Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yes, the most horrendous part of this is we are indeed talking about a baby. This said medical staff have these rare cases to deal with.
What about the conjoined twins which are sharing organs? Splitting off one of the twins often time kills the other.
Overall, by all means dwell heavily upon this matter which was settled long ago.
Let it fester and be your main reason to support or not support your GOP candidate.
What you are witnessing is exactly what happens to a major US party when a small issue group hijacks the entire agenda.
Notice how many posts are about this topic compared to debating global warming or California's drought.
I didn't entirely understand your post. Where did you get the idea that I support any GOP candidates? Where did you get the impression that I dwell heavily on this topic?
I'm also not sure I see the relevance of the conjoined twins issue.
1. There are very few doctors who perform late term abortions, and I am doubtful that any of them will accept most any excuse as "life threatening."
2. "Murder" is defined as illegal killing. Murder is a legal concept, so it is illegal to kill a two-hour old baby because our laws say it is. What you should be asking is why is it wrong to kill a two-hour old baby if it isn't wrong to kill a baby that is about to be born. My answer is that it isn't wrong in some cases. I think our laws should permit physicians, in certain circumstances, to end the lives of babies that have already been born. NICUs regularly see babies that have conditions that are incompatible with life. These babies have care removed from them, they are given expensive stays in one of the most expensive wings of a hospital, and they are allowed to die slow deaths. No one is under the delusion that they have any chance of living, so why shouldn't they be killed in the quickest, most painless and most inexpensive way possible?
Okay, how about Homicide, feel better now? "Death by other than natural causes".
Okay, how about Homicide, feel better now? "Death by other than natural causes".
I think you missed my point. The question posed was why killing a baby two hours before birth is not murder but doing the same thing two hours after birth is murder. My answer was that "murder", and "homicide" as well, are legal concepts. So the answer to the question is a legal one: our laws don't permit killing two-hour old babies, thus it is homicide or murder.
I think the question should have been "Why is it wrong to kill a baby two hours after birth but not wrong to do so two hours before birth?"
1. There are very few doctors who perform late term abortions, and I am doubtful that any of them will accept most any excuse as "life threatening."
2. "Murder" is defined as illegal killing. Murder is a legal concept, so it is illegal to kill a two-hour old baby because our laws say it is. What you should be asking is why is it wrong to kill a two-hour old baby if it isn't wrong to kill a baby that is about to be born. My answer is that it isn't wrong in some cases. I think our laws should permit physicians, in certain circumstances, to end the lives of babies that have already been born. NICUs regularly see babies that have conditions that are incompatible with life. These babies have care removed from them, they are given expensive stays in one of the most expensive wings of a hospital, and they are allowed to die slow deaths. No one is under the delusion that they have any chance of living, so why shouldn't they be killed in the quickest, most painless and most inexpensive way possible?
Let me ask this, if the reporting I cite following this question is true as it seems to be, is that okay with you or anyone else here?
I'm no pro-life zealot but I do believe there should be restrictions and it shouldn't be a one sided decision as it takes two to make it, nor should it be as easy as taking out the trash. I DO believe that a minor child should not be able to get one without a parents knowledge UNLESS DFS or a judge is involved like in cases of incest or child abuse by said parents.
"The Factor has been investigating a late-term abortion clinic run by Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller, known to his detractors as "Tiller the Baby Killer," stonewalled us when we asked over the last year if he'd performed illegal abortions and covered up child rape at his clinic. But recently the Factor learned that Tiller terminated late-term pregnancies by citing temporary "depression" on the part of the mother, and performed these abortions on girls as young as ten, never informing police these girls were victims of rape or incest." Bill O'Reilly: Producer's Notebook - Confronting Dr. George Tiller
Let me ask this, if the reporting I cite following this question is true as it seems to be, is that okay with you or anyone else here?
I'm no pro-life zealot but I do believe there should be restrictions and it shouldn't be a one sided decision as it takes two to make it, nor should it be as easy as taking out the trash. I DO believe that a minor child should not be able to get one without a parents knowledge UNLESS DFS or a judge is involved like in cases of incest or child abuse by said parents.
"The Factor has been investigating a late-term abortion clinic run by Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller, known to his detractors as "Tiller the Baby Killer," stonewalled us when we asked over the last year if he'd performed illegal abortions and covered up child rape at his clinic. But recently the Factor learned that Tiller terminated late-term pregnancies by citing temporary "depression" on the part of the mother, and performed these abortions on girls as young as ten, never informing police these girls were victims of rape or incest." Bill O'Reilly: Producer's Notebook - Confronting Dr. George Tiller
No, if that information is true, it would seem to be immoral. What does that have to do with anything we're discussing, though? The most immoral aspect of that scenario, at least to me, is that he didn't inform the police about the rape of the young girls.
I do think a ten year old being pregnant is a good reason for an abortion at any point in the pregnancy, though.
Preeclampsia can in some cases cause extremely high blood pressure. High enough where surgery is not an option. The woman can also be in danger of stroke.
I had pre-eclampsia when I was carrying my twins so my ob-gyn ripped them untimely from my womb at 35 weeks (5 weeks early).
It wasn't until nearly a year later that the ob-gyn told me now close dangerous the situation truly was. He didn't want to unduly alarm me.
The twins are in their mid-30s now and doing fine.
Hillary is in full support of late term partial birth abortions. She said so, the baby has no rights at all. PP owns the democrat party with all the money they throw at it. Plus she will push to have tax payers pay for abortions, any and all.
I had pre-eclampsia when I was carrying my twins so my ob-gyn ripped them untimely from my womb at 35 weeks (5 weeks early).
It wasn't until nearly a year later that the ob-gyn told me now close dangerous the situation truly was. He didn't want to unduly alarm me.
The twins are in their mid-30s now and doing fine.
Thank goodness for a happy ending, so happy for you and your twins. :-) It is a very dangerous situation, what they used to call "toxemia". I wish the "why don't they just...?" folks and politicians who have never been near a medical school would shut up. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it irritates the hell out of me.
Hillary is in full support of late term partial birth abortions. She said so, the baby has no rights at all. PP owns the democrat party with all the money they throw at it. Plus she will push to have tax payers pay for abortions, any and all.
Other than the first line, those are all good things. There should be some restrictions on partial birth and late term abortions, but not an outright ban.
]It isn't "moot." [/b]The right to life is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as an unalienable right. It is appalling that Hillary supports the killing of an infant even at the moment of birth! How could anyone support someone like this for President?
Her answer here to Trump was shocking.
It is a moot point since we have more pressing issues in this country
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
