Talk with Liberal Daughter

[jhodge83]

There has been no aggravated assault committed against your wife; only assault. Link Removed
And since by your definition, the baby is not out of the womb therefore does not count as a human life, no one else has been assaulted.
As for permanent disfigurement, not sure where you came up with that. Pregnancy is not a permanent condition.

So it's a life if she intends to have it, but it's not a life if she doesn't? Interesting.

Um, no... that would be "death by natural causes." Failure to survive it's environment during incubation, is a natural cause. Being sucked out or pulled out of the womb; or being poisoned is not a natural cause.

not saying pregnancy is permanent, but the action that lead to the termination could cause permanent damage to the female. also, i didnt say assault, i said battery. they are different terms that have similar, but different definitions. if the battery was committed for the intent to kill the fetus, then it is in fact aggravated battery.

intent is a big portion of law, would you not agree? there are laws that are specified just for the intent of doing an action.

 

[BC1]

If they cannot survive outside of the womb, via NICU, etc, then yes.

You need help, badly. The killing of child who has been born just because he can't survive outside of a NICU is nuts. You sir are a would-be murderer of children. A coward in my eyes. I live with the memories of a murdered child every day. Would you apply to be the one who snuffs out that child's life? Sick. Simply sick.

 

[jhodge83]

You need help, badly. The killing of child who has been born just because he can't survive outside of a NICU is nuts. You sir are a would-be murderer of children. A coward in my eyes. I live with the memories of a murdered child every day. Would you apply to be the one who snuffs out that child's life? Sick. Simply sick.

do you not think the suffering of a child that cannot survive (even on a NICU and with all scientific and medical help) for your own twisted needs is worse? if there's no way they can survive, why prolong it? why put a child or anyone through the pain and suffering just so you can keep them around for a few days more? sounds pretty selfish to me, as the same people claim abortionists are.

 

[BC1]

wouldn't that fall under aggravated battery since contact was actually made

No. It falls under homicide (NYS PL Article 25). In doing such a thing you should be executed with prejudice... on the spot.

 

[jhodge83]

No. It falls under homicide (NYS PL Article 25). In doing such a thing you should be executed with prejudice... on the spot.

please read in the context...i was referring to it being "or misdemeanor assault".

 

[telpinaro]

I completely understand your view. Here's a link (article with references) so you know I'm not just blowing smoke.
-

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.
-
Just so the Planned Genocide people don't completely brainwash you, 2 supported points from this article that are telling:
1. A VERY small percentage of abortions are done to save the mothers life. (this says 1%, I've seen 2.8% elsewhere)
2. This type of abortion, a life saving medical decision between a woman and her doctor, was legal before the abortion of convenience came about.
It is a straw man argument brought by the left to vilify the right, but has no basis in fact.

Yes, I knew that had to be exceptionally rare... I didn't have numbers (thanks for the link), but it had to be maybe one in a million, if that. Most conditions that would kill a mother if she went forward with a pregnancy would be apparent before she became pregnant. (I think people are getting the idea that this is common by watching Dr. House... think it happened around four times on that show?) I just hate the idea of giving legislators any entrance to what should be a decision between a doctor and patient... Look what they're trying to do with mental health! (Yep, not in the ballpark, but let's just say they haven't given me cause to trust their medical decisions. Just look at Obamacare! :wink

And don't worry about brainwashing... I avoid both sides. People get too mean.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bigcarlover]

not saying pregnancy is permanent, but the action that lead to the termination could cause permanent damage to the female. also, i didnt say assault, i said battery. they are different terms that have similar, but different definitions. if the battery was committed for the intent to kill the fetus, then it is in fact aggravated battery.

intent is a big portion of law, would you not agree? there are laws that are specified just for the intent of doing an action.

You did say battery, not assault true. In some cases, they can be considered the same though.
Link Removed

However, this is all irrelevant to the point. Your argument is based on some thought, that a life is only counted if the mother wants it. Not trying to be rude, but that is absurd. It's either a life, or it's not. It doesn't suddenly become a life, simply because the person carrying it wants it to be. "She wanted it, therefore it was a life; she didn't want it therefore it is not."

Law does include intent. It's based on the intent of the perpetrator of the crime not the victim. But if you wish to try it the other way, then in the case of abortion, what if the intent of the baby was to live? Who speaks for them? Why do they not get a voice in this decision? It's their body, after all. That statement sounds familiar, does it not?

 

[whodat2710]

Yes, I knew that had to be exceptionally rare... I didn't have numbers (thanks for the link), but it had to be maybe one in a million, if that. Most conditions that would kill a mother if she went forward with a pregnancy would be apparent before she became pregnant. (I think people are getting the idea that this is common by watching Dr. House... think it happened around four times on that show?) I just hate the idea of giving legislators any entrance to what should be a decision between a doctor and patient... Look what they're trying to do with mental health! (Yep, not in the ballpark, but let's just say they haven't given me cause to trust their medical decisions. Just look at Obamacare! :wink

And don't worry about brainwashing... I avoid both sides. People get too mean.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using USA Carry mobile app

Well if you looked at the link, click on the "home" button and there are quite a few progressive abortion myths debunked. I was mainly pointing out that their main argument, about the health of the mother, was utter hogwash.

 

[jhodge83]

You did say battery, not assault true. In some cases, they can be considered the same though.
Link Removed

However, this is all irrelevant to the point. Your argument is based on some thought, that a life is only counted if the mother wants it. Not trying to be rude, but that is absurd. It's either a life, or it's not. It doesn't suddenly become a life, simply because the person carrying it wants it to be. "She wanted it, therefore it was a life; she didn't want it therefore it is not."

Law does include intent. It's based on the intent of the perpetrator of the crime not the victim. But if you wish to try it the other way, then in the case of abortion, what if the intent of the baby was to live? Who speaks for them? Why do they not get a voice in this decision? It's their body, after all. That statement sounds familiar, does it not?

the baby is not a baby at that point. it cant justify anything. it cant intend anything. if the intent of the female is life for the child, then great. if not, then oh well.

if it was restricted to only medical circumstances, rape, incest, etc, then so be it. it's not going to affect me either way. at the same time, i'll stand by the choice for the female. i dont know what circumstances she's in that would make her want to do it, but i dont need to know and neither does anyone else.

 

[whodat2710]

the baby is not a baby at that point. it cant justify anything. it cant intend anything. if the intent of the female is life for the child, then great. if not, then oh well.

So at some magical point, "poof" it's a baby? you are a sad individual. His point was that if your child was still in utero, and was killed during an attack on your wife, the mothers intent and/or the number of weeks that had passed since conception would have ZERO to do with whether or not it was your child that was killed. Did you buy baby clothes, decorate a room, buy a crib or make any other preparations prior to 22 weeks?

if it was restricted to only medical circumstances, rape, incest, etc, then so be it.

That has never been illegal. Try reading the helpful link I posted earlier.

at the same time, i'll stand by the choice for the female. i dont know what circumstances she's in that would make her want to do it, but i dont need to know and neither does anyone else.

Whether or not the mother chooses to murder a baby or not, it should be between the doctor and the mother, and the GOVERNMENT should have no place in the mix, one way or the other.

 

[jhodge83]

So at some magical point, "poof" it's a baby? you are a sad individual. His point was that if your child was still in utero, and was killed during an attack on your wife, the mothers intent and/or the number of weeks that had passed since conception would have ZERO to do with whether or not it was your child that was killed. Did you buy baby clothes, decorate a room, buy a crib or make any other preparations prior to 22 weeks?

That has never been illegal. Try reading the helpful link I posted earlier.

Whether or not the mother chooses to murder a baby or not, it should be between the doctor and the mother, and the GOVERNMENT should have no place in the mix, one way or the other.

i didnt say it was ever illegal. i said IF it was restricted to that. try reading the helpful words i posted earlier.

as to the bolded line, NO CRAP! BUT if the gvmt bans abortions, the gvmt is then stepping into the mix and your logic to that is out the window.

 

[whodat2710]

i didnt say it was ever illegal. i said IF it was restricted to that. try reading the helpful words i posted earlier.

as to the bolded line, NO CRAP! BUT if the gvmt bans abortions, the gvmt is then stepping into the mix and your logic to that is out the window.

No one is trying to ban abortions. Because of groups like Planned Genocide your 15 year old daughter, who cannot drive, vote, see an "R" movie etc. can go get an abortion and YOU would never have to be told! That doesn't bother you? Even if you were OK with it and helped her get an abortion, don't you think you would help her make better choices based on health and safety rather than what she and her loser boyfriend can afford?
-
Lastly, by the government stepping in and saying that abortion is government mandated (yes, your medical insurance must cover abortion among other things or it is illegal under Obama-don't-care), whether or NOT you have any objection to abortion you are forced to subsidize it. That usurps MY RIGHTs. Let Sandra Fluck and her ilk pay for her own sexual escapades.

 

[BC1]

the baby is not a baby at that point.

So you say. So the courts say. That means absolutely nothing.

 

[BC1]

The Liberals & Dems maintain a position that allows the murder of children and protects the rights of criminals. They define when life begins? Who are they to claim to know the mind of their creator (notice I said creator for all the atheists)? Ignorant, one and all. To me this is cowardice. Cowardice in confronting the true root of problems head-on. Let's start telling the truth in America. Abortion has become the new contraceptive. It's now as regular as the mail. They throw unborn children away along with the hangover from date night. And God forbid one of these little cowards gets their feathers rustled over some perceived insult to their obtuse way of thinking, they sound off like a cacophony of bellowing bovines. The rhetoric becomes this ongoing inane droning about THEIR rights.
.
And just when you think the hypocrisy couldn't get any worse they brighten-up our day. Some liberal like Alec Baldwin or Jonah Hill calls a shutterbug a f_g. Then it all makes sense... and I smile... :biggrin:

 

[jhodge83]

No one is trying to ban abortions. Because of groups like Planned Genocide your 15 year old daughter, who cannot drive, vote, see an "R" movie etc. can go get an abortion and YOU would never have to be told! That doesn't bother you? Even if you were OK with it and helped her get an abortion, don't you think you would help her make better choices based on health and safety rather than what she and her loser boyfriend can afford?
-
Lastly, by the government stepping in and saying that abortion is government mandated (yes, your medical insurance must cover abortion among other things or it is illegal under Obama-don't-care), whether or NOT you have any objection to abortion you are forced to subsidize it. That usurps MY RIGHTs. Let Sandra Fluck and her ilk pay for her own sexual escapades.

they are not illegal now, thanks to rulings. doesnt stop politicians from trying. same goes for gun control and other topics. people on both sides trying to overturn things since they don't fit their fancy. how many politicians run on the platform of anti-abortion? plenty.

i'm all for DNRs. does that mean that my tax money shouldnt go towards someone else's grandpa's heart transplant, hospital stay, and ongoing medication? no.

more forms of contraceptives and birth control out and about would limit some (not all) of these abortions. cant have that though since religions say it's against their laws to use them. we all know there's never been a teen pregnancy in a religious family that wouldnt allow birth control or preach anything other than abstinence...

So you say. So the courts say. That means absolutely nothing.

lol...well go on out there and do something that the courts dont agree with and let me know how that goes.

 

[whodat2710]

they are not illegal now, thanks to rulings... Wrong, they weren't illegal before the "rulings". Before Roe -v- Wade, you had to see an actual doctor and get sound medical advice rather than going through the Dr. Kermit Gosnell drive through murder clinic.

more forms of contraceptives and birth control out and about would limit some (not all) of these abortions. cant have that though since religions say it's against their laws to use them. If your head wasn't so far up your a$$, you would know that the recent case brought to the Supremes by Hobby Lobby was about limiting certain "contraceptives" for religious reasons. Those so-called "contraceptives were also known as abortion pills, or morning after pills, used to kill a baby AFTER conception, which was their religious objection. Their employees medical coverage DID cover 17 other forms of contraception.

You still didn't have the decency to answer my question. Your 15 year old daughter comes home and says "dad, I got an abortion". Your response would be? Did you make any preparations for your children's birth prior to 22 weeks?

 

[BC1]

they are not illegal now, thanks to rulings. doesnt stop politicians from trying. same goes for gun control and other topics. people on both sides trying to overturn things since they don't fit their fancy. how many politicians run on the platform of anti-abortion? plenty.

i'm all for DNRs. does that mean that my tax money shouldnt go towards someone else's grandpa's heart transplant, hospital stay, and ongoing medication? no.

more forms of contraceptives and birth control out and about would limit some (not all) of these abortions. cant have that though since religions say it's against their laws to use them. we all know there's never been a teen pregnancy in a religious family that wouldnt allow birth control or preach anything other than abstinence...



lol...well go on out there and do something that the courts dont agree with and let me know how that goes.

Don't change the subject. We're talking about abortion not some other crime. The tactic you're using is called "deflection."

 

[jhodge83]

You still didn't have the decency to answer my question. Your 15 year old daughter comes home and says "dad, I got an abortion". Your response would be? Did you make any preparations for your children's birth prior to 22 weeks?

well, since almost all states require at least parental consent or proof of notification, that's not a likely scenario either.

as i recall, we didnt for either one. we waited due to concerns of miscarriage.

 

[whodat2710]

well, since almost all states require at least parental consent or proof of notification, that's not a likely scenario either.

From the Planned Genocide website:

if I'm 15 years old and want to take the abortion pill but can not let my parents know about it will the clinic or the people at the clinic let me take it without parent consent?

It depends on where you live. Your state may require one or both of your parents to give permission for your abortion or be told of your decision prior to the abortion. However, in most states you can ask a judge to excuse you from these requirements. That procedure is called a “judicial bypass.”

I?m 15. Can I get the abortion pill without my parents finding out? | Ask The Experts

as i recall, we didnt for either one. we waited due to concerns of miscarriage.

Nice evasive answer designed to make me look crass and abrasive. If there were no concerns, and at 16 weeks you learned it was a girl, would you then buy girly things or paint a room?

 

[jhodge83]

From the Planned Genocide website:

if I'm 15 years old and want to take the abortion pill but can not let my parents know about it will the clinic or the people at the clinic let me take it without parent consent?

It depends on where you live. Your state may require one or both of your parents to give permission for your abortion or be told of your decision prior to the abortion. However, in most states you can ask a judge to excuse you from these requirements. That procedure is called a “judicial bypass.”

I?m 15. Can I get the abortion pill without my parents finding out? | Ask The Experts


Nice evasive answer designed to make me look crass and abrasive. If there were no concerns, and at 16 weeks you learned it was a girl, would you then buy girly things or paint a room?

it wasnt an evasive answer. i answered the question. as i said before, it abortion wasnt an option for my wife and i, but other people have different scenarios/situations where it would be a feasible option.