Missed This Place...

[Care4all]

I guess "astute" is highly subjective.

He's crying about a technicality that any other whiner would see loud and clear.

well, i believe he is right on that point mbl....they did NAME the bill that way for purely political reasons....and wrongly at that....!

the name of the bill should be something like watermark's name for the bill, noting the SPECIFIC violence to the Pregnant woman!!!!!

the number one death of pregnant women is homicide....not childbirth, not breast cancer, not even car accidents or high blood pressure or other complications of pregnancy, BUT HOMICIDE.....and that homicide usually occurs by the father to be of the child....

giving it a name with the protection of pregnant women in it, could have brought a closer look and awareness of this violence to the public's attention regarding pregnant women....imo.... everyone KNOWS that pregnant means ''with unborn child''....

instead, they picked their name for the bill to rile their prolife troops, and make opposition arise to it, when if it were named to bring attention to the homicide rate of father's killing the pregnant mother of their child to be....it would have probably passed immediately imho...


care

 

[LadyT]

Yeah, I was gonna say something to him regarding that too Tiana, especially when mentioning he will be president someday....

like: thank goodness you will have another 20 years to change your political affiliation!

Adam has gone from Democratic, to libertarian, and now THIS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! so, 20 years or so is time enough for him to change a few more times i figure!

LOL, c'est tres vrais.

Five years maybe he'll be running on the socialists party.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

It's not vrais, and I won't be making any big changes over the years.

I'm still libertarian. When I was a Democrat I was libertarian. Now that I'm a Republican I'm libertarian. I want less government and more freedom and I need a vehicle to get us there.

I'm trying to make the Republican Party awesome. We can't let a perfectly good second political party be thrown to the scrapheap after this election.

And I had to make a lot of compromises and analyze what the place for me to work and grow was. And the Conservative movement has some promising attributes for its future.

In ten years, it won't be possible to confuse the conservatives of today and the conservatives of the new era. Obama is not the only thing that represents change this year. Everyone and everything will have to change to meet the new realities and trends.

And I learned enough over these past few years that even I changed some to realize what the right starting point would be.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

YOU SAID that a foetus is not HUMAN, which is an outright lie and absolutely idiotic and lacking in any kind of biological understanding....Watermark and argue the WRONG issue imho.

What someone on your side of the fence should be arguing is whether a foetus has achieved personhood, before they are born and take their first breath....with personhood giving them full rights of any human....

But NOOOOOOOOO, YOU can't do that....accept that there are different stages in life that get us to the "born" stage and ALL of them my dear ARE stages in the human life....including stages after birth such as newborn, infant, toddler......pubescent, teen, adult, midlife, senior, blue haired ....

What you should do imo, is review all of the stages in the life cycle of the zygote, embryo, fetus and make a rational decision on when terminating the baby to be's life should be cut off, other than health or life issues of the mother...where it logically makes sense to you and others like you...for example some believe that when the fetus stage begins, about 10-12 weeks, abortion should be cut off, because once to the fetus stage the baby to be, has all of his arms and legs and head and organs in the proper position and just need to sit back, be fed, and grow....some people think that when the baby to be becomes sentient, where they can feel pain...., some at quickening....

"quickening" was what was in Common Law...abortion was allowed up to quickening, after quickening and with an evangelical movement, it eventually became a felony for the mother to be and performer of the abortion to have one AFTER quickening, still legal before such....

anyway, sounding a little stupid there watermark, when you say a foetus is not human...imo.

Care

Well that's alright Care.

As I said before, I think a good cutoff point would be when it could feel pain, because that's around the time it can hold a preference on whether or not it exists at all.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's not vrais, and I won't be making any big changes over the years.

I'm still libertarian. When I was a Democrat I was libertarian. Now that I'm a Republican I'm libertarian. I want less government and more freedom and I need a vehicle to get us there.

I'm trying to make the Republican Party awesome. We can't let a perfectly good second political party be thrown to the scrapheap after this election.

And I had to make a lot of compromises and analyze what the place for me to work and grow was. And the Conservative movement has some promising attributes for its future.

In ten years, it won't be possible to confuse the conservatives of today and the conservatives of the new era. Obama is not the only thing that represents change this year. Everyone and everything will have to change to meet the new realities and trends.

And I learned enough over these past few years that even I changed some to realize what the right starting point would be.

The Republicans need to keep a good percentage of the vote opposition. I hope you guys never screw up again so bad as you did in the thirties, where you only had 20% of the seats in the house. A single-party system isn't good for the nation. The Democrats have usually held dominance. It's only recently that the Republicans have been able to actually become the majority party, and that was only by basically selling your soul. And now that's just flickering away again.

A third party would be nice, but all the third parties seem to be on a quixotic quest for the presidency. The first thing any third party should do, IMHO, is establish a large presence in the house. We're the only large nation in the world without a third party that even holds a single seat in our lower house, which is ridiculous. The Libertarians, American Greens, COnstitution party, Reform party... they are just complete and utter failures, especially considering the ridiculously weak opposition that is our two pitiful parties. That said, with the current way thing are going, it would probably take about a billion dollars to start a real third party in the US. And why go through all that whenever you can just raid one of the big two? You should take the Republicans towards libertarianism again, Adam, however you can.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Unlike you, I believe black people are human. Fetuses aren't. Only a racist like you would say black people are less than fetuses. Go protect your zygotes.

That's because we are living in 2008. With such an intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt argument, you would by extension be defending the arguments for slavery and the Holocaust. Especially had you lived in 1850's MS or 1930's Germany.

 

[blackascoal]

If it's murder to kill an fetus along with it's mother, it's murder to kill a fetus alone.

It's truly a tragedy the pregnant women are murdered so much, but there's no greater penalty that can be applied than the one currently on the books. To use murdered pregnant women as a human shield on your pro-life crusade so is, frankly, sickening.

I agree with you totally.

Killing an innocent woman, whether pregnant or not, should result in the exact same penalty.

Using unborn children in these cases is just more hype and bullshit from the pro-UNBORN-life crowd.

 

[Damocles]

It's not vrais, and I won't be making any big changes over the years.

I'm still libertarian. When I was a Democrat I was libertarian. Now that I'm a Republican I'm libertarian. I want less government and more freedom and I need a vehicle to get us there.

I'm trying to make the Republican Party awesome. We can't let a perfectly good second political party be thrown to the scrapheap after this election.

And I had to make a lot of compromises and analyze what the place for me to work and grow was. And the Conservative movement has some promising attributes for its future.

In ten years, it won't be possible to confuse the conservatives of today and the conservatives of the new era. Obama is not the only thing that represents change this year. Everyone and everything will have to change to meet the new realities and trends.

And I learned enough over these past few years that even I changed some to realize what the right starting point would be.

Preach it. I've been saying the same thing here. We have an opportunity to change the party in the right direction. I'm staying and seizing the opportunity.

 

[uscitizen]

In ten years, it won't be possible to confuse the conservatives of today and the conservatives of the new era. Obama is not the only thing that represents change this year. Everyone and everything will have to change to meet the new realities and trends.
//
Yeah I said pretty much the same thing after the Reagan/Republicans rise to power.

 

[Care4all]

I agree with you totally.

Killing an innocent woman, whether pregnant or not, should result in the exact same penalty.

Using unborn children in these cases is just more hype and bullshit from the pro-UNBORN-life crowd.

Why? Why should killing a person be the same as killing a person with child?

there is a child in the mother's womb and the pregnant woman was MORE THAN LIKELY KILLED because the father did NOT WANT THAT CHILD....

The murdering of pregnant women, women with a human offspring growing inside them.....the murderer is intentionally KILLING OFF BOTH of them....THAT IS HIS MOTIVE, not to kill just the woman, BUT TO KILL the baby inside her.

The woman being pregnant with child is the motive....

To NOT bring attention to this and NOT to include the child to be in their prosecution against the murderer is wrong....especially since statistics show that the Pregnant woman would more than likely not have been murdered IF SHE HAD NOT BEEN PREGNANT with the father to be's child....

non pregnant women are NOT murdered at the same rate as Pregnant women, PERIOD.....not even close!

And the murderer is killing another human that only needed a few more months to come in to taking it's first breath....

Your parents were "expecting" a child, before they had you because YOU were growing in your mother's womb....you were there already, and your parents CHOSE TO HAVE YOU.....

People around the pregnant woman also expect a child to be delivered by the pregnant woman....her parents expect to see a grandchild, she expects to have a son or a daughter, her sister expects to be an aunt, her brother expects to be an uncle....

these people are not only harmed by the death of their daughter, sister or grand daughter etc, they are harmed by the killing of the child inside of her that they invested mentally in and expected to see in to fruition, birth.

A person murdering a woman who chose to go through the pregnancy to have an offspring, is most certainly harming the woman and the child to be, they are NOT JUST HARMING a "woman" but a "woman with child", just as Lacy Peterson.

There should be a greater penalty for this happening because more than just one human is at stake....it IS NOT the same as killing a woman not invested or expecting a child.

There is certainly a way to put this legislation in, WITHOUT affecting the women that do not want to invest themselves in having an offspring....

A Pregnant woman is different from a woman that is not pregnant, if she were not different then we would never have created the word "pregnant"...

Care

 

[Damocles]

Why? Why should killing a person be the same as killing a person with child?

there is a child in the mother's womb and the pregnant woman was MORE THAN LIKELY KILLED because the father did NOT WANT THAT CHILD....

The murdering of pregnant women, women with a human offspring growing inside them.....the murderer is intentionally KILLING OFF BOTH of them....THAT IS HIS MOTIVE, not to kill just the woman, BUT TO KILL the baby inside her.

The woman being pregnant with child is the motive....

To NOT bring attention to this and NOT to include the child to be in their prosecution against the murderer is wrong....especially since statistics show that the Pregnant woman would more than likely not have been murdered IF SHE HAD NOT BEEN PREGNANT with the father to be's child....

non pregnant women are NOT murdered at the same rate as Pregnant women, PERIOD.....not even close!

And the murderer is killing another human that only needed a few more months to come in to taking it's first breath....

Your parents were "expecting" a child, before they had you because YOU were growing in your mother's womb....you were there already, and your parents CHOSE TO HAVE YOU.....

People around the pregnant woman also expect a child to be delivered by the pregnant woman....her parents expect to see a grandchild, she expects to have a son or a daughter, her sister expects to be an aunt, her brother expects to be an uncle....

these people are not only harmed by the death of their daughter, sister or grand daughter etc, they are harmed by the killing of the child inside of her that they invested mentally in and expected to see in to fruition, birth.

A person murdering a woman who chose to go through the pregnancy to have an offspring, is most certainly harming the woman and the child to be, they are NOT JUST HARMING a "woman" but a "woman with child", just as Lacy Peterson.

There should be a greater penalty for this happening because more than just one human is at stake....it IS NOT the same as killing a woman not invested or expecting a child.

There is certainly a way to put this legislation in, WITHOUT affecting the women that do not want to invest themselves in having an offspring....

A Pregnant woman is different from a woman that is not pregnant, if she were not different then we would never have created the word "pregnant"...

Care

Because there must be no shades of gray. If we recognize, even a little bit, the value of a life in the womb then they must begin to think of seriously restricting their pet political issue.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Why? Why should killing a person be the same as killing a person with child?

there is a child in the mother's womb and the pregnant woman was MORE THAN LIKELY KILLED because the father did NOT WANT THAT CHILD....

The murdering of pregnant women, women with a human offspring growing inside them.....the murderer is intentionally KILLING OFF BOTH of them....THAT IS HIS MOTIVE, not to kill just the woman, BUT TO KILL the baby inside her.

The woman being pregnant with child is the motive....

To NOT bring attention to this and NOT to include the child to be in their prosecution against the murderer is wrong....especially since statistics show that the Pregnant woman would more than likely not have been murdered IF SHE HAD NOT BEEN PREGNANT with the father to be's child....

non pregnant women are NOT murdered at the same rate as Pregnant women, PERIOD.....not even close!

And the murderer is killing another human that only needed a few more months to come in to taking it's first breath....

Your parents were "expecting" a child, before they had you because YOU were growing in your mother's womb....you were there already, and your parents CHOSE TO HAVE YOU.....

People around the pregnant woman also expect a child to be delivered by the pregnant woman....her parents expect to see a grandchild, she expects to have a son or a daughter, her sister expects to be an aunt, her brother expects to be an uncle....

these people are not only harmed by the death of their daughter, sister or grand daughter etc, they are harmed by the killing of the child inside of her that they invested mentally in and expected to see in to fruition, birth.

A person murdering a woman who chose to go through the pregnancy to have an offspring, is most certainly harming the woman and the child to be, they are NOT JUST HARMING a "woman" but a "woman with child", just as Lacy Peterson.

There should be a greater penalty for this happening because more than just one human is at stake....it IS NOT the same as killing a woman not invested or expecting a child.

There is certainly a way to put this legislation in, WITHOUT affecting the women that do not want to invest themselves in having an offspring....

A Pregnant woman is different from a woman that is not pregnant, if she were not different then we would never have created the word "pregnant"...

Care

Again, it's logically inconsistent to say that murdering a pregnant women is a double murder while murdering a fetus alone is not. That doesn't make sense on any logical level. It's not like it would increase the penalties anyway. What are they going to do? Give them two death sentences?

 

[Care4all]

Again, it's logically inconsistent to say that murdering a pregnant women is a double murder while murdering a fetus alone is not. That doesn't make sense on any logical level. It's not like it would increase the penalties anyway. What are they going to do? Give them two death sentences?

this is why they wrote 20 weeks in to the law.....5 months pregnant....we have viability of the child to be, at 22 weeks, with newer technologies.....(super thin needles to fit the premature baby's veins to give them the medicines and fluids they will need while continuing to develope out side of the womb in newborn intensive care, which were previously not available).....

this is also why abortion, unless for the mother's physical health or life, should not be legal after 20 weeks, period!

roe v wade protects the woman's right to choose securely to 12 weeks gestation i believe.....then after that gestation period, it is up to the individual state i think?

 

[Diuretic]

Why? Why should killing a person be the same as killing a person with child?

there is a child in the mother's womb and the pregnant woman was MORE THAN LIKELY KILLED because the father did NOT WANT THAT CHILD....

The murdering of pregnant women, women with a human offspring growing inside them.....the murderer is intentionally KILLING OFF BOTH of them....THAT IS HIS MOTIVE, not to kill just the woman, BUT TO KILL the baby inside her.

The woman being pregnant with child is the motive....

To NOT bring attention to this and NOT to include the child to be in their prosecution against the murderer is wrong....especially since statistics show that the Pregnant woman would more than likely not have been murdered IF SHE HAD NOT BEEN PREGNANT with the father to be's child....

non pregnant women are NOT murdered at the same rate as Pregnant women, PERIOD.....not even close!

And the murderer is killing another human that only needed a few more months to come in to taking it's first breath....

Your parents were "expecting" a child, before they had you because YOU were growing in your mother's womb....you were there already, and your parents CHOSE TO HAVE YOU.....

People around the pregnant woman also expect a child to be delivered by the pregnant woman....her parents expect to see a grandchild, she expects to have a son or a daughter, her sister expects to be an aunt, her brother expects to be an uncle....

these people are not only harmed by the death of their daughter, sister or grand daughter etc, they are harmed by the killing of the child inside of her that they invested mentally in and expected to see in to fruition, birth.

A person murdering a woman who chose to go through the pregnancy to have an offspring, is most certainly harming the woman and the child to be, they are NOT JUST HARMING a "woman" but a "woman with child", just as Lacy Peterson.

There should be a greater penalty for this happening because more than just one human is at stake....it IS NOT the same as killing a woman not invested or expecting a child.

There is certainly a way to put this legislation in, WITHOUT affecting the women that do not want to invest themselves in having an offspring....

A Pregnant woman is different from a woman that is not pregnant, if she were not different then we would never have created the word "pregnant"...

Care

In my state the penalty for murder is life imprisonment (it's mandatory but there is a rule that unless there are reasons against it then parole can be considered after twenty years).

If someone assaults a pregnant woman intending to have her miscarry the foetus then they are looking at life imprisonment (that's max - don't know what the non-parole period is).