Doc Brown Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 5 minutes ago, row_33 said: 60% against the Electoral College, how much does that translate into 1) the ability of Congress to Amend the Constitution on the matter 2) the vote from each state to Amend the Constitution You shouldn't take more than 5 seconds.... It won't happen, but that statement won't negatively impact Beto's prospects. 10 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: What he says is he supports a woman's decision to get an abortion right up to birth. Got ya. Extreme position but not infanticide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: It won't happen, but that statement won't negatively impact Beto's prospects. Got ya. Extreme position but not infanticide. Well, actually, yes it is. There is no reason to abort a baby at 37-40 weeks, even if the mother's life is endangered. No reason at all. There is only one reason to abort a baby at 35-40 weeks; to kill an infant who could easily survive outside the womb. I believe that's called infanticide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, LABillzFan said: Well, actually, yes it is. There is no reason to abort a baby at 37-40 weeks, even if the mother's life is endangered. No reason at all. There is only one reason to abort a baby at 35-40 weeks; to kill an infant who could easily survive outside the womb. I believe that's called infanticide. No. That term is thrown around too loosely. Oxford defines it as... The crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth. The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth. A person who kills an infant, especially their own child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: No. That term is thrown around too loosely. Oxford defines it as... The crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth. The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth. A person who kills an infant, especially their own child. The advent of new medical technologies which increase fetal viability to align with that of a baby brought fully to term, along with the acknowledgement that the birth canal does not have magic life giving properties undercuts this argument completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The advent of new medical technologies which increase fetal viability to align with that of a baby brought fully to term, along with the acknowledgement that the birth canal does not have magic life giving properties undercuts this argument completely. They should change the definition then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: They should change the definition then. Do you believe that the morality of the situation is defined by Merriam Webster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Do you believe that the morality of the situation is defined by Merriam Webster? No, but I think you need a clear definition of what infantacide is before you accuse your opponent of supporting something as abhorrent as infanticide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: No, but I think you need a clear definition of what infantacide is before you accuse your opponent of supporting something as abhorrent as infanticide. What are the differences between the life on one side of the birth canal vs the other at 40 weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE * * May not apply in all states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE * * May not apply in all states. but when you change the rules you don't KNOW what is going to happen oh wait, the Dems KNOW how it will go.... they are never wrong, they never lose fairly.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 hours ago, DC Tom said: Anyone ever notice that Beto never commits himself to anything? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: No. That term is thrown around too loosely. Oxford defines it as... The crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth. The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth. A person who kills an infant, especially their own child. takes all definitions from a dictionary believes all polls interesting way of seeing the universe, friend.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 26 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE * * May not apply in all states. Well, we know for sure that DEFINITELY doesn't apply in Chicago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 6 hours ago, Tiberius said: Poll: Biden leads Trump by 10 points in head-to-head matchup CAMPAIGN — 10M 27S AGO Clinton had an 85% chance of winning on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 10:25PM, according to this NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html That would be 861 days, 20 hours, 47 minutes ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: They should change the definition then. You don't need to change the definition, because what Francis is saying is he is okay with a woman who makes her choice, even if her choice is to have an abortion, find out the abortion failed (which clinics like PP will [woops!] do because there is more money harvesting the baby outside the womb), and then have the doctors finish off the 'product of abortion.' Infanticide. Now, you might ask yourself, "How often does that really happen?" and my response would be "How many does does it HAVE to happen for the very prospect to be considered vile and disgusting?" This is all driven by PP. The law in NY. The law in VA. Beto's admission. Harris is a Senator because of it. All if it coming from PP money, and it's money made by harvesting baby parts outside the womb. Let me know when it gets vile enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Do you believe that the morality of the situation is defined by Merriam Webster? The definition is set by NIH. And the US definition is pretty different from the rest of the Western world, which is why infant death rates in the US are so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The definition is set by NIH. And the US definition is pretty different from the rest of the Western world, which is why infant death rates in the US are so high. I know who sets the definition. My comment was snide, and built on Doc offering the Oxford definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Whenever these discussion come up, the life of the mother is brought up. Is that even a real thing? The president of Planned Parenthood said the following in 1967. Further support for the this position comes from a pro-choice Ob-Gyn, Dr. Alan Guttmacher who was Planned Parenthood’s president for over a decade until his death in 1974. In his book, The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (1967), he stated, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through the pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life.”. With all of the advances in medicine since 1967 there would seem to be even less case for it now. http://stjosephprc.org/save-life-of-mother/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 19 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The definition is set by NIH. And the US definition is pretty different from the rest of the Western world, which is why infant death rates in the US are so high. pre-meditated infant deaths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, row_33 said: pre-meditated infant deaths? Most of the world doesn't count the death of premature births as infant mortality. The US does, which skews the infant mortality rate high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts