Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Back Goode? Last I checked, he's the only prolifer on the ballot. Given Romney's appalling record - there's a third option.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Back Goode? Last I checked, he's the only prolifer on the ballot. Given Romney's appalling record - there's a third option.

Voting for Goode would be like giving half a vote to Obama. Goode has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting elected POTUS in 2012. None.

[kenyanobama]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Back Goode? Last I checked, he's the only prolifer on the ballot. Given Romney's appalling record - there's a third option.

Voting for Goode would be like giving half a vote to Obama. Goode has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting elected POTUS in 2012. None.

Well at least he doesn't aid and abett baby killers.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would that be his white half or black half?

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would that be his white half or black half?

How about half of each half?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was misinformed. The black people I speak to tell me that they're voting for the black half of Obama.

[ajb]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and I've worked with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome children. You're going to make that argument that if you do cocaine regularly that you aren't harming your unborn child? Seriously? It's at the very least criminal negligence, you can't really charge someone with murder unless they know the dangers to their child in the wobm.

You're actually making the same point I'm making, when you suggest that cocaine addiction while pregnant might constitute criminal negligence, rather than murder. That girl in Mississippi was charged with murder. You're also right that drunk drivers are usually charged with something like manslaughter, not murder, if they kill someone while drunk driving. These girls and women are being charged with murder, not manslaughter, not criminal negligence.
As I said, it's a very different standard of mens rea than applies to murder victims who've been through birth. If you believe that fetuses should be treated as fully human in law, then these mothers who attempt suicide with poison, or are addicted to cocaine, might plausibly be charged with criminal negligence, or manslaughter. To claim that a 15 year old girl who is addicted to cocaine and happens to miscarry has, not merely the same level of culpability, but actually a much greater level of culpability than a drunk driver who kills someone, suggests to me a blatantly politicized judicial process.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument for manslaughter is that someone who is driving drunk isn't in full possession of their faculties. I'm not exactly sure where you are getting the argument that pregnant woman should be charged with murder in an abortion - they aren't the ones performing it. I never made that argument.

As for concaine abuse - if they aren't aware of it, then they can't be charged with murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I argue they should be charged with murder? As an accessory, sure, but the abortionists, on the other hand - they are the ones who perform the abortion and are thus culpable for the actual murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would, if that were my argument.

[ajb]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument for manslaughter is that someone who is driving drunk isn't in full possession of their faculties. I'm not exactly sure where you are getting the argument that pregnant woman should be charged with murder in an abortion - they aren't the ones performing it. I never made that argument.

As for concaine abuse - if they aren't aware of it, then they can't be charged with murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I argue they should be charged with murder? As an accessory, sure, but the abortionists, on the other hand - they are the ones who perform the abortion and are thus culpable for the actual murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would, if that were my argument.

I'm not saying it's your argument; I'm saying it's actually happening in several American states. See the link I posted earlier in the thread.

[Wisconsin+17]

First case in MS - she got high on crack when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy, baby was delivered dead shortly after.

Second case,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the baby was born, survived for 4 days, and then died. That's infanticide.

Funny the actual facts that you mentioned that you conveniently left out.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All life is sacred, something the leftists don't understand.

Indeed. It's why the Republicans want people to die because they can't afford insurance and than they want a sizing down of the food ticket. All life is sacred, as long it isn't expensive for the state....

Silly you. Don't you know that life begins at conception and ends at birth?

[minionofmidas]

Great! Now we only have baby-killers to choose from this fall!

To be perfectly fair though, at least Romney didn't personally kill babies like Obama does.

I'd be very interested to hear the thrilling anecdote behind how he personally kills babies.

You're a fan of snuff literature?

[minionofmidas]

To be fair, what are you going to do with fetuses that have been aborted?

Give them a Christian burial and bring the murderous "doctor" to justice.

Okay, possibly a stupid question, but why specifically a Christian burial? What if, say, a Buddhist woman gets pregnant by a Hindu man?

Muslim burial in that case. Obviously.

[ajb]

First case in MS - she got high on crack when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy, baby was delivered dead shortly after.

Second case,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the baby was born, survived for 4 days, and then died. That's infanticide.

Funny the actual facts that you mentioned that you conveniently left out.

I don't understand your point. Both women were charged with murder for actions they undertook while still pregnant, actions which would be considered signs of diminished culpability if their "victims" had been outside the womb at the time.

My question here is specifically with the level of culpability involved, and with whether or not the standard used to decide that these women committed murder (rather than voluntary or involuntary manslaughter) is the same standard that would be used to judge a man or woman whose victim had been born at the time of the act of violence against them. I would argue that the standards are different, and that that is wrong.

[Zioneer]

Great! Now we only have baby-killers to choose from this fall!

To be perfectly fair though, at least Romney didn't personally kill babies like Obama does.

You still haven't answered the question of why you think that Obama has personally killed babies.

[© tweed]

1. No, of course not. If people can afford insurance they will be able to prolong life. Yet, if death comes, it comes.

love this.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. They could be held to neglect, if and only if the following were true.

1, they were unaware of their pregnancy.
2, they had reason to believe that the actions they were taking were not harmful.

At 33 weeks, the child could be delivered safely. By ingesting drugs at that point - they are aware that they are having a child. If she didn't want to be pregnant anymore, she could have delivered and put the child up for adoption. Instead she took the route that would kill her child. She also didn't go to an abortion clinic, so it was by her own actions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a woman shot up and went on a week long bender and her children were found dead, and there was evidence enough to show that she was having financial difficulties that would be relieved if her children were dead, and expressed that opinion? That gives her motive, and opportunity to murder her children.

In the second case, I could make the argument that on compassionate grounds, she should not be held culpable due to the suicide attempt. But if you had a case where a mother shot her infant and then failed to kill herself - that's touch and go. If it can be shown that she did know what she was doing, then she could be put away for murder.

[ajb]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. They could be held to neglect, if and only if the following were true.

1, they were unaware of their pregnancy.
2, they had reason to believe that the actions they were taking were not harmful.

At 33 weeks, the child could be delivered safely. By ingesting drugs at that point - they are aware that they are having a child. If she didn't want to be pregnant anymore, she could have delivered and put the child up for adoption. Instead she took the route that would kill her child. She also didn't go to an abortion clinic, so it was by her own actions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a woman shot up and went on a week long bender and her children were found dead, and there was evidence enough to show that she was having financial difficulties that would be relieved if her children were dead, and expressed that opinion? That gives her motive, and opportunity to murder her children.

In the second case, I could make the argument that on compassionate grounds, she should not be held culpable due to the suicide attempt. But if you had a case where a mother shot her infant and then failed to kill herself - that's touch and go. If it can be shown that she did know what she was doing, then she could be put away for murder.

The bit that I've bolded is what makes your hypothetical case murder rather than negligence. 

[Chaddyr23]

All life is sacred, something the leftists don't understand.

Indeed. It's why the Republicans want people to die because they can't afford insurance and than they want a sizing down of the food ticket. All life is sacred, as long it isn't expensive for the state....

Are you saying that if people can afford insurance, then they won't die?

Doesn't everyone die?  If so, then we're not talking about preventing death, only delaying it, right?

Also, what about the quality of health care.  What would be your response if it is demonstrated that people who depend on insurance receive less-quality care than people --  partly or wholey by saving the money they DIDN'T pay for insurance premiums -- who are able to pay cash to the healthcare providers?

1. No, of course not. If people can afford insurance they will be able to prolong life. Yet, if death comes, it comes.

2. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

Holy hell, I never comment on here but I just had too. I never met someone obsessed with fetuses but can care less of life outside of the womb. I always heard about people like that I never met one before though. Woah.

[WhyteRain]

All life is sacred, something the leftists don't understand.

Indeed. It's why the Republicans want people to die because they can't afford insurance and than they want a sizing down of the food ticket. All life is sacred, as long it isn't expensive for the state....

Are you saying that if people can afford insurance, then they won't die?

Doesn't everyone die?  If so, then we're not talking about preventing death, only delaying it, right?

Also, what about the quality of health care.  What would be your response if it is demonstrated that people who depend on insurance receive less-quality care than people --  partly or wholey by saving the money they DIDN'T pay for insurance premiums -- who are able to pay cash to the healthcare providers?

1. No, of course not. If people can afford insurance they will be able to prolong life. Yet, if death comes, it comes.

2. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

Holy hell, I never comment on here but I just had too. I never met someone obsessed with fetuses but can care less of life outside of the womb. I always heard about people like that I never met one before though. Woah.

Actually, after he said "all life is sacred", I asked if he opposed capital punishment.  He didn't reply.  I guess he's still thinking about that.

[Donerail]

All life is sacred, something the leftists don't understand.

Indeed. It's why the Republicans want people to die because they can't afford insurance and than they want a sizing down of the food ticket. All life is sacred, as long it isn't expensive for the state....

Are you saying that if people can afford insurance, then they won't die?

Doesn't everyone die?  If so, then we're not talking about preventing death, only delaying it, right?

Also, what about the quality of health care.  What would be your response if it is demonstrated that people who depend on insurance receive less-quality care than people --  partly or wholey by saving the money they DIDN'T pay for insurance premiums -- who are able to pay cash to the healthcare providers?

1. No, of course not. If people can afford insurance they will be able to prolong life. Yet, if death comes, it comes.

2. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

Holy hell, I never comment on here but I just had too. I never met someone obsessed with fetuses but can care less of life outside of the womb. I always heard about people like that I never met one before though. Woah.

He ain't real, he's a bored Princeton student (or faculty member) who decided to troll us with an outrageously-R profile. He's banned now.

[WhyteRain]

It would be a shame if he's banned.  How small are we?

[Wisconsin+17]

Apparently not small enough!

[WhyteRain]

Apparently not small enough!

Why ban far-right kenyanobama and not far-left opebo?

[King]

Jesus Christ, the Atlas gets easily trolled these days. Embarassing.