No idea why you keep mentioning Storer?? I never said a thing about him.
So now you resort to not recognizing words you don't like?
Again---not about control.
Sorry. Your bad. But you are with Libs in this one is all I'm saying. Like it or not. Just the way it is. Embrace it.
So. You would not charge someone that kills a fetus with feticide---because you don't recognize it. What do you charge them with? Nothing at all?
No clue why you seem to think founding fathers were pro abortion.
I never said, "like". I don’t recognize it as legitimate. I find it to be a word that is not a word. A made up word like "ain't."
This is absolutely about control. It’s about granting big brother absolute power to enforce a religious cults moral code on non-members.
I would charge the person with assault. We already have a law for such an occurrence. Feticide is similar to the hate laws. Hate laws are pointless theatrics.
I never said they were pro abortion. They are pro freedom. This is a freedom issue.
Republicans are anti-regulation. The founding fathers were anti-regulation. This is a regulation issue.
You are the one who actually on the side of the democrats.
Democrats believe in big brother ruling with an iron fist. Abortion laws are big brother regulations. This goes against republicanism and against the pro freedom philosophy that the founders believed.
No idea why you keep mentioning Storer?? I never said a thing about him.
So now you resort to not recognizing words you don't like?
Again---not about control.
Sorry. Your bad. But you are with Libs in this one is all I'm saying. Like it or not. Just the way it is. Embrace it.
So. You would not charge someone that kills a fetus with feticide---because you don't recognize it. What do you charge them with? Nothing at all?
No clue why you seem to think founding fathers were pro abortion.
I never said, "like". I don’t recognize it as legitimate. I find it to be a word that is not a word. A made up word like "ain't."
This is absolutely about control. It’s about granting big brother absolute power to enforce a religious cults moral code on non-members.
I would charge the person with assault. We already have a law for such an occurrence. Feticide is similar to the hate laws. Hate laws are pointless theatrics.
I never said they were pro abortion. They are pro freedom. This is a freedom issue.
Republicans are anti-regulation. The founding fathers were anti-regulation. This is a regulation issue.
You are the one who actually on the side of the democrats.
Democrats believe in big brother ruling with an iron fist. Abortion laws are big brother regulations. This goes against republicanism and against the pro freedom philosophy that the founders believed.
Again you are too far forward in the discussion to start. Back up some. Until you can grasp this point you will continue to spin your wheels in this debate with people that don't care about being this far down the path for the discussion. You can't argue it from the wrong angle like that.
It is not control---Liberals want to make it seem that way so that it looks as though control and freedom is being wrested away is all. It is a cop-out argument from them.
Even societies that are not seen as religious understand the idea of feticide---believe me---from way back.
Again you are too far forward in the discussion to start. Back up some. Until you can grasp this point you will continue to spin your wheels in this debate with people that don't care about being this far down the path for the discussion. You can't argue it from the wrong angle like that.
It is not control---Liberals want to make it seem that way so that it looks as though control and freedom is being wrested away is all. It is a cop-out argument from them.
Even societies that are not seen as religious understand the idea of feticide---believe me---from way back.
Yeah. Assault your girlfriend like that so you don't have to pay child support. Then try that ploy in courtroom. Even your die-hard Liberals would abandon you on that.
Yeah. Assault your girlfriend like that so you don't have to pay child support. Then try that ploy in courtroom. Even your die-hard Liberals would abandon you on that.
Again you are too far forward in the discussion to start. Back up some. Until you can grasp this point you will continue to spin your wheels in this debate with people that don't care about being this far down the path for the discussion. You can't argue it from the wrong angle like that.
It is not control---Liberals want to make it seem that way so that it looks as though control and freedom is being wrested away is all. It is a cop-out argument from them.
Even societies that are not seen as religious understand the idea of feticide---believe me---from way back.
No - it is not a cop out argument
What is control? To have power over What is an abortion law? A regulation What is a regulation? A rule or order that strips control by force of law What is freedom? The power to do without hindrance or restraint
Again you are too far forward in the discussion to start. Back up some. Until you can grasp this point you will continue to spin your wheels in this debate with people that don't care about being this far down the path for the discussion. You can't argue it from the wrong angle like that.
It is not control---Liberals want to make it seem that way so that it looks as though control and freedom is being wrested away is all. It is a cop-out argument from them.
Even societies that are not seen as religious understand the idea of feticide---believe me---from way back.
No - it is not a cop out argument
What is control? To have power over What is an abortion law? A regulation What is a regulation? A rule or order that strips control by force of law What is freedom? The power to do without hindrance or restraint
Again your hero Storer was not even around when this campaign began. So have no idea why you keep bringing him up. But to each his own I guess.
I thought Storer would be YOUR hero. That is why I brought him up. He is known by people of your ilk as the hero of the pro-life movement and the champion of women and the unborn. I thought he was an important figure.
Again your hero Storer was not even around when this campaign began. So have no idea why you keep bringing him up. But to each his own I guess.
I thought Storer would be YOUR hero. That is why I brought him up. He is known by people of your ilk as the hero of the pro-life movement and the champion of women and the unborn. I thought he was an important figure.
Yeah. Assault your girlfriend like that so you don't have to pay child support. Then try that ploy in courtroom. Even your die-hard Liberals would abandon you on that.
You’re suggesting that a man would be willing to commit aggravated assault on his girlfriend and go to prison for a very long time to avoid child support?
That’s a weird way to get out of child support. I never knew men would choose prison time over child support payments. I’d pick child support over prison time any day.
Yeah. Assault your girlfriend like that so you don't have to pay child support. Then try that ploy in courtroom. Even your die-hard Liberals would abandon you on that.
You’re suggesting that a man would be willing to commit aggravated assault on his girlfriend and go to prison for a very long time to avoid child support?
That’s a weird way to get out of child support. I never knew men would choose prison time over child support payments. I’d pick child support over prison time any day.
It doesn't have to be assault either. I think Norway?? Where they got the guy for slipping something into GFs drink to have her abort.
I have no clue what the hell you are referring to? No need for some extra punishment feticide law to be invoked. Sipping something into a person’s drink is a felony. The man would be charged with felony criminal assault or aggravated battery.
It doesn't have to be assault either. I think Norway?? Where they got the guy for slipping something into GFs drink to have her abort.
I have no clue what the hell you are referring to? No need for some extra punishment feticide law to be invoked. Sipping something into a person’s drink is a felony. The man would be charged with felony criminal assault or aggravated battery.
I give you credit for coming up with a viable alternative. Just not sure how realistic it is given the difficulty for prospective adoptive parents to get through all the hoops for adopting a child. Seems like it would just be adding to the current surplus of children currently awaiting adoption. If the process for adoption was more efficient I think this might have more traction as an alternative to abortion.
I give you credit for coming up with a viable alternative. Just not sure how realistic it is given the difficulty for prospective adoptive parents to get through all the hoops for adopting a child. Seems like it would just be adding to the current surplus of children currently awaiting adoption. If the process for adoption was more efficient I think this might have more traction as an alternative to abortion.
This so called scholarly report from 1999...is a hogwash theory. There is no provable evidence,that aborted unborn children will turn out better or worse than the ones who are not aborted.
By their findings ..if we want to eliminate violent crime.. the way to do it is to abort all unwanted unborn children ( esp. the poor) No children ,,no more crime. There is greater evidence of crime associated with children born into single-parent families than in their questionable research ..
If, we really want to reduce crime in America ..we need to use the proven remedy of strengthening the family life of all Americans. Not kill all unwanted children because they may or may not contribute to society in a meaningful way..
This so called scholarly report from 1999...is a hogwash theory. There is no provable evidence,that aborted unborn children will turn out better or worse than the ones who are not aborted.
By their findings ..if we want to eliminate violent crime.. the way to do it is to abort all unwanted unborn children ( esp. the poor) No children ,,no more crime. There is greater evidence of crime associated with children born into single-parent families than in their questionable research ..
If, we really want to reduce crime in America ..we need to use the proven remedy of strengthening the family life of all Americans. Not kill all unwanted children because they may or may not contribute to society in a meaningful way..
You need to quit listening to your cop buddies and study criminal law yourself.
Aggrivated assault requires a weapon.
actually, your example is a battery, not an assault and many states have enhanced charges/penalties when the victim is pregnant regardless of whether a weapon is used.
You need to quit listening to your cop buddies and study criminal law yourself.
Aggrivated assault requires a weapon.
actually, your example is a battery, not an assault and many states have enhanced charges/penalties when the victim is pregnant regardless of whether a weapon is used.
You’re suggesting that a man would be willing to commit aggravated assault on his girlfriend and go to prison for a very long time to avoid child support?
That’s a weird way to get out of child support. I never knew men would choose prison time over child support payments. I’d pick child support over prison time any day.
You have to be joking!! They actually KILL them and risk jail to avoid child support all the time. So of course they would risk assault and not go to jail for nearly as long.
You’re suggesting that a man would be willing to commit aggravated assault on his girlfriend and go to prison for a very long time to avoid child support?
That’s a weird way to get out of child support. I never knew men would choose prison time over child support payments. I’d pick child support over prison time any day.
You have to be joking!! They actually KILL them and risk jail to avoid child support all the time. So of course they would risk assault and not go to jail for nearly as long.
What is control? To have power over What is an abortion law? A regulation What is a regulation? A rule or order that strips control by force of law What is freedom? The power to do without hindrance or restraint
As I said, it is absolutely about control.
Are you talking about primitive societies?
Again you are too far down the road for this to he accepted. BACK up
You call em what you want. Today's cultures as well.
What is control? To have power over What is an abortion law? A regulation What is a regulation? A rule or order that strips control by force of law What is freedom? The power to do without hindrance or restraint
As I said, it is absolutely about control.
Are you talking about primitive societies?
Again you are too far down the road for this to he accepted. BACK up
You call em what you want. Today's cultures as well.
I have no clue what the hell you are referring to? No need for some extra punishment feticide law to be invoked. Sipping something into a person’s drink is a felony. The man would be charged with felony criminal assault or aggravated battery.
Last couple of weeks or so. Look it up.
In your opinion in should be assault. He would welcome that as opposed to a harsher charge.
I have no clue what the hell you are referring to? No need for some extra punishment feticide law to be invoked. Sipping something into a person’s drink is a felony. The man would be charged with felony criminal assault or aggravated battery.
Last couple of weeks or so. Look it up.
In your opinion in should be assault. He would welcome that as opposed to a harsher charge.
I give you credit for coming up with a viable alternative. Just not sure how realistic it is given the difficulty for prospective adoptive parents to get through all the hoops for adopting a child. Seems like it would just be adding to the current surplus of children currently awaiting adoption. If the process for adoption was more efficient I think this might have more traction as an alternative to abortion.
any ideas how the numbers compare- the number of abortions vs. the number of people looking to adopt?
I give you credit for coming up with a viable alternative. Just not sure how realistic it is given the difficulty for prospective adoptive parents to get through all the hoops for adopting a child. Seems like it would just be adding to the current surplus of children currently awaiting adoption. If the process for adoption was more efficient I think this might have more traction as an alternative to abortion.
any ideas how the numbers compare- the number of abortions vs. the number of people looking to adopt?
This so called scholarly report from 1999...is a hogwash theory. There is no provable evidence,that aborted unborn children will turn out better or worse than the ones who are not aborted.
By their findings ..if we want to eliminate violent crime.. the way to do it is to abort all unwanted unborn children ( esp. the poor) No children ,,no more crime. There is greater evidence of crime associated with children born into single-parent families than in their questionable research ..
If, we really want to reduce crime in America ..we need to use the proven remedy of strengthening the family life of all Americans. Not kill all unwanted children because they may or may not contribute to society in a meaningful way..
I think it seems pretty reasonable to find a connection between abortion and a drop in crime roughly 20 years later. 69% of women who get abortions are economically challenged. Economically challenged people are more likely to commit crimes. Seems like there might be a valid link there.
My question though was: are you ok with the U.S. taxpayers taking on the added burden of having to support these children? Keep in my mind original question to you dealt with women who were raped. Not just women that failed to use birth control or condoms.
I added the article as an emphasis on that it might not just be for 18 years.
I do agree with you that strengthening the family life of Americans would go a long way towards reducing crime.
This so called scholarly report from 1999...is a hogwash theory. There is no provable evidence,that aborted unborn children will turn out better or worse than the ones who are not aborted.
By their findings ..if we want to eliminate violent crime.. the way to do it is to abort all unwanted unborn children ( esp. the poor) No children ,,no more crime. There is greater evidence of crime associated with children born into single-parent families than in their questionable research ..
If, we really want to reduce crime in America ..we need to use the proven remedy of strengthening the family life of all Americans. Not kill all unwanted children because they may or may not contribute to society in a meaningful way..
I think it seems pretty reasonable to find a connection between abortion and a drop in crime roughly 20 years later. 69% of women who get abortions are economically challenged. Economically challenged people are more likely to commit crimes. Seems like there might be a valid link there.
My question though was: are you ok with the U.S. taxpayers taking on the added burden of having to support these children? Keep in my mind original question to you dealt with women who were raped. Not just women that failed to use birth control or condoms.
I added the article as an emphasis on that it might not just be for 18 years.
I do agree with you that strengthening the family life of Americans would go a long way towards reducing crime.
actually, your example is a battery, not an assault and many states have enhanced charges/penalties when the victim is pregnant regardless of whether a weapon is used.
You have to look at the context of the discussion. I was correctly pointing out to monersrh that it couldn't be aggravated assault ecause that requires the use of a weapon. (handshake)
actually, your example is a battery, not an assault and many states have enhanced charges/penalties when the victim is pregnant regardless of whether a weapon is used.
You have to look at the context of the discussion. I was correctly pointing out to monersrh that it couldn't be aggravated assault ecause that requires the use of a weapon. (handshake)
I readily admit I did a very quick google check and didn't do any background checks on the bias of these sites. So if anyone can offer info that discredits these sites or shows an obvious bias I am completely ok with not using their information.
I readily admit I did a very quick google check and didn't do any background checks on the bias of these sites. So if anyone can offer info that discredits these sites or shows an obvious bias I am completely ok with not using their information.
What is control? To have power over What is an abortion law? A regulation What is a regulation? A rule or order that strips control by force of law What is freedom? The power to do without hindrance or restraint
As I said, it is absolutely about control.
Are you talking about primitive societies?
Reason I say cop-out is that there a lot of rules we have out in place from seatbelt a to social security that we as a society have decided is best. To protect yourself and others. So, for Democrats to try to reverse it on this one is simply a cop-out to me. They are swerving the meat of the issue to fit their wants.
What is control? To have power over What is an abortion law? A regulation What is a regulation? A rule or order that strips control by force of law What is freedom? The power to do without hindrance or restraint
As I said, it is absolutely about control.
Are you talking about primitive societies?
Reason I say cop-out is that there a lot of rules we have out in place from seatbelt a to social security that we as a society have decided is best. To protect yourself and others. So, for Democrats to try to reverse it on this one is simply a cop-out to me. They are swerving the meat of the issue to fit their wants.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.