336 Million

[premio53]

Abortion, like theft, murder, prostitution and drugs, is going to happen, whether legal or illegal. Suggesting that it is against God doesn't mean shit. Most people believe in God at their convenience, if ever. Making it illegal just increases the risk involved.

Forced abortion is another story. If you would like to quote from the Bible, perhaps you should start at the top: Do onto others as you would have others do onto you.

You wouldn't want others to force their beliefs and their decisions on you and in doing so you are breaking the law which governs all others. So stop being a dick. You have your opinions, don't impose them on others and don't call others murderers for disagreeing you fucking hypocrite.

Tell that to an innocent unborn being ripped apart in his mother's womb by greedy doctors and thrown away like a piece of trash!

In China.. you have a point.

In the US, Europe.. you are an ignorant jerk who thinks a little bit of knowledge gives you the right to pass judgement on people and situations you are just too damned LAZY to fully understand or even think about. And don't you DARE claim that you are representing Christ with your ignorant Blather.

Posting stupid pictures just shows your laziness. Real honest debaters look up real facts, don't cherry pick or use stupid attempts to shock. No one ELSE here is ignorant of what abortion is.. YOU are ignorant of why someone, anyone would ever choose that option. The TRUTH Is no one sane really does it if they feel they have other, better options.

The fact of the matter is most people don't give a damn about the killing of innocent unborn babies. As I said once before if you can kill someone because they are too young then you can kill someone because they are too old, or to too black or to politically undesirable. Taken to its logical conclusion Met has a point. At least he is an honest despicable human being.

[crispybits]

If a man stabs a 9 month pregnant woman and kills her, and the abandons the body so that it's not found for a while so the baby dies too, is he tried for one count of murder or two?

[premio53]

If a man stabs a 9 month pregnant woman and kills her, and the abandons the body so that it's not found for a while so the baby dies too, is he tried for one count of murder or two?

In Nazi Germany the definition of murder was changed so that Jews were not legally human and therefore had no human rights. You can change the laws any way you wish but is will not absolve you of guilt.

[Metsfanmax]

If a man stabs a 9 month pregnant woman and kills her, and the abandons the body so that it's not found for a while so the baby dies too, is he tried for one count of murder or two?

In Nazi Germany the definition of murder was changed so that Jews were not legally human and therefore had no human rights. You can change the laws any way you wish but is will not absolve you of guilt.

Do you have a source for that claim? Jews in Nazi Germany were definitely stripped of basically all civil and political rights, but I'm not aware of any change that made it generally legal to murder a Jewish person at that time or that declared them as explicitly not human.

[PLAYER57832]

The fact of the matter is most people don't give a damn about the killing of innocent unborn babies

That you actually believe this is pretty firm proof that you are utterly and completley ignorant.

You have a choice. You can act as a CHRISTIAN, the one you claim to be and act like Christ, actually take pains to truly understand the situations (and reading through my posts in the abortion threads will give you a start... but only a start). OR you can continue to act as the ignorant bully you are now.

Per metafax's "conclusions" they are his, a very extreme view. If you really had true knowledge of this subject you would FIRST understand that.

[crispybits]

If a man stabs a 9 month pregnant woman and kills her, and the abandons the body so that it's not found for a while so the baby dies too, is he tried for one count of murder or two?

In Nazi Germany the definition of murder was changed so that Jews were not legally human and therefore had no human rights. You can change the laws any way you wish but is will not absolve you of guilt.

Where is my guilt? I haven't ever caused any abortion to happen (to my knowledge - there's always the chance one of the few people I slept with got pregnant and never told me but I'm still in touch with all of them and none of them have ever given me any reason to believe this is so)

I'm just trying to understand why it's illegal to kill a baby inside a mother's womb at one time, but that seems to have no legal standing at a later developmental stage if you also end the life of the mother?

[premio53]

The fact of the matter is most people don't give a damn about the killing of innocent unborn babies

That you actually believe this is pretty firm proof that you are utterly and completley ignorant.

You have a choice. You can act as a CHRISTIAN, the one you claim to be and act like Christ, actually take pains to truly understand the situations (and reading through my posts in the abortion threads will give you a start... but only a start). OR you can continue to act as the ignorant bully you are now.

Per metafax's "conclusions" they are his, a very extreme view. If you really had true knowledge of this subject you would FIRST understand that.

His views are no more extreme than that of Margaret Sanger. The abortion industry in America has its founding in the Nazi propoganda of a superior race and no amount of logic will cleanse you or anyone else of the guilt of a modern day holocaust.

[Gillipig]

The fact of the matter is most people don't give a damn about the killing of innocent unborn babies

That you actually believe this is pretty firm proof that you are utterly and completley ignorant.

You have a choice. You can act as a CHRISTIAN, the one you claim to be and act like Christ, actually take pains to truly understand the situations (and reading through my posts in the abortion threads will give you a start... but only a start). OR you can continue to act as the ignorant bully you are now.

Per metafax's "conclusions" they are his, a very extreme view. If you really had true knowledge of this subject you would FIRST understand that.

His views are no more extreme than that of Margaret Sanger. The abortion industry in America has its founding in the Nazi propoganda of a superior race and no amount of logic will cleanse you or anyone else of the guilt of a modern day holocaust.

Dude are you even for real? No one can be so stupid that they say that and mean it.

[premio53]

If a man stabs a 9 month pregnant woman and kills her, and the abandons the body so that it's not found for a while so the baby dies too, is he tried for one count of murder or two?

In Nazi Germany the definition of murder was changed so that Jews were not legally human and therefore had no human rights. You can change the laws any way you wish but is will not absolve you of guilt.

Where is my guilt? I haven't ever caused any abortion to happen (to my knowledge - there's always the chance one of the few people I slept with got pregnant and never told me but I'm still in touch with all of them and none of them have ever given me any reason to believe this is so)

I'm just trying to understand why it's illegal to kill a baby inside a mother's womb at one time, but that seems to have no legal standing at a later developmental stage if you also end the life of the mother?

After a speech, pro-life activist Penny Lea was approached by an old man. Weeping, he told her the following story:
http://www.repentamerica.com/singalittlelouder.html

"I lived in Germany during the Nazi holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. I attended church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews, but like most people today in this country, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?

A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews. They were like cattle in those cars!

Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. By the time that train came rumbling past the church yard, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more. Years have passed and no one talks about it much anymore, but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.

"Their screams tormented us . . . If some of their screams reached our ears we'd just sing a little louder."

[PLAYER57832]

The fact of the matter is most people don't give a damn about the killing of innocent unborn babies

That you actually believe this is pretty firm proof that you are utterly and completley ignorant.

You have a choice. You can act as a CHRISTIAN, the one you claim to be and act like Christ, actually take pains to truly understand the situations (and reading through my posts in the abortion threads will give you a start... but only a start). OR you can continue to act as the ignorant bully you are now.

Per metafax's "conclusions" they are his, a very extreme view. If you really had true knowledge of this subject you would FIRST understand that.

His views are no more extreme than that of Margaret Sanger. The abortion industry in America has its founding in the Nazi propoganda of a superior race and no amount of logic will cleanse you or anyone else of the guilt of a modern day holocaust.

Dude are you even for real? No one can be so stupid that they say that and mean it.

Obviously, they can... all it takes is a bit of intentional ignorance and belief that listening to one side's views is equal to listening to the whole debate.

[Night Strike]

Obviously, they can... all it takes is a bit of intentional ignorance and belief that listening to one side's views is equal to listening to the whole debate.

Why is it only the progressive viewpoint comes out of listening to the "whole debate"? What's with this holier-than-thou attitude where the people who disagree with you haven't actually listened to everything? You and other progressives do this all the time: if people disagree with you, then they don't actually know the facts or the whole story. It is possible (and even probable) that YOUR viewpoints are the ones that are wrong.

[_sabotage_]

As a parent, I believe that the decision to have a child should be taken with careful deliberation. My son is at minimum four hands full, has major impacts on his parents' lives and raising him is like entering a mine field.

Not everyone takes parenthood so seriously or finds it as heavy a burden. This is seen at all stages, from mating practices through to the writing of wills. There are many unplanned pregnancies as well as planned pregnancies that don't materialize. In some cases, people adapt to the circumstances: people who have had to abort a child take greater precautions, those who cannot conceive adopt. In other cases people pursue a course of action, have more and more abortions or take fertility drugs according to the case. I would hope that all children would receive a parent's love, have access to opportunity and further us as a species. But not all people have children for the same reason, the world isn't fair and our species is divisive and undefined.

Is an abortion negligent homicide? Clear cut murder? Does it lead to an immoral and arbitrary race? Does it promote social stability and offer a recourse to an accident, a tragedy? Does it discourage responsibility or in itself a responsible act? Is it always so?

What are the ramifications of policies which permit abortion as compared to those which prohibit it as compared to those which enforce it? At what point do we allow some to dictate terms that the state would enforce on the rest? At what point is freedom permitted?

Some would like to dictate guidelines, imprison others and suggest that this is freedom. Either keep the child and raise it inadequately, have a back alley abortion with a rusty hanger and don't get caught, or get caught and go to prison. Thanks for your humble opinion. You may feel that you have the moral high ground and your liberty torches will supply a cleansing warmth as the the world burns. But you are insane.

[premio53]

As a parent, I believe that the decision to have a child should be taken with careful deliberation. My son is at minimum four hands full, has major impacts on his parents' lives and raising him is like entering a mine field.

Not everyone takes parenthood so seriously or finds it as heavy a burden. This is seen at all stages, from mating practices through to the writing of wills. There are many unplanned pregnancies as well as planned pregnancies that don't materialize. In some cases, people adapt to the circumstances: people who have had to abort a child take greater precautions, those who cannot conceive adopt. In other cases people pursue a course of action, have more and more abortions or take fertility drugs according to the case. I would hope that all children would receive a parent's love, have access to opportunity and further us as a species. But not all people have children for the same reason, the world isn't fair and our species is divisive and undefined.

Is an abortion negligent homicide? Clear cut murder? Does it lead to an immoral and arbitrary race? Does it promote social stability and offer a recourse to an accident, a tragedy? Does it discourage responsibility or in itself a responsible act? Is it always so?

What are the ramifications of policies which permit abortion as compared to those which prohibit it as compared to those which enforce it? At what point do we allow some to dictate terms that the state would enforce on the rest? At what point is freedom permitted?

Some would like to dictate guidelines, imprison others and suggest that this is freedom. Either keep the child and raise it inadequately, have a back alley abortion with a rusty hanger and don't get caught, or get caught and go to prison. Thanks for your humble opinion. You may feel that you have the moral high ground and your liberty torches will supply a cleansing warmth as the the world burns. But you are insane.

All laws legislate morality Nimrod! There are many people who love to murder other people. There are many people who like to eat human flesh. There are many pedophiles who love to have sex with children. There are many humans who like to torture animals. There are people who like to drive drunk. It is hard to name any law where someone isn't offended or not allowed to do something they wish they could do.

It all depends on what kind of society we want to live in!

[_sabotage_]

Premio, the Bush Dynasty thread is available for you to discuss people who love to practice paedophilia, murder others, drive intoxicated and, although I have no knowledge of them eating human flesh, desecrate human remains. This thread is about national policy on abortion and its ramifications.

You are free to start another thread under the topic of laws and morality if you like.

[premio53]

Premio, the Bush Dynasty thread is available for you to discuss people who love to practice paedophilia, murder others, drive intoxicated and, although I have no knowledge of them eating human flesh, desecrate human remains. This thread is about national policy on abortion and its ramifications.

You are free to start another thread under the topic of laws and morality if you like.

Morality laws must work. Met admits the only reason he doesn't kill children is because it is against the law.

[crispybits]

Yep - lets get Shariah law in right now! That would make every country so much better!

(Just as much a straw man as your last post premio)

[Metsfanmax]

Morality laws must work. Met admits the only reason he doesn't kill children is because it is against the law.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear.

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread.

On the other hand, isn't it a common argument from religious folk that if we didn't have the Ten Commandments, people would go off murdering and raping each other? You all make it sound like the only thing keeping Christians from a serial killing spree is the fear of hell.

Also, please answer my question about Jewish human rights in the Nazi era, or else withdraw your comment.

[2dimes]

[chang50]

As a parent, I believe that the decision to have a child should be taken with careful deliberation. My son is at minimum four hands full, has major impacts on his parents' lives and raising him is like entering a mine field.

Not everyone takes parenthood so seriously or finds it as heavy a burden. This is seen at all stages, from mating practices through to the writing of wills. There are many unplanned pregnancies as well as planned pregnancies that don't materialize. In some cases, people adapt to the circumstances: people who have had to abort a child take greater precautions, those who cannot conceive adopt. In other cases people pursue a course of action, have more and more abortions or take fertility drugs according to the case. I would hope that all children would receive a parent's love, have access to opportunity and further us as a species. But not all people have children for the same reason, the world isn't fair and our species is divisive and undefined.

Is an abortion negligent homicide? Clear cut murder? Does it lead to an immoral and arbitrary race? Does it promote social stability and offer a recourse to an accident, a tragedy? Does it discourage responsibility or in itself a responsible act? Is it always so?

What are the ramifications of policies which permit abortion as compared to those which prohibit it as compared to those which enforce it? At what point do we allow some to dictate terms that the state would enforce on the rest? At what point is freedom permitted?

Some would like to dictate guidelines, imprison others and suggest that this is freedom. Either keep the child and raise it inadequately, have a back alley abortion with a rusty hanger and don't get caught, or get caught and go to prison. Thanks for your humble opinion. You may feel that you have the moral high ground and your liberty torches will supply a cleansing warmth as the the world burns. But you are insane.

All laws legislate morality Nimrod! There are many people who love to murder other people. There are many people who like to eat human flesh. There are many pedophiles who love to have sex with children. There are many humans who like to torture animals. There are people who like to drive drunk. It is hard to name any law where someone isn't offended or not allowed to do something they wish they could do.

It all depends on what kind of society we want to live in!

Yes there are paedophlles,a disproportionate number are priests,so what?

[premio53]

Morality laws must work. Met admits the only reason he doesn't kill children is because it is against the law.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear.

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread.

On the other hand, isn't it a common argument from religious folk that if we didn't have the Ten Commandments, people would go off murdering and raping each other? You all make it sound like the only thing keeping Christians from a serial killing spree is the fear of hell.

Also, please answer my question about Jewish human rights in the Nazi era, or else withdraw your comment.

"patches, you can rest easy knowing that I have no intention of killing a newborn baby while it is illegal. I generally obey the laws of the USA, even when I disagree with them."

You're sick!

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously, they can... all it takes is a bit of intentional ignorance and belief that listening to one side's views is equal to listening to the whole debate.

Why is it only the progressive viewpoint comes out of listening to the "whole debate"? What's with this holier-than-thou attitude where the people who disagree with you haven't actually listened to everything? You and other progressives do this all the time: if people disagree with you, then they don't actually know the facts or the whole story. It is possible (and even probable) that YOUR viewpoints are the ones that are wrong.

Understanding definitions and facts is superior to just "this is what I think... and if you don't like it, you are not listening to God". It always will be.

I say you don't know the facts because you make is perfectly clear that you do not.

[PLAYER57832]

If a man stabs a 9 month pregnant woman and kills her, and the abandons the body so that it's not found for a while so the baby dies too, is he tried for one count of murder or two?

In most states he would be charge with 2 counts. Even if the baby were to survive, he would likely be charged with attempted homicide.

[Metsfanmax]

Morality laws must work. Met admits the only reason he doesn't kill children is because it is against the law.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear.

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread.

On the other hand, isn't it a common argument from religious folk that if we didn't have the Ten Commandments, people would go off murdering and raping each other? You all make it sound like the only thing keeping Christians from a serial killing spree is the fear of hell.

Also, please answer my question about Jewish human rights in the Nazi era, or else withdraw your comment.

"patches, you can rest easy knowing that I have no intention of killing a newborn baby while it is illegal. I generally obey the laws of the USA, even when I disagree with them."

You're sick!

How do you get from that, to me saying that I would start killing babies if it were legal, especially since I explicitly denied that?

Also, still no response to the bit about Nazi Germany. Starting to think you just don't care about facts at all. For example, if you had bothered to check the veracity of your source instead of just copy pasting your arguments from your favorite religious source, you would have found that Beethoven was the third child born to his mother, and the first to survive infancy.

[rishaed]

Morality laws must work. Met admits the only reason he doesn't kill children is because it is against the law.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear.

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread.

On the other hand, isn't it a common argument from religious folk that if we didn't have the Ten Commandments, people would go off murdering and raping each other? You all make it sound like the only thing keeping Christians from a serial killing spree is the fear of hell.

Also, please answer my question about Jewish human rights in the Nazi era, or else withdraw your comment.

Czestochowa Ghetto
Established on April 9, 1941, it was sealed off on August 23, 1941. The ghetto population suffered from overcrowding, hunger and epidemics. On September 23, 1942 a large scale deportation (Aktion) began. By October 5, 1942, about 39,000 people had been deported to Treblinka extermination camp, while 2,000 had been executed on the spot.
Einsatzgruppen
The four (A, B, C, D) mobile units of the Security Police and SS Security Service that followed the German armies into the Soviet Union in June 1941. Their charge was to kill all Jews, as well as Soviet commissars and "mental defectives." They were supported by units of the uniformed German Order Police and used local Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian volunteers for the killings. The victims were shot and buried in mass graves. At least 1.3 million Jews were killed in this manner.
This enough proof? Shipped to "Work Camps" inside of Germany, "Death Camps" outside of Germany, no formal trial or crimes needed. Once they were no longer suitable for heavy labor, they were shipped to death camps. It was only through international trial that any of them were judged by the law. If they were to be tried in Ex-Nazi Germany, they probably would have gotten a commendation (Through people trying to earn favor with the Fuhrer, otherwise known as Hitler. OR judges instituted by Hitler and the Nazi Party.) Though I doubt you will find an explicit law allowing murder, it was indirectly condoned and practiced. It was also condoned directly through the Covertness of how they went about it.

[Metsfanmax]

Morality laws must work. Met admits the only reason he doesn't kill children is because it is against the law.

But if it was legal to kill newborn babies you'd be first in line to slaughter them, eh? Just wanted to get the clear.

No, I would not. I don't want newborn babies to die, and it is wrong (under my ethics) to kill them in many circumstances, as I have explained already in this thread.

On the other hand, isn't it a common argument from religious folk that if we didn't have the Ten Commandments, people would go off murdering and raping each other? You all make it sound like the only thing keeping Christians from a serial killing spree is the fear of hell.

Also, please answer my question about Jewish human rights in the Nazi era, or else withdraw your comment.

Czestochowa Ghetto
Established on April 9, 1941, it was sealed off on August 23, 1941. The ghetto population suffered from overcrowding, hunger and epidemics. On September 23, 1942 a large scale deportation (Aktion) began. By October 5, 1942, about 39,000 people had been deported to Treblinka extermination camp, while 2,000 had been executed on the spot.
Einsatzgruppen
The four (A, B, C, D) mobile units of the Security Police and SS Security Service that followed the German armies into the Soviet Union in June 1941. Their charge was to kill all Jews, as well as Soviet commissars and "mental defectives." They were supported by units of the uniformed German Order Police and used local Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Estonian volunteers for the killings. The victims were shot and buried in mass graves. At least 1.3 million Jews were killed in this manner.
This enough proof? Shipped to "Work Camps" inside of Germany, "Death Camps" outside of Germany, no formal trial or crimes needed. Once they were no longer suitable for heavy labor, they were shipped to death camps. It was only through international trial that any of them were judged by the law. If they were to be tried in Ex-Nazi Germany, they probably would have gotten a commendation (Through people trying to earn favor with the Fuhrer, otherwise known as Hitler. OR judges instituted by Hitler and the Nazi Party.) Though I doubt you will find an explicit law allowing murder, it was indirectly condoned and practiced. It was also condoned directly through the Covertness of how they went about it.

Well yes, I'm well aware that the Holocaust happened. But premio's point was that the law was changed to directly make the murder of Jews legal, and this was actually crucial to the analogy he was making. My argument was that the law was never changed, and in the case of Nazi Germany, the officials simply ignored the law. Therefore his analogy failed.