|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Actually most people do think life begins at conception. As to those who believe it begins at birth, those we call idiots. Any person who has listened to the heartbeat of a baby at the first ultrasound (generally 6-7 weeks) and NOT known and accepted that the baby they are listening to is alive is: 1) a liar, 2) delusional, or 3) some degree of an inhuman monster. More emotional drivel doesn't make it your business And what business is that, me paying for you to kill unborn children? You haven't paid me anything, and I haven't killed anyone You seem confused
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
You sure do post about yourself a lot.
I have tried to read what you post here and on others and do believe you really like yourself,although a bit to much.
It seems to me that anyone can believe/say what they want as long as it matches what you believe/say.
You sir are a card. I don't care if anyone agrees or not It's the other crowd trying to convince others they are the only ones who are correct. If I talk about myself, it's due to others making comments about me instead of the real topic, much as you did yourself.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Despite our inability to agree on when life begins, wouldn't a moral society err to the side of protecting life from the earliest possible moment that it exists? Yes, but we have to come to some sort of an agreement as to the moment life begins. I am inclined to believe that it starts when consciousness begins, evidence of self awareness and the ability to respond to external stimuli or pain. Historically this is in line with the idea of the "quickening" that our ancestor believed in, a belief that was written into English common law.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,607
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,607 |
Not confused at all. I know EXACTLY what you are and what the likes of you are doing to this country and culture.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
The best we can do to keep women from making that choice is to find better ways at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and to be financially supportive of those who choose to bring life into this world. As for the financial support; um, no. That LEADS to unwanted/unnecessary pregnancies. We have an entire subset of society that are nothing but breeders. That's their job, and the .gov pays them to breed in a perpetual underclass that are nothing more than leeches off of the productive in society. Various economic studies out of Detroit and other places have proven this. As for better ways of contraception, what the Hell else is needed other than the choice to actually use them? We have: the pill, the morning-after pill, condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, multiple IUDs, and under-skin implants, and likely more that don't spring immediately to mind. For a person to actually get pregnant these days takes a CONSCIOUS decision to NOT use any of the myriad forms of birth control on the market. It's well past time that the "choice" being discussed move on from infanticide to the actual CHOICE being made to avoid any of the various forms of birth control - almost ALL of which are either free or exceedingly cheap to procure and use. A program offering birth control to low-income teens and young women worked even better than previously thought, Colorado's health department announced Wednesday.
The initiative, which provided long-acting reversible contraceptives at little or no cost, dropped the state's teen birth and abortion rates by 48 percent from 2009 to 2014, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment found. The initiative also has been credited with controlling costs associated with child birth - saving Medicaid an estimated $79 million from 2010 through 2012, the health department said.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,916
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,916 |
OK,i think i understand it now.
I am free to believe anything i want and can post such,as long as it conforms to what you believe/think.
OK i got it,you know so much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
The best we can do to keep women from making that choice is to find better ways at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and to be financially supportive of those who choose to bring life into this world. As for the financial support; um, no. That LEADS to unwanted/unnecessary pregnancies. We have an entire subset of society that are nothing but breeders. That's their job, and the .gov pays them to breed in a perpetual underclass that are nothing more than leeches off of the productive in society. Various economic studies out of Detroit and other places have proven this. As for better ways of contraception, what the Hell else is needed other than the choice to actually use them? We have: the pill, the morning-after pill, condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, multiple IUDs, and under-skin implants, and likely more that don't spring immediately to mind. For a person to actually get pregnant these days takes a CONSCIOUS decision to NOT use any of the myriad forms of birth control on the market. It's well past time that the "choice" being discussed move on from infanticide to the actual CHOICE being made to avoid any of the various forms of birth control - almost ALL of which are either free or exceedingly cheap to procure and use. A program offering birth control to low-income teens and young women worked even better than previously thought, Colorado's health department announced Wednesday.
The initiative, which provided long-acting reversible contraceptives at little or no cost, dropped the state's teen birth and abortion rates by 48 percent from 2009 to 2014, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment found. The initiative also has been credited with controlling costs associated with child birth - saving Medicaid an estimated $79 million from 2010 through 2012, the health department said. No schit, huh? There are a multitude of contraceptive options available. The CHOICE to use them is the CHOICE that should be talked about.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
You sure do post about yourself a lot.
I have tried to read what you post here and on others and do believe you really like yourself,although a bit to much.
It seems to me that anyone can believe/say what they want as long as it matches what you believe/say.
You sir are a card. I don't care if anyone agrees or not It's the other crowd trying to convince others they are the only ones who are correct. If I talk about myself, it's due to others making comments about me instead of the real topic, much as you did yourself. Of course you care whether someone else agrees with you. That's the only reason you keep coming back. If you really didn't care what others thought, you wouldn't have opened the thread. If you really didn't care whether anyone else agrees with you or not, you'd have posted only once and walked away. Take Bristoe, for example. He clearly doesn't give a schit what others think on this topic because he's never opened the thread. There have been many other threads where he's posted once and walked away; because he doesn't give a schit whether anyone agrees with him or not. You, on the other hand, care deeply whether someone agrees with you; it's why you keep repeating yourself endlessly and coming back to every new post on the thread. You're also the one who has, from post one by you on this thread, made the topic of your posts and replies about you ("minding your business"; "not caring what others think"; not caring whether they agree with you) instead of about the topic of infanticide funded by extorted tax dollars. You've not once addressed that topic on any meaningful level but have dozens of posts all about you, whether or not you care, why you think others should mind their business (even though you are incapable of doing the same), etc. Yet again, your posts illustrate the opposite of what you profess. ![[Linked Image]](http://pubpages.unh.edu/~bes268/project/cattoy2.jpg)
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
Despite our inability to agree on when life begins, wouldn't a moral society err to the side of protecting life from the earliest possible moment that it exists? Yes, but we have to come to some sort of an agreement as to the moment life begins. I am inclined to believe that it starts when consciousness begins, evidence of self awareness and the ability to respond to external stimuli or pain. Historically this is in line with the idea of the "quickening" that our ancestor believed in, a belief that was written into English common law. If a pregnant woman is murdered why do our courts often charge the defendant with two homicides? Are the courts not effectively saying a life was ended?
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,424
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,424 |
We are all smart enough to know how babies are conceived and how not to conceive a baby. The only CHOICE is does the woman and man want to have a baby.
Once conceived, killing an unborn baby at any stage is MURDER!
Liberalism is a cancer
Support Christian Family values
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Here is the current Federal Law on books also know as Laci and Conner's Law. It really does not settle the question of "when does life begin?" Unborn Victims of Violence Act The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Here is the current Federal Law on books also know as Laci and Conner's Law. It really does not settle the question of "when does life begin?" Unborn Victims of Violence Act The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child." That whole act is vaguely insulting. basically, its a person only if the womb holder intends on birthing them. Gray area would be if she is killed on her way to the abortion clinic...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 20,683 |
So if the parent wants to kill it. It's okay. If someone else kills it. It's a crime.
Glad we cleared that up. Tks for posting the law neb
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Historically speaking. http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.htmlThe proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
So if the parent wants to kill it. It's okay. If someone else kills it. It's a crime.
Glad we cleared that up. Tks for posting the law neb Actually, no. It's only okay if one parent wants to kill it; which is a discriminatory law on it's face an abjectly against the various anti-discrimination laws and court rulings in the U.S. Of course, it's also only one parent that is financially obligated to pay, against their will, for the child if the other parent wants to raise it. Again, patently discriminatory on its face and against the various anti-discrimination laws and court rulings.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Historically speaking. http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.htmlThe proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law. Are you making a purely legalistic argument in defense of infanticide?
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Historically speaking. http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.htmlThe proposition that abortion cannot be homicide is reiterated by practically every major writer on English criminal law, from William Staunford and William Lambard in the sixteenth century, through Edward Coke and Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century, to William Hawkins and William Blackstone in the eighteenth century. Homicide was agreed to require the prior birth of the victim. Murder might be charged, according to Hale, if the woman on whom an abortion was performed died as a result. Murder also might be charged, according to Coke, if a botched abortion injured a fetus that afterwards was born alive and then died from its prenatal injuries. But where a fetus, even a quickened fetus, was killed in the womb, resulting in stillbirth, whatever the crime, it would not be homicide at common law. Are you making a purely legalistic argument in defense of infanticide? You keep making the mistake of thinking something needs "defending". That's just how it is, whether you like it or not.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Here is the current Federal Law on books also know as Laci and Conner's Law. It really does not settle the question of "when does life begin?" Unborn Victims of Violence Act The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child." That whole act is vaguely insulting. basically, its a person only if the womb holder intends on birthing them. Gray area would be if she is killed on her way to the abortion clinic... There is no gray area there. Anything that isn't a legal abortion is illegal.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,424
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,424 |
God will hold accountable ALL those who committed and/or supported the killing of the untold millions of murdered babies. Period, end of story!
Liberalism is a cancer
Support Christian Family values
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,787
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,787 |
You honestly don't see the legal hypocrisy in that statement?
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
|
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,387
Posts18,469,726
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
