Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:02 AM
 
9,879 posts, read 7,990,123 times
Reputation: 2521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffington View Post
You post makes no sense. Just because you want to protect an infant from infanticide, doesn't mean you have adopted them for life. This "boilerplate" you cite (and it is soo worn out) is meaningless.
Sorry, but if you are pro life - you MUST BE PRO WELFARE
and yes, you will adopt them for life through your tax
dollars. Otherwise, your a hypocrite
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:03 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,252,197 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
It is murder.
It isn't. No amount of your lying is going to change that fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:06 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,252,197 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffington View Post
You post makes no sense. Just because you want to protect an infant from infanticide, doesn't mean you have adopted them for life. This "boilerplate" you cite (and it is soo worn out) is meaningless.
A fetus isn't an infant. Infants are another term to describe a baby at a time in its life.

Infanticide has to do with the deaths of LIVE and fully birthed babies. Since can't live outside the mother's womb, it isn't a baby.


No amount of your lying will change that fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:08 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,150,589 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
A fetus isn't an infant. Infants are another term to describe a baby at a time in its life.

Infanticide has to do with the deaths of LIVE and fully birthed babies. Since can't live outside the mother's womb, it isn't a baby.


No amount of your lying will change that fact.

if a fetus is not an infant, then how can a person be charged with murdering it when the mother that is carrying it is murdered?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:14 AM
 
570 posts, read 880,455 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
Sorry, but if you are pro life - you MUST BE PRO WELFARE
and yes, you will adopt them for life through your tax
dollars. Otherwise, your a hypocrite

Talk about an inaccurate post.


You people , liberals in general, are not very smart.


You created the problem . By inventing welfare through gov't. If there was no welfare and no tax deductions, etc, for bringing a baby into the world, women wouldn't be sleeping around so much and not caring that they aren't married when they do open the gates.



By making abortions illegal, like they should be, then we would see the divorce rate whimper to under 29% most likely. We would also not see struggling single mothers everywhere you go. We would also see more mature men.



But yea I know, you libs don't believe in family and love all people, unless they of course, disagree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:20 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,252,197 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
if a fetus is not an infant, then how can a person be charged with murdering it when the mother that is carrying it is murdered?

actually, you have to cite cases for this claim, and you'll find in most that the mother was close to term (meaning that the baby would have survived if delivered).

And you'll be hard pressed to find many cases that support a charge of murder for an unborn child (I only know of one where it was actually allowed); usually the charge is thrown out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:24 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,150,589 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
actually, you have to cite cases for this claim, and you'll find in most that the mother was close to term (meaning that the baby would have survived if delivered).

And you'll be hard pressed to find many cases that support a charge of murder for an unborn child (I only know of one where it was actually allowed); usually the charge is thrown out.

how about the scott peterson case in liberal california. also it should not matter, if the fetus is not born, then it is not alive according to some.

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:25 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,252,197 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bright_future View Post

You created the problem . By inventing welfare through gov't. If there was no welfare and no tax deductions, etc, for bringing a baby into the world, women wouldn't be sleeping around so much and not caring that they aren't married when they do open the gates.
Wow, you have it so wrong. women getting pregnant happens. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with social welfare or tax deductions. And that isn't the reason why "women" sleep around

Women were sleeping around long before tax deductions or welfare. JUSt THAT MODERN medicince has allowed women to survive Pregnancy.


Quote:
By making abortions illegal, like they should be, then we would see the divorce rate whimper to under 29% most likely. We would also not see struggling single mothers everywhere you go. We would also see more mature men.
No it won't.

Women would be forced to carry an unwanted child to term, along with the psychological issues that would result from it.

Pregnancy has nothing to do with divorce rates in America (marrying for the wrong reasons are)

a woman in an abusive relationship would have to endure being abused as well as being pregnant

Just come out, you just want women to go back to the kitchen, be silent and do whatever "the man" says.

Women are not property, so take your chauvinistic attitude and turn it down to zero.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:30 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,150,589 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Wow, you have it so wrong. women getting pregnant happens. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with social welfare or tax deductions. And that isn't the reason why "women" sleep around

Women were sleeping around long before tax deductions or welfare. JUSt THAT MODERN medicince has allowed women to survive Pregnancy.


No it won't.

Women would be forced to carry an unwanted child to term, along with the psychological issues that would result from it.

Pregnancy has nothing to do with divorce rates in America (marrying for the wrong reasons are)

a woman in an abusive relationship would have to endure being abused as well as being pregnant

Just come out, you just want women to go back to the kitchen, be silent and do whatever "the man" says.

Women are not property, so take your chauvinistic attitude and turn it down to zero.

then why not make it an informed choice that the father can also get involved with. if the father wants the child, the mother can always sign custody over to the father and be done with it as well. I sure as heck would have love to have been given that kind of choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 12:35 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,252,197 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
how about the scott peterson case in liberal california. also it should not matter, if the fetus is not born, then it is not alive according to some.

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes that is the case I was trying to remember, but the coroner couldn't determine if the child was actually born since the he determined that the child's death was not the result of a coffin death. Laci's body was found a day later.

Like I stated, its rare that the charge will stick and is usually dropped against the suspect. And the charge will only be levied if the death of the unborn child, is due another ILLEGAL act.

Example: Drunk Driver kills pregnant mother. Since the driver is drunk (driving illegally) he/she can be charged with 2 murders.


Abortion however is not an illegal act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top