TAXPAYER FUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD SUPPORTS "HONOR KILLINGS" OF BABIES..........

To the point. The baby is born alive. There was no discussion of whether the baby would survive, or not. Simple concept. Is it ok to kill a human being, whose only crime that s/he survived its mother's attempt to abort it?

The question is simple. This is NOT about abortion. This is now a living, breathing human being. The question is, do you think it is ok for that human being's mother, her doctor, or family, can decide to kill that living, breathing human being with impunity?

Well, do you? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, I do. I think they have has much a right to kill a baby born alive due to a failed abortion as our government does any living human being that has not committed a crime on our soil. Even more so when that pregnancy was due to rape, incest, and possible death to the woman if she cannot carry to term for medical reasons.

You are joking, I hope, nwa.

You are joking, I hope, nwa. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No. Do I want them to kill a baby? Of course not, I wish no living thing had to die, but reality is these are unwanted babies that are doomed from the beginning that are a result of a failed abortion. Who else would be better suited to determine the quality of life that child may have if it were to live? A mindless pay per the hour beaurocrat that is simply going to through them into the system? Perhaps when we can successfully stop all the foster care rapes, abuse, and the resultant criminals and welfare recipients it creates, I could be persuaded but until then I see no other alternative. If I were the baby and given the choice of death or foster care, I'd spare myself the torture, and choose death myself.

You're a sick one, nwa. I suppose we should kill those children born with birth defects, mental infirmities and other issues as well. Or those born to less than economically stable families, or those of a certain color. There are all kinds of standards we could place on the privilege of life.

Or we could let living, breathing babies live, and not set some arbitrary standard on whether or not they should be "allowed" to continue living.

You are truly a sick one, nwa.

You're a sick one, nwa. I suppose we should kill those children born with birth defects, mental infirmities and other issues as well. Or those born to less than economically stable families, or those of a certain color. There are all kinds of standards we could place on the privilege of life.

Or we could let living, breathing babies live, and not set some arbitrary standard on whether or not they should be "allowed" to continue living.

You are truly a sick one, nwa. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I appreciate your opinion, however, as always no one who shares your opinin has a solution to care for these babies for 18 years afterwards and definitely do not want to pay for them. I'm sure you have children and realize there is a cost to raising a child for 18 years and then putting them through college, right? It is a strange irony to me that people who generally share this opinion are the same ones that want to cut government welfare and hand outs that are necessary to provide for them. It would take three days or more to link YOUR posts on government spending.

You don't get to have it both ways, but you follow in the path of all when faced with reality and no solution, resort to calling people names. Problem solved now, right?

You are assuming a lot facts that are not in evidence, nwa. You want to avoid the simple fact that you advocate the killing of a baby born alive. No matter how you try to spin it, that is what you are advocating. And then you try to make it sound like the superior moral position.

You're a sick one, all right.

You are assuming a lot facts that are not in evidence, nwa. You want to avoid the simple fact that you advocate the killing of a baby born alive. No matter how you try to spin it, that is what you are advocating. And then you try to make it sound like the superior moral position.

You're a sick one, all right. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

"Do I want them to kill a baby? Of course not, I wish no living thing had to die..."
What I advocate for is the same rights we give to the dying that do not wish to live a life of suffering.
When I see you advocating for more spending on government assistance and hand outs, I'll consider you much less the hypocrite of a preacher hangin on hooker boards talking about morals.

Why is the answer to not killing babies more government? How do you work more government into an argument in favor of killing babies?

You are warped. You are saying you won't support the idea of allowing babies to live unless there is more government involved.

Warped beyond recognition. You are a piece of work, nwa.

Why is the answer to not killing babies more government? How do you work more government into an argument in favor of killing babies?

You are warped. You are saying you won't support the idea of allowing babies to live unless there is more government involved.

Warped beyond recognition. You are a piece of work, nwa. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Now you are making all the assumptions. I'm not saying there is even an answer, I'm asking what others think the solution is? It would be really nice and convenient if we could all just say "let them live" and then bury our heads in the sand and forget about the fact that someone has to care for them and someone has to pay for them. I'ts easy to find someone willing to yank out the bible in a second, but they always leave their checkbook behind.

And no, I actually do not support ANY type of federal government assistance to any individual or any business. I don't even support social security. If the states wanted to do so, I think they have the right, but none of them want to spend the money either.

But it is fun pointing out the hypocrisy of religous conservatives and watch them resort to name calling when they can think of nothing else. It's why the Dems win everytime an old male Repub opens his mouth on the subject of abortion.

that's been my point about conservative opinions, abortion/social salvation since the beginning

the right wants to save the unborn so they can cut social services and starve them to death and bitch about both in the interim

There is always the option of putting the baby up for adoption. There are many childless couples who would love to adopt a healthy baby.

Once a baby is born alive, from a botched abortion, it is MURDER, plain and simple to kill it. There is a Doctor in Philadelphia who is on trial for murder for doing what has been advocated here by one of our posters.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...der-trial?lite

There is always the option of putting the baby up for adoption. There are many childless couples who would love to adopt a healthy baby.

Once a baby is born alive, from a botched abortion, it is MURDER, plain and simple to kill it. There is a Doctor in Philadelphia who is on trial for murder for doing what has been advocated here by one of our posters.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...der-trial?lite Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Hey!!!!!! An intelligent response, thank you (you too CJ)! I disagree with the advocating response, but some sign of thinking going on there nonetheless. Adoption could be a possibility, but It would be extremely limited to wealthy people that could pay the millions of dollars in NICU bills. Haven't seen many of them step up either.

Well, the jury has it now.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...der-trial?lite

In a way, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Government tells a Doctor and a Woman that it is ok to kill a 24 week old fetus, but if the abortion does not do the deed to the fullest, then you cannot kill it a few seconds later.

The initial legal action was performed in order to kill the fetus. period. It is not the Doctors fault that the time tested procedure for accomplishing this deed did not finish the job.

I cannot amagine what condition a "baby" born after a botched abortion would be in, it's a pretty grissly procedure. But I am sure there would be considerable damage to every major organ.

Perhaps murder is not the correct charge. Neglegence maybe, malpractice? But to charge a man with murder while he was performing a legal procedure seems extreme.

Or does it say something about us as a society when we are perfectly willing to allow a few inches in position of a baby's head, as it travels down the birth canal, mean the difference between what is legal, and what is not.

And what has a right to life, and what doesn't.

that's been my point about conservative opinions, abortion/social salvation since the beginning

the right wants to save the unborn so they can cut social services and starve them to death and bitch about both in the interim Originally Posted by CJ7

How big an idiot are you, CBJ7? This is NOT about abortion! It is about a baby BORN ALIVE! The child can no longer be classified as a "blob of tissue", or a "fetus" or whatever else. It is a child, outside the womb of its mother, and therefore, A HUMAN BEING! In this country, at least it used to be, one person cannot take another person's life unless it is in self defense. And the government cannot take the child's life absent due process, in which the child's rights would be argued before an impartial court.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION!! moron

How big an idiot are you, CBJ7? This is NOT about abortion! It is about a baby BORN ALIVE! The child can no longer be classified as a "blob of tissue", or a "fetus" or whatever else. It is a child, outside the womb of its mother, and therefore, A HUMAN BEING! In this country, at least it used to be, one person cannot take another person's life unless it is in self defense. And the government cannot take the child's life absent due process, in which the child's rights would be argued before an impartial court.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION!! moron Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

if not, then explain how the baby was born alive