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

[otto105]

Anyp is a good place to raise a Christian family. I raised mine way up North. Lots of good Christian's here. I'll see them in church Sunday. Some vote gop and some don't. Not in my interests to sway them either way. Politics has no place in the house of God.

Yes politics does have a place in the House of God. What was Jesus exposing in his life on this earth? The political situation of Rome with regards to its occupied territories of the Empire.

What political party does the bible say jesus belonged to too?

 

[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

Liberal? Look at the guy:

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

You libs get off on dead baby’s.

We prefer Reproductive Justice.


You prefer the Middle Ages.

 

[otto105]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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 *****-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.

dr. joesph mengele has a show on fox.

 

[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.

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.

Ok, now with all that said (so sorry about your situation by the way), but at what point do you think that you would have aborted this (mistake that you made with this man), in which sadly cost the life of your baby in which you actually felt it's soul slip away ???

 

[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.

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.

Trust me that there are men who have paid dearly for their irresponsible acts committed. Women and judges have made certain of that.

 

[Faun]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

 

[satrebil]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

Moron.

 

[Faun]

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 ******* 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.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

Moron.

 

[satrebil]

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 ******* 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.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

Moron.

Moron.

 

[Faun]

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

Moron.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

Moron.

Moron.

 

[Slyhunter]

Moron.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

Moron.

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

 

[Faun]

Your concession is graciously accepted.

Moron.

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

 

[Slyhunter]

Moron.

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

 

[Faun]

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

What does that have to do with your ridiculous claim that choice restricts womens' rights?

 

[beautress]

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose
​

Yes, we do need advocates for the innocent lives of the unborn, because they are human beings from the time of conception until the grave. What abortion does is change the face of society from one that loves and cherishes children to one that hates responsibility of any kind plus have no compunctions about also killing people who get in the way of their fun or who inconvenience them in any way. In other words, abortion advocates are creating a society that will advance crime until nobody can stand it.

 

[beautress]

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

What does that have to do with your ridiculous claim that choice restricts womens' rights?

No murder and no killing for escaping responsibility to a nation's future is a right, Faun.

 

[Faun]

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

What does that have to do with your ridiculous claim that choice restricts womens' rights?

No murder and no killing for escaping responsibility to a nation's future is a right, Faun.

You poor thing, most of our society disagrees with you and you don't get to speak for them.

 

[Slyhunter]

Moron.

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

What does that have to do with your ridiculous claim that choice restricts womens' rights?

I made no claim.

 

[Faun]

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

What does that have to do with your ridiculous claim that choice restricts womens' rights?

I made no claim.

Oh? You didn't say choice restricts womens' rights? Then who posted this...?

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

 

[Slyhunter]

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

And yet, I don't see any women protesting their rights are restricted by having the right to choose.

We need Advocates for the innocent life they are killing with their right to choose.

What does that have to do with your ridiculous claim that choice restricts womens' rights?

I made no claim.

Oh? You didn't say choice restricts womens' rights? Then who posted this...?

choice restrict rights of women having to pay the consequences of their own actions VS. murdering innocent life.

I was arguing with someone else using his words to make my argument.