How could you kill your own baby ?

Define children.

if you are talking about abortion (not homicide) then the answer is throughout history.

eg.

Greece - "Much of what is known about the methods and practice of abortion in Greek and Roman history comes from early classical texts. Abortion, as a gynecological procedure, was primarily the province of women who were either midwives or well-informed laypeople. In his Theaetetus, Plato mentions a midwife's ability to induce abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. It is thought unlikely that abortion was punished in classical Greece. However, a fragment attributed to the poet Lysias "suggests that abortion was a crime in Athens against the husband, if his wife was pregnant when he died, since his unborn child could have claimed the estate."

The Stoics believed the fetus to be plantlike in nature, and not an animal until the moment of birth, when it finally breathed air. They therefore found abortion morally acceptable.

 

I don't agree. Homophobic comments and disdain have nothing to do with blame and shame in this era. Blame and shame require a community context that no longer exists. What you are seeing is recoil, revulsion, and withdrawal as America fragments.

Again, I disagree. There is no one better able to teach the meaning of evil than someone who has committed great evil.

 

When the US invades another country and blows up children....Intentional or not they're still DEAD!

Native American children were slaughtered like animals.

 

Sounds like he hasn't read the Bible. There is a ton of killing infants and children in that crazy book all in the name of God and even commanded by him.

 

We have been through this, abortion is a homicide there is no question.

 

So you are basically saying no, you can't.

So why do you advocate for and support mass homicides of unborn children?

- - - Updated - - -

Well apparently you are good with that and want to see that happen in modern day America! Abortion has killed numbers that no story in the Bible could every come close to.

 

ONE:

TWO:

Follow along from ONE all the way to TWO.

Then you ask a question from outerspace: """So you are basically saying no, you can't. """


Can't what? What ARE you talking about?
You ask a question, I answered. Can't what?

Then you ask a question that has nothing to do with my post but actually has something to do with the topic :

""So why do you advocate for and support mass homicides of unborn children?"""

but nothing to do with me or anything I've ever posted....

Need more coffee ???

 

Sorry Whaler, I realize you're quoting me and everything because I keep getting notices but you are on my ignore list for trolling and posting nothing but flame bait 24/7, so please, do not bother.

 

No trolling, no flamebaiting, just the facts. To people who advocate the killing of unborn children I can see how the truth might offend, but I will not apologize.

 

There is no question?
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
Will Rogers

 

There isn't! legally, logically, in any way!

 

There is no question that it is a false statement. The definition of homicide is the killing of one person by another, and NO ONE EVER, EVER, has proved that a zef is a person.

 

nonsense. There is a federal law that recognizes that fact!

 

It doesn't. If it did, you and all your cohorts would have been in court immediately. Even if you managed to get a federal law passed that attempted to make zefs into persons, all it would mean is that a group of federal fools think they can change what is---the same way they think they are giving us another hour of daylight by changing the clock.

 

It OBVIOUSLY does,
your denial means nothing in the face of that OBVIOUS fact!
The politically motivated abortion homicide exception is why it hasn't been challenged, although there is an obvious logical disconnect with that.

The federal fools on the SCOTUS are somehow different? How?

It is obvious and scientific fact when every human life begins, so all the UVVA does is recognize the obvious.

It is pro aborts who keep their heads in the sand hoping they can keep homicide at will of the unborn legal.

 

If you're so sure, take it to court! That's the proof.

 

In your opinion, though when other factors were raised by other posters you just settled back to the normal "it's obvious" routine.

Are you not going to try to defend your question that is so "obviously" incorrect?

"When has wanton intentional homicide of children ever been acceptable in a society?

I mean other than now, in ours."

Or will you finally admit you have got it wrong.

 

Really?

I take it you haven't read about the flood then.

 

Why would I admit I have something wrong when I don't?

- - - Updated - - -

You think that was a homicide do you?

 

Really, then please do tell why there are so many homophobics spouting off that AIDS is a "gay" disease, blaming them for spreading it to "normal" people.
Trying to shame them by insisting that homosexuality is a mental illness.

The community context exists very strongly in the religious.

Define evil?

 

A mother who is getting an abortion because her unborn child is severely deformed, is she doing it just for herself or out of the best interests for her child?

Yes, there are several potentially justifiable reasons to get an abortion. But the main reason in the vast majority of cases — SELFISHNESS — is not one of them.

 

This baby should have NEVER been allowed to come to term and be born.

AboveAlpha

 

not sure if this is relevant here, but I don't think being inside or outside of the womb makes any difference pertaining to whether it is okay to euthanize ...

 

In that case it makes no difference.

AboveAlpha

 

Hard to tell from the photo but there is obvious multiple facial abnormalities as well as cranial abnormalities. You can actually see the tracheostomy to allow the baby to breathe (blue thing in the neck) When you have a trachy then you need also to suction any sputum from that at regular intervals to keep the airway clear. The deformity of the nose and eyes suggest a frontal meningocele and it looks like there is some hydrocephalus which would require a shunt. I doubt there would be vision with the eyes with that degree of exopthalmus. The woman is smiling and so there is an automatic assumption the baby is also smiling but a closer look shows that this is the only expression that face is capable of.

You a looking at a child that has a severe disability and will require intensive and specialist support the rest of it's life

Highly probable that a CT would look like this