Courage is something you can't be afraid to have.
At least justice was served....her daughter deserved more than a horrible death.
Boy is that rich. "Likely conservative". Based on what? Your belief that conservatives want to see their children die?Meanwhile, "likely liberals" kill an average of 3,700 unborn children a day in the United States alone. Until you at least choose to engage in an honest debate as to why you defend such barbaric behaivior, you have no basis to accuse others of not respecting life.
And one more thing, I don't recall from your postings of the death of Christopher Thomas, that you described his guardian as "Probably Liberal", even though it would be as accurate as describing this person as "probably conservative".
Nope. Based on my belief that conservatives are generally much more wacky than liberals. You're right though. I probably should not be so harsh on the Neumanns. It was their choice.I'm fairly confident that Christopher Thomas' killer was apolitical.You know, Tony. What sort of debate do you want? The type that concedes every single point you make is correct? I have told you that I am for choice. Period. It matters not to me whatever scenario you want to bring up in defense of your stance. It is the woman's private decision with those she chooses to bring into the decision-making process. Period. It's none of your business or anyone elses.
No, I don't need you to agree with me on every point. And don't give me that it's none of your business or anyone elses. If that were the truly the case, then what Leilani Neumann did was none of your business or anyone elses. She was caring for her child as she saw fit and noone has the right to interfere with that. But you obviously believe that the government was correct to convict her for the death of her daughter. So why is it not the governments business to convict someone when they kill their unborn sons and daughters?If your whole defense of abortion is that it is legal, I can run off a whole list of things (starting with slavery and segragation) which were at one time legal. So for those who supported slavery in the mid 1800's or those who supported segragation in the early 1900's they could just say "well it's legal, so I support it. Period. It's none of your business or anyone elses to tell me what I decide to do with my slaves, or who I go to school with".What I expect is for you to come up with a reasoned arguement for your position, because from my point of view there is none.
Excellent point thurmlee.
Neumann was in the news and I saw fit to comment about the issue. Commenting about an issue is a far cry from working actively against a person's rights.Re abortion: What is so difficult about this, Tony? I did not say that I supported abortion because it was legal. That would indeed be a simplistic notion. I said I supported choice because it is not for me or you to determine how another person should make decisions in their private lives -- regardless of the amount of time a woman is pregnant.I hate abortion. I wish there were none. How about working to end poverty, enhancing education and providing more support options for pregnant women.
"It matters not to me whatever scenario you want to bring up in defense of your stance"Typical liberal response...It is so (puts fingers in ears) nyah nyah I can't hear you.You support and defend the right to kill other human beings and you can't even be bothered to present a decent arguement to support your position. Thats disgraceful.
Neumann was convicted by a jury, not the government.
"I said I supported choice because it is not for me or you to determine how another person should make decisions in their private lives".OK then, explain to me why going out and getting drunk and then driving home is illegal. If I choose to make that decision in my private life why should anyone else have the right to tell me I can't?
Society has the right to make laws that will protect society from the poor choices made by individuals.I have provided an argument. It's a private decision. That you continue to think you can dictate to another person how to make their own decisions regarding their own selves is what is disgraceful.
"Society has the right to make laws that will protect society from the poor choices made by individuals"Exactly. If a woman makes the choice to engage in activity which has consequences which may harm others (just as the drunk driver), society has the right to protect those others from her poor choices. Yet when it comes to abortion you continue to assert that society does not have the right to protect those who would be harmed by poor choices. As a liberal, I know you need to be reminded that actions do have consequences, and that you can't ignore them or get rid of them if they are inconvenient."I have provided an argument. It's a private decision." Except for the fact that the decision infringes on the rights of another person. Would you willingly give me the authority to decide if your daughters live or die? I thought not. Then how can you advocate giving that same decision making authority over someone else's child?
Society does not have the right to interfere in a woman's decisions about fertility and whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. "Then how can you advocate giving that same decision making authority over someone else's child?"There is no comparison. The mother's life was not in danger, there was no fertility issue or pregnancy to continue or terminate. She killed her child through inaction.You get the last word, Tony. This is getting us nowhere. Be polite, though. Please.
I would agree with your arguements if there were no others involved. But there are (it sure is nice to be able to ignore facts by hiding behind words like right to privacy and reproductive rights). Your arguement is centered around the rights of the mother, who (nearly all the time) has willingly participated in actions which she knows the potential consequenses of. Yet you deny any rights to the child (who through no fault of their own are in the position where someone else has the ultimate authority to determine if they live or die) and when pressed as to how you can justify denying their rights, all you can come up with is its a private decision. Unless you want to define the child as not human, there IS NO basis for denying their rights. But of course we both know that it is a human life. Therefore, by supporting the right to abortion, you are therefore authorizing the government the abililty to deny any rights to specific groups of people. That sounds a lot like the definition of slavery to me. Until you can convince me otherwise, I stand by my assertion that abortion is wrong, and should be illegal.
Thurm, buddy? Do you have any idea what "Staying on topic means?"
Grumps, no I don't, but its for the children, so its ok.