a vote for John McCain....
- Thread starter midcan5
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
We also must regulate the pregnant mothers diet, alc consumption by law as well to ensure they are not harmed.
Anyone not complying will be incarcerated in a good mothers home to be sure the child gets good prenatal care.
I am sort of getting confused on which side is the bleeding hearts.
Anyone not complying will be incarcerated in a good mothers home to be sure the child gets good prenatal care.
I am sort of getting confused on which side is the bleeding hearts.
Good Luck
New member
I think limiting it to protecting the unborn from being systematically and deliberately killed is enough.
The problems of enforcing current child neglect laws without being too intrusive is bad enough without adding to it.
Good Luck
New member
They are also the ones who will be taking care of us as we grow older through their economic contributions to the social infrastructure. They are the future clerks, executives, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc. you and I will be depending on 20-30 years from now. (unless you plan to exit before then...)
I think allowing their parents a tax break or two is worth that, even if it means a little higher tax for myself to compensate.
Good Luck
New member
Your ridicule of extreme measures is a poor method of debate.
Preventing deliberate homicide is a far cry from the level of crap you infer could (but an honest person would admit will not) result if unborn are recognized as human beings with human rights.
uscitizen
Villified User
they are either children with all the protections afforded children or they are not.
Good Luck
New member
And as is typical of the pro-choice advocates, they are reduced to mindless little defenses such as population control.MORE PEOPLE! The answer to all our problems
uscitizen
Villified User
Ahh but you see only a shallow perception of my statement. It is very multileveled. Not just limited to this debate.
Good Luck
New member
Go research the current limits on enforcement of child neglect laws, then come back and make a legitimate claim what would be involved.
uscitizen
Villified User
giving a child aclohol or tobacco or drugs not prescribed for them is a crime.
If a child is defined from perception as a child and since they get what the mother gets.
darned good fodder for trial lawyers.
It's okay to kill people so long as you haven't met them yet. This is the argument from the same people who jump all over others for being able to fly over some other place and drop bombs during a war because they cannot easily see the damage to lives that they have caused.
uscitizen
Villified User
Good Luck
New member
But within this debate it had the definite implication that abortion is to be defended as a method of population control, which is what I responded to. Make the same statement in other debates and the response will be to what it implies in those debates, and not to abortion.
Yeah, those little kids haven't been introduced yet. I have always understood why it was so easy to deny their tiny lives, to explain how one can easily dismiss their reality. I even understand the argument from the left on bombing, and it is one of the reasons I do not believe in aggressive warfare.You are catching on now
I can't see how I am "catching on", this has been my belief from the beginning and I have stated so. There is no change in my beliefs, therefore there is no "catching on" going on.
I have never supported the war, because I don't believe in aggressive war and because it was not Declared. I have always been against abortion except in case of the life of the mother for reasons already assigned.
These beliefs have not changed. There is no "catching on" to do. I have been clear on these issues.