Texas woman strangled newborn son, tossed him in trash, Where was Planned P-hood?

[Darnell 8,478]

Danno - yer timeticks at post #1 are still off, as she could not legally have aborted the child hours before giving birth. Not in Texas, the state having the prevailing law in her situation .

Edited January 18, 2014 by Darnell

[Danno 1,228]

golly gee. way to miss the point while twisting your morals into a nonsensical knot.

Yeah I was afraid it would be over your head.

Lets try this instead..... when you make another being feel pain, bleed or stop breathing, you need to stop it.

[decocker 7,198]

Yeah I was afraid it would be over your head.

Lets try this instead..... when you make another being feel pain, bleed or stop breathing, you need to stop it.

so. how do you feel about the death penalty?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, obviously there are people who do not wish to see your abstract. I get it.

No need to focus on TX since there ARE states that allow partial birth abortion. Your example is that it is OK to kill a child before birth but not Ok to do so afterwards.

Most people opposed to you are not "pro choice" they are "pro abortion". You say it is not OK to kill a child EVER, in the womb or out. I agree with you because I am against abortion. But I am PRO CHOICE, which means I do not believe the goverment should force my beliefs on others. As Darmell mentions, the woman can drop off the child at a fire station or hospital and they will care for the child no questions asked. There are obviously options and this woman was obviously mentally ill and unable to make those choices. If there is a failing it is in why did someone not monitor this woman and her baby for the safety of both? Is this the first indication she is sick? I doubt it.

As usual this is about stepping on individual liberty, Republicans do it as well as Dems.

As for abortion climics being for profit...you do not have a problem with profit in other areas of medicine, why in abortion? I suspect the profit margin for most abortion clinics is pretty low actually, be that as it may this IS a capitalist society which you seem to favor most of the time unless someone is making money doing something YOU don't like. Which makes you a Republican. The only difference between Republicans and the Dems is the list of rights they would deny.

The only quarrel I have with your reasoning on this issue is that you take the principle of "no one has the right to control my body" beyond the bounds of reason.

If ever there were an exception to that rule (and there are several) .... a women being pregnant would have to be it, because in this instance, it is not her body alone we are considering.

And of course the question is -How much consideration do we give the child within her?

Reasonable people have concluded, the farther along in development the child is, the greater the weight shifts from the Mothers desire .....over to the protection of the unborn.

Since the vast majority of pregnancies are not desperate cases, in fact, in almost all cases they are

>Voluntary

>Without any major health complication.

>Access to an early abortion was plentiful.

>Loving families stand ready to take the unwanted child.

>Healthcare, food and housing is guaranteed by the GOVT.

For most of us it is difficult to pin point the moment the child should have rights, (Even the Supreme court considered a womens right diminished in the third term)

yet interestingly enough we live in a country which afford the worst rapist or murderer every "presumption of innocence" so as not to wrongly condemn a person to incarceration unjustly,

I would hope we would be consistent and grant the unborn also the presumption of the right to live.

Especially in the vast number of cases where there is not compelling reason at all to kill the healthy unborn.

I think reasonable people can agree, there are some cases in which abortion might be the only humane option but these cases are few compared to those simply done for reasons of convenience.

To claim it is "my body my choice" is like me claiming I can do what I want my car, irregardless of the dog or child that might be inside of it.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Danno

[Danno 1,228]

Danno - yer timeticks at post #1 are still off, as she could not legally have aborted the child hours before giving birth. Not in Texas, the state having the prevailing law in her situation .

You do realize several states and one other country are within driving distance? (not to mention how far one could travel given 9 months time to do so.)

Edited January 18, 2014 by Danno

[Danno 1,228]

so. how do you feel about the death penalty?

The death penalty really has no connection to abortion... unless an innocent person is being executed.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I find it stunning that you use the term "murder" so deliberately yet had she done the same thing to the same child hours before,

you grant that killing as a right.

She could not have legally gotten an abortion 'hours before. ' I know you are looking to equate abortion with murder of a child that was successfully born but the fact is that the only way that equation works is for the thinker to suffer Danno-logical disease. Thus far medical science has only seen one sufferer of this rare disease, and that would be you.

The death penalty really has no connection to abortion... unless an innocent person is being executed.

Nor does abortion have any connection with murder. But do carry on.

[decocker 7,198]

To claim it is "my body my choice" is like me claiming I can do what I want my car, irregardless of the dog or child that might be inside of it.

this is your whole problem danno, right here. this is just sad.

[Danno 1,228]

this is your whole problem danno, right here. this is just sad.

I respect that we can disagree.

I think you are behind the times and out of step with science, in fact no other incident has turned more people agqainst abortion than the widespread use of the sonogram.

The more people have seen the development of their baby and the babies of others, the more people are realizing ...."Dayum, this is actually a little person" even in the second trimester.

Along with that are some women realizing -Dayum, I was lied to, that wasn't a blob of tissue, that was a human being in development inside me.

[decocker 7,198]

I respect that we can disagree.

I think you are behind the times and out of step with science, in fact no other incident has turned more people agqainst abortion than the widespread use of the sonogram.

The more people have seen the development of their baby and the babies of others, the more people are realizing ...."Dayum, this is actually a little person" even in the second trimester.

Along with that are some women realizing -Dayum, I was lied to, that wasn't a blob of tissue, that was a human being in development inside me.

it's awesome that you think that i am out of step with science while you think that your car is not just an extension of your person, but your actual body. go science. yay reason.

further, please spare the "realization" #######. this sort of talk only shows how completely disconnected you are from the female experience.

[Danno 1,228]

it's awesome that you think that i am out of step with science while you think that your car is not just an extension of your person, but your actual body. go science. yay reason.

further, please spare the "realization" #######. this sort of talk only shows how completely disconnected you are from the female experience.

Lest you forget.... it was the hand of Man who penned your rights into law, both constitutionally and Biblically, without either, your life (and mine) would be a whole lot different.

[decocker 7,198]

Lest you forget.... it was the hand of Man who penned your rights into law, both constitutionally and Biblically, without either, your life (and mine) would be a whole lot different.

don't i know it.

[Operator 1,927]

Lest you forget.... it was the hand of Man who penned your rights into law, both constitutionally and Biblically, without either, your life (and mine) would be a whole lot different.

Your bible only covers about 28% of people.

[Danno 1,228]

Your bible only covers about 28% of people.

People who live in Muslim countries.. though they be something else are still effected by the force of the koran.

Historically speaking, the principles rooted in Christianity and shipped around the world lead to monumental change concerning things we now take for granite.

[Operator 1,927]

People who live in Muslim countries.. though they be something else are still effected by the force of the koran.

Historically speaking, the principles rooted in Christianity and shipped around the world lead to monumental change concerning things we now take for granite.

Got it. But Christians and Muslims still only account for 56% of the population, what do the Christian bible and the Quran have to do with the rights of the other 44%?