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.