Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:50:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.

I'm guessing most of those mothers keep the babies to collect the money to afford
more crack.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:47:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?

===

Did I say anything about killing babies? No way. The problem is that
you are clinging to your religious belief that life begins at the
moment of conception. You're entitled to your belief but you're not
entitled to impose it on others who believe differently.

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:22:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

And...

"During the 80's and 90's, the nation's health specialists panicked over the growing
number of so-called "crack babies" — children exposed to crack cocaine in utero.
These children were said to be doomed to lives of physical and mental disability.
But, 20 years later, many of the children who were perceived to be "at-risk" are
proving the predictions wrong as young adults. "

Should they have been aborted instead?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126478643
--

===

That's not the real issue. The issue is whether a woman should be
legally required to have a baby that she does not want. You think the
answer is yes because of your religious beliefs. Not everyone
believes the same but you want to impose your beliefs on them anyway.
The supreme court has already ruled. Now you need to get over it.

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:21:26 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:47:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?

===

Did I say anything about killing babies? No way. The problem is that
you are clinging to your religious belief that life begins at the
moment of conception. You're entitled to your belief but you're not
entitled to impose it on others who believe differently.

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human. It's not a tumor.

I'm imposing nothing on anyone.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:28:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:22:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

And...

"During the 80's and 90's, the nation's health specialists panicked over the growing
number of so-called "crack babies" — children exposed to crack cocaine in utero.
These children were said to be doomed to lives of physical and mental disability.
But, 20 years later, many of the children who were perceived to be "at-risk" are
proving the predictions wrong as young adults. "

Should they have been aborted instead?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126478643
--

===

That's not the real issue. The issue is whether a woman should be
legally required to have a baby that she does not want. You think the
answer is yes because of your religious beliefs. Not everyone
believes the same but you want to impose your beliefs on them anyway.
The supreme court has already ruled. Now you need to get over it.

The issue is whether a human life is being put to death.

The Supreme Court is not infallible.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:43:32 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:28:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:22:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

And...

"During the 80's and 90's, the nation's health specialists panicked over the growing
number of so-called "crack babies" — children exposed to crack cocaine in utero.
These children were said to be doomed to lives of physical and mental disability.
But, 20 years later, many of the children who were perceived to be "at-risk" are
proving the predictions wrong as young adults. "

Should they have been aborted instead?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=126478643
--

===

That's not the real issue. The issue is whether a woman should be
legally required to have a baby that she does not want. You think the
answer is yes because of your religious beliefs. Not everyone
believes the same but you want to impose your beliefs on them anyway.
The supreme court has already ruled. Now you need to get over it.

The issue is whether a human life is being put to death.

The Supreme Court is not infallible.

===

Do you believe that use of the "morning after" pill is killing a human
life?

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.

Are you really...
 

On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....and what about both sets of grandparents?

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:52:59 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.

But when the heart can be heard, the sex determined, and the hands and feet visible
in a sonogram? That's still a 'small collection of cells'?

The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:54:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:52:59 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.

But when the heart can be heard, the sex determined, and the hands and feet visible
in a sonogram? That's still a 'small collection of cells'?

Of course not.


The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.

That's progress.

The problem is that anytime someone suggests that a mother should be
able to terminate a pregnancy in its early stages, you start talking
about killing babies.

Are you really...
 

True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire
fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?

I see you are showing your low IQ again. The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. At least castrate him.

Are you really...
 

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:05:10 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:54:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:52:59 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.

But when the heart can be heard, the sex determined, and the hands and feet visible
in a sonogram? That's still a 'small collection of cells'?

Of course not.

There, that's progress.


The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.

That's progress.

The problem is that anytime someone suggests that a mother should be
able to terminate a pregnancy in its early stages, you start talking
about killing babies.

When do you consider a human life to exist?

"At the end of the 8th week, the elbows become obvious, the feet, hands and even the
fingers maybe distinguishable. The brain cavities are easily seen as large 'holes' in
the embryonic head. The heart rate has increased to 160 bpm and the heart covers
about 50% of the chest area. In some cases, it is possible to recognize the
fluid-filled stomach below the heart at the end of week 8."

Look at the 8 weeks scan. Is that just a 'collection of cells'?

http://baby2see.com/development/ultr...ans.html#week8

Yet that's pretty early in the pregnancy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 1:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.


As if conservative righties pushing their anti-abortion agenda give a
**** about "life."

Are you really...
 

On 8/26/15 9:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire
fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?

I see you are showing your low IQ again. The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. At least castrate him.



You come across as crazier almost every time you post. Seriously.

Are you really...
 

Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/26/15 9:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill *wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire
fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. *What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. *Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. *Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. *Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. *One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?

I see you are showing your low IQ again. *The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. *At least castrate him.



"You come across as crazier almost every time you post. Seriously."



Kalif Swill has never recovered from that tumble off the roof.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 05:00:17 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/26/15 9:54 PM, Califbill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:50:12 UTC-3, Califbill *wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire
fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. *What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. *Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. *Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Maybe. *Might be better to kill the mother at the same time. *One stupid
enough to use crack, let alone get pregnant while doing crack, would be
better removed from the gene pool.


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father
too....and what about both sets of grandparents?

I see you are showing your low IQ again. *The father is probably 22 years
old and has 25 kids. *At least castrate him.



"You come across as crazier almost every time you post. Seriously."



Kalif Swill has never recovered from that tumble off the roof.

Actually, the person who suggested killing fathers and grandparents is showing the
low IQ. Wouldn't you agree?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/2015 9:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.



I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins. We've used a scientific/medical definition for many years that
takes the edge off the idea that a life is being taken.
The scientific/medical opinion is changing, although the legal has not.

Personally, I am pro-life but can understand circumstances that dictate
an abortion. I am completely against abortions "for convenience".

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 1:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/27/2015 9:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 01:15:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/26/2015 7:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:40:19 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Nothing religious about it. It is life. It is human.

===

That's ridiculous. There's nothing human about a small collection of
cells that start multiplying.



The problem with that argument (which has been the common accepted
consensus until recently) is that it has been determined by scientists
that the small collection of multiplying cells contains all the DNA of a
human being and is certainly living and growing from the moment of
fertilization. Nothing religious about it at all.

===

It's still a philosophical/religious issue. There's nothing human
about a clump of DNA even though the potential is there. Trying to
pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes "human" is a more or less a
pointless exercise except for those who are dead set against abortion
on religious grounds. Why anyone would want to force a woman to bring
an unwanted baby into the world is beyond me.



I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins. We've used a scientific/medical definition for many years that
takes the edge off the idea that a life is being taken.
The scientific/medical opinion is changing, although the legal has not.

Personally, I am pro-life but can understand circumstances that dictate
an abortion. I am completely against abortions "for convenience".


Remember, every sperm is sacred.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:20:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins.

===

It's very easy to dance around that issue. It is your choice. The
generally accepted view of "life" however includes the ability to
survive on your own among other things. The notion that "life" is
present among a clump of multiplying cells is mostly a religious
thing. I have nothing against religion and people should be free to
believe what they want. The law however should be based on science
and generally accepted principles. The law has spoken with regard to
women's right to an abortion.

Letting religion take precedence over facts and science has led to all
sorts of mischief in the past including the notion that the sun and
planets revolved around the earth. People of science were persecuted
and sometimes executed if they disagreed with the church's position no
matter how demonstrably erroneous it was. We see the same thing today
with Darwin, evolution, brain death, the beginning of life, etc.

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:47:43 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:03:58 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:59:10 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:47:43 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:40:48 -0400, John H.
wrote:

FLORIDA SAFE HAVEN LAW:

You can leave your baby, up to 7 days old, with an employee at any hospital,
emergency room, emergency medical services station or with a fire fighter at any fire
station in Florida.

http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance..._Haven_Law.pdf

===

Great. What happens to the baby after that?

Especially crack babies.

Well hell, should crack babies be put to death?

My daughter adopted a baby that suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The kid has
some problems, but is a great kid nevertheless.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

They are very hard to place. Maybe better orphanages?

===

Orphanages can be awful places, especially for children with emotional
or intellectual disabilities. Far better for all concerned to
terminate the pregnancy at some early stage.

So test for crack, or whatever, and kill the human life...

You have to admit you're looking for exceptions. Are *all* crack babies better off
dead?
From what I have read since the hysteria started, "crack babies" may
not actually exist, at least not as a real syndrome.
OTOH they still might inherit some of the same traits that made mom a
crack whore in the first place.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/2015 1:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:20:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not questioning the right of a woman to abort an unwanted
pregnancy. I *am* questioning the conventional wisdom as to when "life"
begins.

===

It's very easy to dance around that issue. It is your choice. The
generally accepted view of "life" however includes the ability to
survive on your own among other things. The notion that "life" is
present among a clump of multiplying cells is mostly a religious
thing. I have nothing against religion and people should be free to
believe what they want. The law however should be based on science
and generally accepted principles. The law has spoken with regard to
women's right to an abortion.

Letting religion take precedence over facts and science has led to all
sorts of mischief in the past including the notion that the sun and
planets revolved around the earth. People of science were persecuted
and sometimes executed if they disagreed with the church's position no
matter how demonstrably erroneous it was. We see the same thing today
with Darwin, evolution, brain death, the beginning of life, etc.



My feelings about abortions and when life starts has absolutely no basis
in any religious views I may have. I believe that the
medical/scientific community defined when a fetus becomes viable and a
"life" begins that fit social pressures of the time. It's interesting
to me that it's based, in part, on being "viable" as you state. In this
context viable means an ability to live outside the womb. What about
the time spent in the womb? Was it not alive? Was it's heart not
beating? Hell, they have determined that the unique human fingerprints
develop very early in the pregnancy.

Man makes laws, just like man wrote the Bible. Man is fallible as is
science at any particular point in time.

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding.

Are you really...
 

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:54:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.
--

So shooting into a house at random is OK if you are not sure if there
is someone inside?
Just curious about how we are supposed to reconcile this?

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:54:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.
--

So shooting into a house at random is OK if you are not sure if there
is someone inside?
Just curious about how we are supposed to reconcile this?


So long as we elect a Democratic president in 2016, it's been reconciled.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:37:49 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding.

===

As Don's official spokesperson it is now your obligation to flag any
post of his where he's kidding. Otherwise you might want to let him
speak for himself since he seems perfectly capable.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My feelings about abortions and when life starts has absolutely no basis
in any religious views I may have. I believe that the
medical/scientific community defined when a fetus becomes viable and a
"life" begins that fit social pressures of the time.

===

I do not doubt your sincerity or integrity, and you're certainly
entitled to your beliefs. I'd argue however that your beliefs are
religious in nature whether you acknowledge it or not. I say that
because they appear to be based on faith that your instincts are
correct rather than on some rigorously defined criteria. The supreme
court and the scientific community have based their opinions and
decisions on the best available facts. I think it's commendable that
they did not allow themselves to be pressured by faith based belief
systems.

As a matter of curiosity, how do you feel about the termination of
life support systems for patients who have been declared "brain dead"?

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/2015 3:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

My feelings about abortions and when life starts has absolutely no basis
in any religious views I may have. I believe that the
medical/scientific community defined when a fetus becomes viable and a
"life" begins that fit social pressures of the time.

===

I do not doubt your sincerity or integrity, and you're certainly
entitled to your beliefs. I'd argue however that your beliefs are
religious in nature whether you acknowledge it or not. I say that
because they appear to be based on faith that your instincts are
correct rather than on some rigorously defined criteria. The supreme
court and the scientific community have based their opinions and
decisions on the best available facts. I think it's commendable that
they did not allow themselves to be pressured by faith based belief
systems.

As a matter of curiosity, how do you feel about the termination of
life support systems for patients who have been declared "brain dead"?

According to Luddite science is rethinking the issue. Would you support
whatever the new science determines?

The other issue kind of depends on the "patients" wishes or......

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/2015 2:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:37:49 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding.

===

As Don's official spokesperson it is now your obligation to flag any
post of his where he's kidding. Otherwise you might want to let him
speak for himself since he seems perfectly capable.

Donnie capable? Ha ha ha!

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:37:49 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding.


I may have been too but, sadly, what I said is true as often as not.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:50:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/27/15 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:54:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

The morning after pill does not bother me. There is no way to know if that 'small
collection of cells' existed or not.
--

So shooting into a house at random is OK if you are not sure if there
is someone inside?
Just curious about how we are supposed to reconcile this?


So long as we elect a Democratic president in 2016, it's been reconciled.

???

I was just referring to the idea that it is OK to terminate a
pregnancy if you are not sure whether mom was actually pregnant or
not.
If you are sure she is, it is not OK.

Maybe I should have taken more time and been more articulate ;-)

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:50:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


So long as we elect a Democratic president in 2016, it's been reconciled.

To your point, only if we also elect a democratic congress

Are you really...
 

Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too.....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



"Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding."



I was trying to be sarcastic to Swill's outrageous blathering, but I guess humour will work too.

Are you really...
 

On 8/27/15 4:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:50:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


So long as we elect a Democratic president in 2016, it's been reconciled.

To your point, only if we also elect a democratic congress


A Democratic president will nominate associates to the Supreme Court who
are not bound up in religious bull****.

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:26:06 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

Keyser Söze
- hide quoted text -
On 8/27/15 2:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:24:56 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:


Hey Kalif..while you're at it, you may as well terminate the father too....

Are you in favor of capital punishment? Daddy is probably already in
the slammer.



"Uh, you righties need to pool your resources and buy a sense of humor.
Donnie was kidding."



I was trying to be sarcastic to Swill's outrageous blathering, but I guess humour will work too.

Then I guess my sarcasm was right in line.
Carry on

Are you really...
 

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:51:33 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/27/15 4:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:50:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


So long as we elect a Democratic president in 2016, it's been reconciled.

To your point, only if we also elect a democratic congress


A Democratic president will nominate associates to the Supreme Court who
are not bound up in religious bull****.

How do those candidates get appointed?

Are you really...
 

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:51:33 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/27/15 4:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:50:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


So long as we elect a Democratic president in 2016, it's been reconciled.

To your point, only if we also elect a democratic congress


A Democratic president will nominate associates to the Supreme Court who
are not bound up in religious bull****.

How do those candidates get appointed?

Nominated by POTUS, confirmed in Senate.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Are you really...
 

On 27 Aug 2015 21:44:29 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

confirmed in Senate

or not and that was my point.