Kudos to North Dakota

[CAA Flagship]

Admitting you don't know as much as I do doesn't mean you need to result to name calling. I mean, I don't disparage you because I know more than you do or will. It's just our lots in life.

You, and most anyone, will always know more than I about Star Wars and George Lucas. Good on ya. I guess you have to hang your hat on something.

Measure up boys!!!!

[89Hen]

If the woman knew she might possibly be pregnant and didn't take every precaution she is at least guilty of manslaughter.

Absolutely.

Once a person knows they are pregnant, then they will have the ultimate duty to that child to bring it into the world in the best of health. Father and mother.

Yup...let's really get into protecting these little, helpless buggers. Jail any parents that are doing anything unhealthy. No smoking, drinking, staying up late to watch TV...only organic foods and only fresh, healthy foods.

Father yelling at a pregnant mother? Jail time for abusing the unborn infant. Father coming home late from work? Jail time for causing stress to the unborn baby.

Is this a real post? I'm in southern FLA this week and I've seen plenty of people with fat, dumb kids thanks to the parents. We don't criminalize that now, why would we do so for this off the deep end, hyperbole? That's all the pro-abortion side has.

[89Hen]

Sorry Mr Bananas, that's not the case (cept maybe the last one). I am pro birth control. Go figure.

Pro birth control and you write checks to the corporation.

I'm also against severe taxation, yet I still live in the US and pay taxes. Your point?

[D1B]

Pro birth control and you write checks to the corporation.

I'm also against severe taxation, yet I still live in the US and pay taxes. Your point?

Take baby steps and quit the church. It makes you look like an ass.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm also against severe taxation, yet I still live in the US and pay taxes. Your point?

Take baby steps and quit the church. It makes you look like an ass.

As opposed to you, who needs no help in looking like one.

[D1B]

Take baby steps and quit the church. It makes you look like an ass.

As opposed to you, who needs no help in looking like one.

Sure, I'm an ass. You on the other hand actually look like an ass.

[YoUDeeMan]

Is this a real post? I'm in southern FLA this week and I've seen plenty of people with fat, dumb kids thanks to the parents. We don't criminalize that now, why would we do so for this off the deep end, hyperbole? That's all the pro-abortion side has.

Hey, great, so your argument is that we don't criminalize things now so why should we do so for such "off the deep end" things? You mean such as...oh, I don't know...maybe two cells being considered a human being?

But, let's say you do consider those two cells a human being...helpless ones that should be protected from death, because they are, specifically, a human being.

Well, hate to say it, but that unborn child, if deemed a human, has rights. There are laws against child abuse (they just aren't enforced well because people tend to look the other way), so unborn children should be legally protected from other abuses besides death. We can argue the degree of child services protection, but you can't deny the child has the right to be protected from abuse in the womb.

I noticed you didn't bother addressing the other parts of my post. If, indeed, all fetuses are humans, and have the right to live, then any aborted babies, natural ones as well, will need a thorough investigation to make sure the parents did not have anything to do with the death of the baby.

Science WILL eventually be able to identify root causes of natural abortions, and I guarantee some of those natural ones could have been prevented with better care during pregnancy.

Did the mother quit eating so she starved the chil enough to cause it to abort? Did the father cause too much stress, by presence or absence, so that the child was aborted? Drinking? Smoking? Staying up too late?

If so, and the child is a human being, a solid argument can be made for manslaughter.

With every aborted fetus, their should be an investigation. The father and mother should be held for trial to make sure that they were doing everything in their power to carry the child to birth. Surely, if parents can be held accountable for their actions AFTER a child is born, then we need to hold them accountable for their actions BEFORE a child is born.

Again, even now, we can measure the health of a male's sperm. Father's are held accountable if they beat their 3-year old child, break their legs, or lock them in a box and cause permanent learning disabilities. So why can't we arrest a father who has poor sperm, or a mother who has malformed eggs, yet who insist on forming a fetus that has these, or worse, problems...and forming fetuses that will die in the womb because of their actions? Science WILL be able to determine these things...and can, to some extent now.

If the father is not the healthiest of people, and the baby dies in the womb, then he should be tried for PREMEDITATED murder of a human being. Being in the womb no longer matters...that baby, of two cells, is doomed because of the actions of the parents...just as if the parents neglected it after it came out of the womb.

If the two cells are, indeed, a human being, then drinking too much/doing drugs/living an unhealthy lifestyle, and sending your weakened sperm into a battered womb that eventually rejects the little human being is murder, or at least manslaughter. There really is no way around that.

[D1B]

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that officials at the Food and Drug Administration have received 13 reports of deaths since 2009 citing the possible involvement of 5-Hour Energy. Although the highly caffeinated energy shot has been touted to be a healthy alternative to other energy drinks, Monster Energy has been implicated as a possible culprit in only 5 deaths during the same period.

Both energy drinks have received a multitude of other health complaints. 5-Hour Energy was mentioned in 90 filings with the F.D.A, including injuries such as heart attacks, convulsions, and in one case a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage.) Incident reports for Monster included one case of a nonfatal attack, and other adverse effects like abdominal pain, vomiting, tremors, and abnormal heart rate.

http://www.examiner.com/article/5-hour- ... tion-death" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sayonarra, 5-Hour Energy.

[89Hen]

Is this a real post? I'm in southern FLA this week and I've seen plenty of people with fat, dumb kids thanks to the parents. We don't criminalize that now, why would we do so for this off the deep end, hyperbole? That's all the pro-abortion side has.

Hey, great, so your argument is that we don't criminalize things now so why should we do so for such "off the deep end" things? You mean such as...oh, I don't know...maybe two cells being considered a human being?

But, let's say you do consider those two cells a human being...helpless ones that should be protected from death, because they are, specifically, a human being.

Well, hate to say it, but that unborn child, if deemed a human, has rights. There are laws against child abuse (they just aren't enforced well because people tend to look the other way), so unborn children should be legally protected from other abuses besides death. We can argue the degree of child services protection, but you can't deny the child has the right to be protected from abuse in the womb.

I noticed you didn't bother addressing the other parts of my post. If, indeed, all fetuses are humans, and have the right to live, then any aborted babies, natural ones as well, will need a thorough investigation to make sure the parents did not have anything to do with the death of the baby.

Science WILL eventually be able to identify root causes of natural abortions, and I guarantee some of those natural ones could have been prevented with better care during pregnancy.

Did the mother quit eating so she starved the chil enough to cause it to abort? Did the father cause too much stress, by presence or absence, so that the child was aborted? Drinking? Smoking? Staying up too late?

If so, and the child is a human being, a solid argument can be made for manslaughter.

With every aborted fetus, their should be an investigation. The father and mother should be held for trial to make sure that they were doing everything in their power to carry the child to birth. Surely, if parents can be held accountable for their actions AFTER a child is born, then we need to hold them accountable for their actions BEFORE a child is born.

Again, even now, we can measure the health of a male's sperm. Father's are held accountable if they beat their 3-year old child, break their legs, or lock them in a box and cause permanent learning disabilities. So why can't we arrest a father who has poor sperm, or a mother who has malformed eggs, yet who insist on forming a fetus that has these, or worse, problems...and forming fetuses that will die in the womb because of their actions? Science WILL be able to determine these things...and can, to some extent now.

If the father is not the healthiest of people, and the baby dies in the womb, then he should be tried for PREMEDITATED murder of a human being. Being in the womb no longer matters...that baby, of two cells, is doomed because of the actions of the parents...just as if the parents neglected it after it came out of the womb.

If the two cells are, indeed, a human being, then drinking too much/doing drugs/living an unhealthy lifestyle, and sending your weakened sperm into a battered womb that eventually rejects the little human being is murder, or at least manslaughter. There really is no way around that.

After your post, I absolutely stand by my "deep end, hyperbole" comment.

The mother's OB/GYN report on a miscarriage is good enough for me.

[YoUDeeMan]

The mother's OB/GYN report on a miscarriage is good enough for me.

Weak.

What the mother and father do impacts the baby's health before birth. That is a FACT known today, 89. Not hyperbole...a FACT. As we advance as a species, science will surely be able to identify even more subtle, yet specific bahviorial causes for miscarriages...it is only a matter of time (and in some cases, is available now).

If the baby dies, and the mother and father had anything to do with it, through negligence or on purpose, they are guilty of helping kill their baby. There is really no way around that fact no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

You are simply choosing, once you label the fetus a human, to ignore parental behavior that leads to a child's death or disfigurement.

Odd stance, since you are supposedly against choice regarding whether a fetus lives or dies.

[kalm]

The mother's OB/GYN report on a miscarriage is good enough for me.

Weak.

What the mother and father do impacts the baby's health before birth. That is a FACT known today, 89. Not hyperbole...a FACT. As we advance as a species, science will surely be able to identify even more subtle, yet specific bahviorial causes for miscarriages...it is only a matter of time (and in some cases, is available now).

If the baby dies, and the mother and father had anything to do with it, through negligence or on purpose, they are guilty of helping kill their baby. There is really no way around that fact no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

You are simply choosing, once you label the fetus a human, to ignore parental behavior that leads to a child's death or disfigurement.

Odd stance, since you are supposedly against choice regarding whether a fetus lives or dies.

This was my original point and the problem with a black and white view.

Kansas is upgrading their abortion laws as well:

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) - Kansas is set to enact one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation which defines life as beginning "at fertilization" and imposes a host of new regulations.

The Kansas House of Representatives passed the bill 90-30 on Friday night, a few hours after the Senate backed it on a 28-10 vote. Strongly anti-abortion Republican Governor Sam Brownback is expected to sign it into law. Republicans hold strong majorities in both houses.

In addition to the provision specifying when life begins, the bill prevents employees of abortion clinics from providing sex education in schools, bans tax credits for abortion services and requires clinics to give details to women about fetal development and abortion health risks. It also bans abortions based solely on the gender of the fetus.

The Kansas bill comes on the heels of anti-abortion measures passing in states across the country, including one in Arkansas banning abortions in the 12th week of pregnancy and a law in North Dakota that sets the limit at six weeks.

The Kansas language stating that life begins "at fertilization" is modeled on a 1989 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, said Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director of Kansans for Life, anti-abortion group.

Ostrowski said the language protects the rights of the unborn in probate and other legal matters.

If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will become the eighth state declaring that life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which researches abortion-related laws nationwide.

While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.

So in Kansas, a human life begins at fertilization but its still legal to abort...errrr kill that human up until the 22nd week.

[89Hen]

Weak.

What the mother and father do impacts the baby's health before birth. That is a FACT known today, 89. Not hyperbole...a FACT. As we advance as a species, science will surely be able to identify even more subtle, yet specific bahviorial causes for miscarriages...it is only a matter of time (and in some cases, is available now).

If the baby dies, and the mother and father had anything to do with it, through negligence or on purpose, they are guilty of helping kill their baby. There is really no way around that fact no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

You are simply choosing, once you label the fetus a human, to ignore parental behavior that leads to a child's death or disfigurement.

Odd stance, since you are supposedly against choice regarding whether a fetus lives or dies.

This was my original point and the problem with a black and white view.

Give me a break. The two of you are the ones who are paiting with a black and white brush. Cluck is saying it's an all or nothing proposal and that every case of spontaneous abortion be brought before a court. That's black and white. And BTW, where did I say that somebody can't be found guilty of child abuse of an unborn child?

"That is a FACT known today, 89. Not hyperbole...a FACT." It's also a FACT that an embryo, fetus or child is a unique life and not an extension of a woman. A doctor cannot pinpoint the exact moment it becomes "viable", therefore how can you say that abortion is OK one day, but not the next? It's a moving target based on current science and it's also different for every single devloping child.

[D1B]

This was my original point and the problem with a black and white view.

Give me a break. The two of you are the ones who are paiting with a black and white brush. Cluck is saying it's an all or nothing proposal and that every case of spontaneous abortion be brought before a court. That's black and white. And BTW, where did I say that somebody can't be found guilty of child abuse of an unborn child?

"That is a FACT known today, 89. Not hyperbole...a FACT." It's also a FACT that an embryo, fetus or child is a unique life and not an extension of a woman. A doctor cannot pinpoint the exact moment it becomes "viable", therefore how can you say that abortion is OK one day, but not the next? It's a moving target based on current science and it's also different for every single devloping child.

It a parasite, until birth. Then it's a protected parasite.

[89Hen]

Give me a break. The two of you are the ones who are paiting with a black and white brush. Cluck is saying it's an all or nothing proposal and that every case of spontaneous abortion be brought before a court. That's black and white. And BTW, where did I say that somebody can't be found guilty of child abuse of an unborn child?

"That is a FACT known today, 89. Not hyperbole...a FACT." It's also a FACT that an embryo, fetus or child is a unique life and not an extension of a woman. A doctor cannot pinpoint the exact moment it becomes "viable", therefore how can you say that abortion is OK one day, but not the next? It's a moving target based on current science and it's also different for every single devloping child.

It a parasite, until birth. Then it's a protected parasite.

Why not let the grown ups talk.

[YoUDeeMan]

Cluck is saying it's an all or nothing proposal and that every case of spontaneous abortion be brought before a court.

That is black and white.

A doctor cannot pinpoint the exact moment it becomes "viable", therefore how can you say that abortion is OK one day, but not the next? It's a moving target based on current science and it's also different for every single devloping child.

You are the one who is saying that if we don't know the exact moment when a fetus is "viable", we should give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus and as a default say it is alive and a human being from conception (black and white...all or nothing).

Yet you don't want to give that same human the default of an investigation into its death?

If one of your children died at school/the mall/at a bus stop/ect., wouldn't you want to know why? Wouldn't the authorities at least want to know why?

We always do at least some sort of investigation of deaths of humans to find out why they died. But you, for the sake of convenience, are saying little humans don't deserve such respect?

Seriously, you are willing to let fetuses die, without any investigation into their deaths, simply because it is inconvenient to do those investigations?

Really? So you would force a mother and father to carry an unwanted child for 9 months, and then a lifetime of financial and emotional support, but you would not subject a mother a father to a day or two of questioning and examinations into the death of their baby human?

Wow.

[D1B]

It a parasite, until birth. Then it's a protected parasite.

Why not let the grown ups talk.

Shouldn't you be bombing abortion clinics or harassing women at Planned Parenthood?

[89Hen]

Cluck is saying it's an all or nothing proposal and that every case of spontaneous abortion be brought before a court.

That is black and white.

A doctor cannot pinpoint the exact moment it becomes "viable", therefore how can you say that abortion is OK one day, but not the next? It's a moving target based on current science and it's also different for every single devloping child.

You are the one who is saying that if we don't know the exact moment when a fetus is "viable", we should give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus and as a default say it is alive and a human being from conception (black and white...all or nothing).

Yet you don't want to give that same human the default of an investigation into its death?

If one of your children died at school/the mall/at a bus stop/ect., wouldn't you want to know why? Wouldn't the authorities at least want to know why?

We always do at least some sort of investigation of deaths of humans to find out why they died. But you, for the sake of convenience, are saying little humans don't deserve such respect?

Seriously, you are willing to let fetuses die, without any investigation into their deaths, simply because it is inconvenient to do those investigations?

Really? So you would force a mother and father to carry an unwanted child for 9 months, and then a lifetime of financial and emotional support, but you would not subject a mother a father to a day or two of questioning and examinations into the death of their baby human?

Wow.

I said I would leave that up to the OB/GYN to say whether anything further needed to be done. That is "some sort of investigation". Not every accidental death is brought before a judge or court, why would you insist it so for this?

BTW, are you saying an embryo is not alive?

[YoUDeeMan]

I said I would leave that up to the OB/GYN to say whether anything further needed to be done. That is "some sort of investigation". Not every accidental death is brought before a judge or court, why would you insist it so for this?

BTW, are you saying an embryo is not alive?

You cannot say that a fetus is a human and not give them full protection under the law. Not current laws...none are really meant for fetuses. We'd need to make up new laws.

An OB/GYN isn't objective. They more often consider the mother their primary concern...and with little or no focus on the father, despite his ability to have participated, wittingly or not, in the death of the child. In addition, an OB/GYN would be legally bound to advocate for the mother because of their doctor/patient relationship.

Doctors would need to be retrained to put the focus of their investigation on the dead baby instead of the surviving mother. And again, because it would be natural for a doctor to have developed a relationship with the mother as a patient, there would need to be an independent set of eyes involved in the determination of the fetus' death.

Perhaps we could set up a group of hard line, fetus-focused folks who could serve as independent investigators into deaths. In addition, they'd go around and retrain all the existing OB/GYNs to make sure they all knew that the focus would no longer be on the mother...instead, they would make sure everyone involved protected the unborn fetus as much as possible.

Currently, healthy diets and lifestyles are only suggestions. But, if the fetus is now considered to be a human being, there needs to be more aggressive protection of that helpless person. Instead of suggestions, we'd need laws, strictly enforced, that would lead to providing the best chance for that baby to survive. The baby would have all the rights afforded to any person out of the womb, and some new ones.

Today, once a baby is born, we can remove them from parents if the parents are not providing for the child. We can imprison their parents for neglect and child abuse. However, removal is not possible with the child in the womb. It is simply not an option. So, the only option to protect the fetus, ALL FETUSES, is to force the parents to behave properly and to hold them accountable for their actions if they don't.

Lawyers are going to have a field day.


As far as your other question, an embryo is alive as much as a tumor, or a heart.

[D1B]

I said I would leave that up to the OB/GYN to say whether anything further needed to be done. That is "some sort of investigation". Not every accidental death is brought before a judge or court, why would you insist it so for this?

BTW, are you saying an embryo is not alive?

You cannot say that a fetus is a human and not give them full protection under the law. Not current laws...none are really meant for fetuses. We'd need to make up new laws.

An OB/GYN isn't objective. They more often consider the mother their primary concern...and with little or no focus on the father, despite his ability to have participated, wittingly or not, in the death of the child. In addition, an OB/GYN would be legally bound to advocate for the mother because of their doctor/patient relationship.

Doctors would need to be retrained to put the focus of their investigation on the dead baby instead of the surviving mother. And again, because it would be natural for a doctor to have developed a relationship with the mother as a patient, there would need to be an independent set of eyes involved in the determination of the fetus' death.

Perhaps we could set up a group of hard line, fetus-focused folks who could serve as independent investigators into deaths. In addition, they'd go around and retrain all the existing OB/GYNs to make sure they all knew that the focus would no longer be on the mother...instead, they would make sure everyone involved protected the unborn fetus as much as possible.

Currently, healthy diets and lifestyles are only suggestions. But, if the fetus is now considered to be a human being, there needs to be more aggressive protection of that helpless person. Instead of suggestions, we'd need laws, strictly enforced, that would lead to providing the best chance for that baby to survive. The baby would have all the rights afforded to any person out of the womb, and some new ones.

Today, once a baby is born, we can remove them from parents if the parents are not providing for the child. We can imprison their parents for neglect and child abuse. However, removal is not possible with the child in the womb. It is simply not an option. So, the only option to protect the fetus, ALL FETUSES, is to force the parents to behave properly and to hold them accountable for their actions if they don't.

Lawyers are going to have a field day.


As far as your other question, an embryo is alive as much as a tumor, or a heart.

Perhaps we should mobilize armies of volunteers to rummage through sanitary napkin repositories and toilets all over the nation to search for spontaneously aborted fetuses and collect them for further investigation? Of course we'll need all women to submit DNA samples to the government before the age of 16, or in St. Wronge's world, 9. We'll need to identify the suspects.

http://swoopingcurve.files.wordpress.co ... c07150.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Better yet, require all sexually active women to fill out a report after each bathroom use and submit reports to the government or catholic church for review. Possible questions:

1. Were you sexually active within the last month?

2. If you answered Yes to question 1, please list all sexual events, including duration and method of birth control used, if any.

3. If you listed sexual events for question 2 AND used birth control, you must immediately contact the US Government Interfaith Office at 1-800-JESUS ONE and request and case number and further instructions.

....

[D1B]

You cannot say that a fetus is a human and not give them full protection under the law. Not current laws...none are really meant for fetuses. We'd need to make up new laws.

An OB/GYN isn't objective. They more often consider the mother their primary concern...and with little or no focus on the father, despite his ability to have participated, wittingly or not, in the death of the child. In addition, an OB/GYN would be legally bound to advocate for the mother because of their doctor/patient relationship.

Doctors would need to be retrained to put the focus of their investigation on the dead baby instead of the surviving mother. And again, because it would be natural for a doctor to have developed a relationship with the mother as a patient, there would need to be an independent set of eyes involved in the determination of the fetus' death.

Perhaps we could set up a group of hard line, fetus-focused folks who could serve as independent investigators into deaths. In addition, they'd go around and retrain all the existing OB/GYNs to make sure they all knew that the focus would no longer be on the mother...instead, they would make sure everyone involved protected the unborn fetus as much as possible.

Currently, healthy diets and lifestyles are only suggestions. But, if the fetus is now considered to be a human being, there needs to be more aggressive protection of that helpless person. Instead of suggestions, we'd need laws, strictly enforced, that would lead to providing the best chance for that baby to survive. The baby would have all the rights afforded to any person out of the womb, and some new ones.

Today, once a baby is born, we can remove them from parents if the parents are not providing for the child. We can imprison their parents for neglect and child abuse. However, removal is not possible with the child in the womb. It is simply not an option. So, the only option to protect the fetus, ALL FETUSES, is to force the parents to behave properly and to hold them accountable for their actions if they don't.

Lawyers are going to have a field day.


As far as your other question, an embryo is alive as much as a tumor, or a heart.

Perhaps we should mobilize armies of volunteers to rummage through sanitary napkin repositories and toilets all over the nation to search for spontaneously aborted fetuses and collect them for further investigation? Of course we'll need all women to submit DNA samples to the government before the age of 16, or in St. Wronge's world, 9. We'll need to identify the suspects.



Better yet, require all sexually active women to fill out a report after each bathroom use and submit reports to the government or catholic church for review. Possible questions:

1. Were you sexually active within the last month?

2. If you answered Yes to question 1, please list all sexual events, including duration and method of birth control used, if any.

3. If you listed sexual events for question 2 AND used birth control, you must immediately contact the US Government Interfaith Office at 1-800-JESUS ONE and request a case number and further instructions.

....

[89Hen]

I said I would leave that up to the OB/GYN to say whether anything further needed to be done. That is "some sort of investigation". Not every accidental death is brought before a judge or court, why would you insist it so for this?

BTW, are you saying an embryo is not alive?

You cannot say that a fetus is a human and not give them full protection under the law. Not current laws...none are really meant for fetuses. We'd need to make up new laws.

An OB/GYN isn't objective. They more often consider the mother their primary concern...and with little or no focus on the father, despite his ability to have participated, wittingly or not, in the death of the child. In addition, an OB/GYN would be legally bound to advocate for the mother because of their doctor/patient relationship.

Doctors would need to be retrained to put the focus of their investigation on the dead baby instead of the surviving mother. And again, because it would be natural for a doctor to have developed a relationship with the mother as a patient, there would need to be an independent set of eyes involved in the determination of the fetus' death.

Perhaps we could set up a group of hard line, fetus-focused folks who could serve as independent investigators into deaths. In addition, they'd go around and retrain all the existing OB/GYNs to make sure they all knew that the focus would no longer be on the mother...instead, they would make sure everyone involved protected the unborn fetus as much as possible.

Currently, healthy diets and lifestyles are only suggestions. But, if the fetus is now considered to be a human being, there needs to be more aggressive protection of that helpless person. Instead of suggestions, we'd need laws, strictly enforced, that would lead to providing the best chance for that baby to survive. The baby would have all the rights afforded to any person out of the womb, and some new ones.

Today, once a baby is born, we can remove them from parents if the parents are not providing for the child. We can imprison their parents for neglect and child abuse. However, removal is not possible with the child in the womb. It is simply not an option. So, the only option to protect the fetus, ALL FETUSES, is to force the parents to behave properly and to hold them accountable for their actions if they don't.

Lawyers are going to have a field day.


As far as your other question, an embryo is alive as much as a tumor, or a heart.

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?

[D1B]

You cannot say that a fetus is a human and not give them full protection under the law. Not current laws...none are really meant for fetuses. We'd need to make up new laws.

An OB/GYN isn't objective. They more often consider the mother their primary concern...and with little or no focus on the father, despite his ability to have participated, wittingly or not, in the death of the child. In addition, an OB/GYN would be legally bound to advocate for the mother because of their doctor/patient relationship.

Doctors would need to be retrained to put the focus of their investigation on the dead baby instead of the surviving mother. And again, because it would be natural for a doctor to have developed a relationship with the mother as a patient, there would need to be an independent set of eyes involved in the determination of the fetus' death.

Perhaps we could set up a group of hard line, fetus-focused folks who could serve as independent investigators into deaths. In addition, they'd go around and retrain all the existing OB/GYNs to make sure they all knew that the focus would no longer be on the mother...instead, they would make sure everyone involved protected the unborn fetus as much as possible.

Currently, healthy diets and lifestyles are only suggestions. But, if the fetus is now considered to be a human being, there needs to be more aggressive protection of that helpless person. Instead of suggestions, we'd need laws, strictly enforced, that would lead to providing the best chance for that baby to survive. The baby would have all the rights afforded to any person out of the womb, and some new ones.

Today, once a baby is born, we can remove them from parents if the parents are not providing for the child. We can imprison their parents for neglect and child abuse. However, removal is not possible with the child in the womb. It is simply not an option. So, the only option to protect the fetus, ALL FETUSES, is to force the parents to behave properly and to hold them accountable for their actions if they don't.

Lawyers are going to have a field day.


As far as your other question, an embryo is alive as much as a tumor, or a heart.

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?

Jeeze Hen,

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

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

BTW, sometime in the future, we will have lawsuits and penalties for smoking in households. And you can bet that if you give a fetus rights, then somewhere down the line we will hold the mother and father responsible for their actions towards that child. You are already advocating the control of the mother's behavior by chaining her to 9 months of pregnancy. And we are already slipping into more laws providing more protection/funding to provide healthy environments for children.

Not much of a step to start controlling other behaviors in the name of defenseless or downtrodden individuals...especially as science advances.

[Grizo406]

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?

Jeeze Hen,

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

That he is!

Not totally unlike how JJ continues to knock you the fuck out on just about EVERYTHING...hello!??!

[D1B]

Jeeze Hen,

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

That he is!

Not totally unlike how JJ continues to knock you the fuck out on just about EVERYTHING...hello!??!

If that's the case, how does it feel to be a pedophile defender?

How do you look your great, great grandchildren in the eyes knowing you approve of the actions of an organization that creates, defends and protects pedophiles and tortures children?