that it's even remotely the same? Put the fucking pipe down you crackhead.

Throw all the "LOLOLLOLOLOLLSS" you want on your posts, you're still a Class A moron. And the only response you will get from me going forward is just that: Moron.

Dumbfuck, the law you propose would restrict the human rights of women.

Moron.

 

[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.

Wrong !!!!!! The mother is in total control of a human being that is growing inside of her body, and only she can kill that which is growing inside of her body by whatever means she deems appropriate for her to do so. Now the consequences for her actions is what is being discussed or debated here as to whether she is wrong or she is right to end her pregnancy (all depending on the circumstances), for ending that pregnancy. Only rape and the act of manipulative incest should justify the immediate end to a potential pregnancy resulting from such attrocious acts. If not the case, and the baby begins forming in her womb, I can't see any justification for her ending her pregnancy once that happens.

The fathert thus far has very little to no input on what the mother does with hers and his baby for which is now forming in her womb, and that should change also unless he raped her or committed incest.... Now either of those two acts that could result in a possible pregnancy is something that should have been taken care of immediately after the act of such an attrocity took place (morning after pill administered ?) or steps taken at the emergency room that would ensure no pregnancy would be a result of.

After that he should pay the price for such an act if he had done such a thing found in either of the two acts mentioned.

Outside of a rape situation or the act of incest, the father should have a say over his baby just being killed by the mother once the baby is forming within her womb. He should agree of course to taking responsibility for his coming child, and should support her and the baby in which he has taken responsibility for.

As for her she is still responsible for taking care of the baby forming in her body in which was concieved from an act of consentual sex that was committed out of the two participants understanding the awesome responsibilities that go along with such an act that creates a miracle in which is life as a result of.

Dear beagle9
1. You cannot prove that the soul of the child is IN the body at the time of the abortion.
2. There are people who have testimonies and beliefs about souls either not entering the body but remaining outside
or entering the body AFTER conception or even after birth, etc.
3. This is a spiritual faith-based issue, so even if it is so, GOVT cannot regulate people's spiritual processes or beliefs about them.
4. What we CAN agree on is
a. personhood at birth
b. IMPORTANT: agreeing to respect BELIEFS that personhood begins at conception
even if this remains faith-based and not proveable policy (so that laws could not be passed or enforced that EXCLUSE or DISCRIMINATE against EITHER prolife beliefs OR prochoice beliefs against discriminating and denying equal protection of women and substantive due process). IE we do not have to argue or agree on prolife beliefs about conception; just recognize that those beliefs are protected by law (whether people agree with the contents of the beliefs or not) from discrimination by govt establishing biased laws that would discriminate, exclude or violate those beliefs (and likewise with prochoice beliefs equally protected).
c. not to abuse sex or abuse relationships to CAUSE unwanted pregnancy or abortion
d. so NOT abusing or coercing women into sex, unwanted pregnancy or abortion
in the first place! this would protect women and unborn children equally and hold
MEN equally responsible for avoiding abuse of sex or relationships.

5. As for "women being in control"
from my own experience being forced into an abortion against my beliefs and will,
because my partner threatened suicide and continued to coerce me until I gave in,
I felt the spirit of the baby slip away and die before the abortion took place.

So this was by coercion and was not my will or way.
It's like saying a woman is responsible for agreeing to a rapist
because he threatens to kill other people. She is still being COERCED.

I went through that. I feel like a rape victim being blamed for
getting in a relationship with someone I thought was my future husband,
but it was relationship abuse, relationship fraud, and basically a form
of acquaintance rape because I never consented on those terms.
I consented only because I thought we would get married.
I consented to sex and pregnancy because I believed when he promised that
once I carry the baby it's a baby and I don't believe in abortion.

All that went out the window when it turned out he misrepresented his intentions
and basically committed relationship fraud.

So sorry beagle9 but blaming the women in cases like mine
is like blaming the rape victim and letting the men go free
who coerced and forced the woman into such situations
AGAINST THEIR WILL AND BELIEFS.

Until the laws address the MEN as equally or more responsible for
abuse and coercion that leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion,
you aren't going to solve the real problem behind it.

It's more than just waiting until after the woman gets pregnant
to start policing against abortion.

Policing against abuse has to start with the men as well
abusing the relationship and sex, not just the women!

The saddest part beagle9 is that if you look at the
responsibility and decision to have sex,
the MEN have equal or MORE responsibility than the women.

If you don't consider the men equally, that's where
all the focus is on women AFTER pregnancy occurs.
And apparently men get away without any consequences for their part
in the decisions or actions, because all the attention and blame is put on women. How convenient.

 

[otto105]

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

So 15 day old is the same as a fetus?

Yep. Go back 16 days. What’s the difference?

A lot, you don't know the difference?

 

[otto105]

There is no god, you fucking idiot. god is a creation by man in order to deal with his mortality.

Amazing how strong Blind Faith is among Athiests.

Matter, Energy, Space, & Time didn't create themselves from nothingness.

Believing in Christ does require Faith.

Believing in God just requires common sense.

They can't be Democrats anymore until they swear an oath to be atheists, and the women have to show how they have had a few abortions before being elected to office to fight off the several right-to-lifers in the Republican Party who believe in Jesus.

Would that be right to lifers who believe in war, capital punishment and racism....