|
|
Post by theCapraAegagrus on Feb 23, 2023 5:53:15 GMT -8
Doctors’ interpretation of state law prevents procedure, family tells Washington Post, despite baby’s fatal illness
Doctor's interpretation? What about his lawyer?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 8:32:35 GMT -8
So if a person has a fatal illness, they can be murdered whether they understand or agree to it or not.
Got it.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 23, 2023 8:37:39 GMT -8
Could have been poisoned, or could have been gassed, or could have been shot by someone else, so, the answer is yes.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 23, 2023 8:40:06 GMT -8
This is known as murder by death (with a nod to Mr. Simon, of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 8:41:14 GMT -8
Did I read this correctly, we are in support of that teen girl carrying the child (up to 9 months) till delivery instead of her being allowed to get rid of it? ..... I can only assume that you're feigning ignorance of the abortion-condemning crowd.
Not even feigning IMO. Just denying it outright. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 8:44:00 GMT -8
2. Help the child. And her child. So only try to help one of the two children and not the other? Got it. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 9:07:59 GMT -8
See, children are the natural consequence of "the sex lives" of people - include those conceived of violence or rape. Children have distinct bodies and lives that have a natural start, a natural development full of many changes and periods of growth through their early life - all the while exhibiting progressively decreasing levels dependence on their parents.
Barring serious disease, that dependency changes along with the natural growth and development of the child - from complete singular dependence in the beginning to complete independence later that we call "adulthood". This is not new stuff, nor is it shocking or destructive to humanity.
In fact, children are the primary purpose for even having a "sex life", in addition to shared intimacy, bonding etc. The corruption of that truth is "the sexual revolution" where sexual-gluttony and sexual-selfishness became socially-tolerated, then accepted, then celebrated. The natural consequences, then, of "the sex lives" of people had to be decoupled and discarded from the primary purpose of human sexuality, or at least made an "optional choice", akin to whether one wanted to light up a cigarette afterwards or not.
Sexual gratification, and personal convenience became of greater value than the life of an innocent child. Other cultures in other times did similar things - sacrifice children (actually torture them first to collect their tears) for the gratification and convenience of those who had power over them.
The anti-abortion crowd is not simply "pro-birth" (though being "pro-birth" is not necessarily bad either) and then abandon them - the adoption rates of Christians is estimated to be double that of the general population and much higher than the "Religious Nones", and social conservatives have higher adoption rates than social "progressives".
If this is derailing the OP, then I'll let it go and have a good rest of your day.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 23, 2023 9:39:32 GMT -8
The 60s were great.
|
|
|
|
Post by quantumcomics on Feb 23, 2023 9:55:59 GMT -8
See, children are the natural consequence of "the sex lives" of people - include those conceived of violence or rape. Children have distinct bodies and lives that have a natural start, a natural development full of many changes and periods of growth through their early life - all the while exhibiting progressively decreasing levels dependence on their parents. Barring serious disease, that dependency changes along with the natural growth and development of the child - from complete singular dependence in the beginning to complete independence later that we call "adulthood". This is not new stuff, nor is it shocking or destructive to humanity. In fact, children are the primary purpose for even having a "sex life", in addition to shared intimacy, bonding etc. The corruption of that truth is "the sexual revolution" where sexual-gluttony and sexual-selfishness became socially-tolerated, then accepted, then celebrated. The natural consequences, then, of "the sex lives" of people had to be decoupled and discarded from the primary purpose of human sexuality, or at least made an "optional choice", akin to whether one wanted to light up a cigarette afterwards or not. Sexual gratification, and personal convenience became of greater value than the life of an innocent child. Other cultures in other times did similar things - sacrifice children (actually torture them first to collect their tears) for the gratification and convenience of those who had power over them. The anti-abortion crowd is not simply "pro-birth" (though being "pro-birth" is not necessarily bad either) and then abandon them - the adoption rates of Christians is estimated to be double that of the general population and much higher than the "Religious Nones", and social conservatives have higher adoption rates than social "progressives". If this is derailing the OP, then I'll let it go and have a good rest of your day. Simple solution. You don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 10:01:55 GMT -8
See, children are the natural consequence of "the sex lives" of people - include those conceived of violence or rape. Children have distinct bodies and lives that have a natural start, a natural development full of many changes and periods of growth through their early life - all the while exhibiting progressively decreasing levels dependence on their parents. Barring serious disease, that dependency changes along with the natural growth and development of the child - from complete singular dependence in the beginning to complete independence later that we call "adulthood". This is not new stuff, nor is it shocking or destructive to humanity. In fact, children are the primary purpose for even having a "sex life", in addition to shared intimacy, bonding etc. The corruption of that truth is "the sexual revolution" where sexual-gluttony and sexual-selfishness became socially-tolerated, then accepted, then celebrated. The natural consequences, then, of "the sex lives" of people had to be decoupled and discarded from the primary purpose of human sexuality, or at least made an "optional choice", akin to whether one wanted to light up a cigarette afterwards or not. Sexual gratification, and personal convenience became of greater value than the life of an innocent child. Other cultures in other times did similar things - sacrifice children (actually torture them first to collect their tears) for the gratification and convenience of those who had power over them. The anti-abortion crowd is not simply "pro-birth" (though being "pro-birth" is not necessarily bad either) and then abandon them - the adoption rates of Christians is estimated to be double that of the general population and much higher than the "Religious Nones", and social conservatives have higher adoption rates than social "progressives". If this is derailing the OP, then I'll let it go and have a good rest of your day. Simple solution. You don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Freedom. Don't like slavery? Don't own one. Freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by quantumcomics on Feb 23, 2023 10:21:22 GMT -8
Wow, you really went there didn't you  Interesting how you conflate a woman's right to choose with a people who had NO choice. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 11:05:11 GMT -8
Wow, you really went there didn't you Interesting how you conflate a woman's right to choose with a people who had NO choice. Congratulations. Defend human life - yes I went there. Why won't you? What choice was Gianna Jessen given when she was aborted? Or Claire Culwell when she was aborted? Or the thousands of other humans who were aborted yet survived their attempted murder? |
|
|
|
Post by quantumcomics on Feb 23, 2023 11:11:58 GMT -8
Wow, you really went there didn't you Interesting how you conflate a woman's right to choose with a people who had NO choice. Congratulations. Defend human life - yes I went there. Why won't you? What choice was Gianna Jessen given when she was aborted? Or Claire Culwell when she was aborted? Or the thousands of other humans who were aborted yet survived their attempted murder? Ahh ok, so you ARE for gun control and universal healthcare? |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 11:13:02 GMT -8
The only reason people "owned" slaves is that they convinced themselves that the person they "owned" wasn't quite fully human, not quite as human as they were.
They had many reasons to convince themselves that slaves weren't as human as THEY were, that slaves didn't quite deserve the same human dignity that THEY claimed for themselves.
And so it goes with all sorts of human atrocities, from slavery to genocide to abortion to aztec child sacrifice to common-day rape and murder.
First dehumanize that which you have power over, then you can do any inhuman acts on it that you want. Serial killers admit the same mentality - dehumanize the victim and it makes it so much easier to mutilate and murder.
ETA: grammar
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Feb 23, 2023 11:13:45 GMT -8
Defend human life - yes I went there. Why won't you? What choice was Gianna Jessen given when she was aborted? Or Claire Culwell when she was aborted? Or the thousands of other humans who were aborted yet survived their attempted murder? Ahh ok, so you ARE for gun control and universal healthcare? By changing the subject, are you conceding on abortion of children and becoming a defender of all innocent human life, at all stages of their lives? |
|
