These Two Should Be Executed

[89Hen]

I don't think many people do, but if you are going to say no abortions and force people to carry the pregnancy to term, then you don't get to stop telling people what to do once the baby is born. You can't let the unwanted baby go home to parents who might decide that prayer is the best way to get the baby to stop crying. The baby has rights too, it's not a pet/property of the parents.

So should we assume you are for the opposite in this case? The gov can tell you how to raise your child, but can't tell you that you can't kill it?

[BlueHen86]

I don't think many people do, but if you are going to say no abortions and force people to carry the pregnancy to term, then you don't get to stop telling people what to do once the baby is born. You can't let the unwanted baby go home to parents who might decide that prayer is the best way to get the baby to stop crying. The baby has rights too, it's not a pet/property of the parents.

So should we assume you are for the opposite in this case? The gov can tell you how to raise your child, but can't tell you that you can't kill it?

So we should assume that you agree with JSO since you are questioning me for disagreeing with him?

[JohnStOnge]

So should we assume you are for the opposite in this case? The gov can tell you how to raise your child, but can't tell you that you can't kill it?

Yes I've thought of that many times. In this instance, these people are in all sorts of trouble because they did not seek medical care for an individual in their care and the individual died. Yet they could have out and out had the same individual killed during its prenatal life and that would be fine.

It's very difficult both ways. Me, I try to draw the line at whether or not there is intent to harm. Obviously abortion involves intent to harm. One is taking positive action to have the individual killed. And pretty obviously trying to solve your child's problem through prayer when you have faith in God is not intent to harm.

But you can come up with all sorts of scenarios that cause difficulty. So it's one of the most difficult areas in which to draw distinct lines.

[89Hen]

So should we assume you are for the opposite in this case? The gov can tell you how to raise your child, but can't tell you that you can't kill it?

So we should assume that you agree with JSO since you are questioning me for disagreeing with him?

You didn't answer the question, so I guess I was correct.

[BlueHen86]

So we should assume that you agree with JSO since you are questioning me for disagreeing with him?

You didn't answer the question, so I guess I was correct.

You are incorrect. I'm not even sure how you came up with that. There are at least 4 difference (albeit oversimplified) possibilities:

1) The state tells you how to raise your kids during pregnancy and after birth
2) The state never tells you how to raise you kids
3) The state tells to what to do during pregnancy, but not after birth
4) The state does not tell you what to do during pregnancy, but does tell you what in after birth.

JSO apparently believes in option 3, I don't.

Since you didn't answer my question, by your logic, I must be right - you agree with JSO.

[89Hen]

You didn't answer the question, so I guess I was correct.

You are incorrect. I'm not even sure how you came up with that. There are at least 4 difference (albeit oversimplified) possibilities:

1) The state tells you how to raise your kids during pregnancy and after birth
2) The state never tells you how to raise you kids
3) The state tells to what to do during pregnancy, but not after birth
4) The state does not tell you what to do during pregnancy, but does tell you what in after birth.

JSO apparently believes in option 3, I don't.

Since you didn't answer my question, by your logic, I must be right - you agree with JSO.

We know you are pro-abortion, so that means you are in favor of either 2 or 4. I was accusing you of hinting at #4, so I'm not 100% wrong.

Currently we do have child protection laws in place, but not protection for unborn, that means we currently live under #4.

[CID1990]

http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-child-pa-coup ... 13837.html

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Sad.

A total lack of government would be just as effective at dealing with this as an over presence of government.

I'm thinking pitchforks and torches.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[BlueHen86]

You are incorrect. I'm not even sure how you came up with that. There are at least 4 difference (albeit oversimplified) possibilities:

1) The state tells you how to raise your kids during pregnancy and after birth
2) The state never tells you how to raise you kids
3) The state tells to what to do during pregnancy, but not after birth
4) The state does not tell you what to do during pregnancy, but does tell you what in after birth.

JSO apparently believes in option 3, I don't.

Since you didn't answer my question, by your logic, I must be right - you agree with JSO.

We know you are pro-abortion, so that means you are in favor of either 2 or 4. I was accusing you of hinting at #4, so I'm not 100% wrong.

Currently we do have child protection laws in place, but not protection for unborn, that means we currently live under #4.

I lean towards number 1. Within reason the state can and does have the right to tell parents how to behave. I also think the state can and should have the right to regulate abortions.

[89Hen]

We know you are pro-abortion, so that means you are in favor of either 2 or 4. I was accusing you of hinting at #4, so I'm not 100% wrong.

Currently we do have child protection laws in place, but not protection for unborn, that means we currently live under #4.

I lean towards number 1. Within reason the state can and does have the right to tell parents how to behave. I also think the state can and should have the right to regulate abortions.

Then we are closer than I thought.

[89Hen]

I lean towards number 1. Within reason the state can and does have the right to tell parents how to behave. I also think the state can and should have the right to regulate abortions.

Then we are closer than I thought.

BTW, I had you mixed up with Cluck from the abortion thread.

[kalm]

I lean towards number 1. Within reason the state can and does have the right to tell parents how to behave. I also think the state can and should have the right to regulate abortions.

Then we are closer than I thought.

I think most reasonable people agree.

[89Hen]

Then we are closer than I thought.

I think most reasonable people agree.

See above. I morphed 86 into Cluck.

[Ibanez]

We know you are pro-abortion, so that means you are in favor of either 2 or 4. I was accusing you of hinting at #4, so I'm not 100% wrong.

Currently we do have child protection laws in place, but not protection for unborn, that means we currently live under #4.

I lean towards number 1. Within reason the state can and does have the right to tell parents how to behave. I also think the state can and should have the right to regulate abortions.

I tend to agree with #1 in the areas of education, safety and public health. The state has no business telling me how to raise my child or discipline but it should say you need to educate that child, make sure they are healthy and to protect them from harm (it's sad we had to codify that).

[D1B]

I think most reasonable people agree.

See above. I morphed 86 into Cluck.

[89Hen]

The state has no business telling me how to raise my child or discipline but it should say you need to educate that child, make sure they are healthy and to protect them from harm (it's sad we had to codify that).

A lot of discipline borders on protecting them from harm.