Kudos to North Dakota

[89Hen]

Wow. There's a lot of fail in this post, not sure where to start. You're still going to back to the fact that many parents do things that are detrimental to their children all the time, yet it doesn't go punished or even investigated. We KNOW that second hand smoke can cause cancer, but we don't criminalize parents who smoke two packs a day in their home where they live with their children. Why not Cluck? Must we not force parents to behave proeprly and hold them accountable for their actions?

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that because we don't have a law that protects children against all of their parents' harmful behaviors, we shouldn't have those laws to protect the helpless children?

Well, we currently don't have laws that protect unborn children, but you want to change those laws to protect unborn children.

Of course, you are advocating protecting the fetuses from death...from day one...but not from abuse. And you aren't protecting them from death due to behavior leading up to the pregnancy, despite the ability of science to determine if that behavior directly caused the death of that child.

Odd.

You make absolutely no sense. Let's try these one at a time...

"Are you saying that because we don't have a law that protects children against all of their parents' harmful behaviors, we shouldn't have those laws to protect the helpless children?"

Yes. We should not have laws that protect children from ALL of their parents' harmful behavior. Have you ever sped in your car with your children in it? Are you charged for speeding, or are you saying you should be charged with child endangerment? Do you think a parent that smokes should be charged with a crime against their kids if they do so in their house?

"Well, we currently don't have laws that protect unborn children, but you want to change those laws to protect unborn children."

Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Of course, you are advocating protecting the fetuses from death...from day one...but not from abuse."

Now you're just making shit up.

[89Hen]

Jeeze Hen,

Give it up. Cluck is working you over like a ragdoll.

I've been waiting for your patented response.

[kalm]

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that because we don't have a law that protects children against all of their parents' harmful behaviors, we shouldn't have those laws to protect the helpless children?

Well, we currently don't have laws that protect unborn children, but you want to change those laws to protect unborn children.

Of course, you are advocating protecting the fetuses from death...from day one...but not from abuse. And you aren't protecting them from death due to behavior leading up to the pregnancy, despite the ability of science to determine if that behavior directly caused the death of that child.

Odd.

You make absolutely no sense. Let's try these one at a time...

"Are you saying that because we don't have a law that protects children against all of their parents' harmful behaviors, we shouldn't have those laws to protect the helpless children?"

Yes. We should not have laws that protect children from ALL of their parents' harmful behavior. Have you ever sped in your car with your children in it? Are you charged for speeding, or are you saying you should be charged with child endangerment? Do you think a parent that smokes should be charged with a crime against their kids if they do so in their house?

"Well, we currently don't have laws that protect unborn children, but you want to change those laws to protect unborn children."

Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Of course, you are advocating protecting the fetuses from death...from day one...but not from abuse."

Now you're just making shit up.

At what age should the unborn receive protection?

[D1B]

Jeeze Hen,

Give it up. Cluck is working you over like a ragdoll.

I've been waiting for your patented response.

As I this one.

Still, you're floundering.

[YoUDeeMan]

You make absolutely no sense. Let's try these one at a time...

"Are you saying that because we don't have a law that protects children against all of their parents' harmful behaviors, we shouldn't have those laws to protect the helpless children?"

Yes. We should not have laws that protect children from ALL of their parents' harmful behavior. Have you ever sped in your car with your children in it? Are you charged for speeding, or are you saying you should be charged with child endangerment? Do you think a parent that smokes should be charged with a crime against their kids if they do so in their house?

"Well, we currently don't have laws that protect unborn children, but you want to change those laws to protect unborn children."

Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Of course, you are advocating protecting the fetuses from death...from day one...but not from abuse."

Now you're just making shit up.

I will make a leap of faith that you are saying, somewhere in your statement, that you are FOR protecting children from abuse...but that you do not want to regulate all parental behavior that leads to child abuse.

Well, that just leads us in the direction of defining what kinds of behaviors cause what kind of abuse. If it can be proven that parental smoking shortens the life of their child by 10 years, then you should approve of preventing parents from smoking in their houses. After all, what is the diference between killing a child early in the womb versus killing them early...perhaps in their fifties, due to the damage inflicted to their lungs? And if we can prove that drinking shortens an offspring's lifespan, then there should be penalties to those behaviors. You are making a decision to kill your child early.

Once science proves any links to early death, it would be silly to say we can't protect a child from their parents because they are in their parent's house, yet we must protect a child inside someone's body.

Science will be able to provide links between parental behavior and the lifespan of their children...it is just a matter of time. You are simply behind the learning curve.

Oh, by the way, people who speed can be charged with endagering their children.

[89Hen]

At what age should the unborn receive protection?

As soon as it is known to be present.

[89Hen]

I will make a leap of faith that you are saying, somewhere in your statement, that you are FOR protecting children from abuse...but that you do not want to regulate all parental behavior that leads to child abuse.

Well, that just leads us in the direction of defining what kinds of behaviors cause what kind of abuse. If it can be proven that parental smoking shortens the life of their child by 10 years, then you should approve of preventing parents from smoking in their houses. After all, what is the diference between killing a child early in the womb versus killing them early...perhaps in their fifties, due to the damage inflicted to their lungs? And if we can prove that drinking shortens an offspring's lifespan, then there should be penalties to those behaviors. You are making a decision to kill your child early.

Once science proves any links to early death, it would be silly to say we can't protect a child from their parents because they are in their parent's house, yet we must protect a child inside someone's body.

Science will be able to provide links between parental behavior and the lifespan of their children...it is just a matter of time. You are simply behind the learning curve.

Oh, by the way, people who speed can be charged with endagering their children.

So you've successfully morphed this into an entirely new debate. Are you for or against the criminalization of ALL forms of child abuse?

On your last point, people who do anything illegal can be charged with all kinds of offenses. I'm sure if somebody had their kids taken away by protective services because of traffic violations we would have seen that on the news.

[Ibanez]

You make absolutely no sense. Let's try these one at a time...

"Are you saying that because we don't have a law that protects children against all of their parents' harmful behaviors, we shouldn't have those laws to protect the helpless children?"

Yes. We should not have laws that protect children from ALL of their parents' harmful behavior. Have you ever sped in your car with your children in it? Are you charged for speeding, or are you saying you should be charged with child endangerment? Do you think a parent that smokes should be charged with a crime against their kids if they do so in their house?

"Well, we currently don't have laws that protect unborn children, but you want to change those laws to protect unborn children."

Yes, that's exactly what I want to do. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Of course, you are advocating protecting the fetuses from death...from day one...but not from abuse."

Now you're just making shit up.

I will make a leap of faith that you are saying, somewhere in your statement, that you are FOR protecting children from abuse...but that you do not want to regulate all parental behavior that leads to child abuse.

Well, that just leads us in the direction of defining what kinds of behaviors cause what kind of abuse. If it can be proven that parental smoking shortens the life of their child by 10 years, then you should approve of preventing parents from smoking in their houses. After all, what is the diference between killing a child early in the womb versus killing them early...perhaps in their fifties, due to the damage inflicted to their lungs? And if we can prove that drinking shortens an offspring's lifespan, then there should be penalties to those behaviors. You are making a decision to kill your child early.

Once science proves any links to early death, it would be silly to say we can't protect a child from their parents because they are in their parent's house, yet we must protect a child inside someone's body.

Science will be able to provide links between parental behavior and the lifespan of their children...it is just a matter of time. You are simply behind the learning curve.

Oh, by the way, people who speed can be charged with endagering their children.

I've seen cases where people were driving recklessely with a child in the car and the driver was charged with child endangerment. I bet those cases are few and far between.

[YoUDeeMan]

I've seen cases where people were driving recklessely with a child in the car and the driver was charged with child endangerment. I bet those cases are few and far between.

Bingo! At least someone is paying attention to the news. In some cases, excessive speed can be considered reckless driving. If kids are in the car, the driver can be charged with child endangerment.

In fact, I was a witness in a court case against one of those drivers.

[kalm]

At what age should the unborn receive protection?

As soon as it is known to be present.

So abuse is ok as long as the pregnancy hasnt been I.D'd?

[89Hen]

I've seen cases where people were driving recklessely with a child in the car and the driver was charged with child endangerment. I bet those cases are few and far between.

Bingo! At least someone is paying attention to the news. In some cases, excessive speed can be considered reckless driving. If kids are in the car, the driver can be charged with child endangerment.

In fact, I was a witness in a court case against one of those drivers.

I wish you could pay attention too.

people who do anything illegal can be charged with all kinds of offenses

[89Hen]

As soon as it is known to be present.

So abuse is ok as long as the pregnancy hasnt been I.D'd?

By 'OK' if you mean can't be viewed as a crime? If so, yes.

[kalm]

So abuse is ok as long as the pregnancy hasnt been I.D'd?

By 'OK' if you mean can't be viewed as a crime? If so, yes.

No, OK by you.

[89Hen]

By 'OK' if you mean can't be viewed as a crime? If so, yes.

No, OK by you.

The answer would still have to be yes. If you drink and drive, you knowingly are putting other people at risk. If you go on a drinking binge and are pregnant but don't know it, not sure how anyone can hold that against you. It may be unfortunate, but that's about as far as I think you could go.

[YoUDeeMan]

No, OK by you.

The answer would still have to be yes. If you drink and drive, you knowingly are putting other people at risk. If you go on a drinking binge and are pregnant but don't know it, not sure how anyone can hold that against you. It may be unfortunate, but that's about as far as I think you could go.

We arrest guys for drinking and then getting into a car because they are imparied and there is the possibility of getting into an accident and killing or hurting someone...yet you don't want to hold a guy accountable for drinking and then having sex with damaged sperm that could eventually directly result in the death of a human fetus?

[89Hen]

The answer would still have to be yes. If you drink and drive, you knowingly are putting other people at risk. If you go on a drinking binge and are pregnant but don't know it, not sure how anyone can hold that against you. It may be unfortunate, but that's about as far as I think you could go.

We arrest guys for drinking and then getting into a car because they are imparied and there is the possibility of getting into an accident and killing or hurting someone...yet you don't want to hold a guy accountable for drinking and then having sex with damaged sperm that could eventually directly result in the death of a human fetus?

I think you've been drinking.

[D1B]

Hen, those color abortion scare pamphlets your pedophiles gave you after mass when you were a kid really fucked you up.