Take the political compass test and post your results, dammit.

[BooRadley]

Children are citizens. Our Constitution grants citizenship on birth.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I can't believe I'm asking this ridiculous question, but do you or do you not really believe that a parent has a right to kill their children up to 18 years of age?

I think in some instances it's a viable option. Bad children tend to be worse adults. Who better to decide than the parents?

[lily]

Children are citizens. Our Constitution grants citizenship on birth.

The whole "citizen" thing is a dumb, non-argument when it comes to the right to not be killed.

There is such a thing as human rights.

[BooRadley]

By the way, Ron Paul highjacked our thread. It didn't used to be about abortion, but about political alignment.

[BooRadley]

The whole "citizen" thing is a dumb, non-argument when it comes to the right to not be killed.

Most of us don't think you can be killed if you haven't been born.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Children are citizens. Our Constitution grants citizenship on birth.

Yes it does. Children are minors or less than an adult in the eyes of government.

[lily]

I think in some instances it's a viable option. Bad children tend to be worse adults. Who better to decide than the parents?

So Susan Smith, the mother who strapped her boys into the car, put it in drive and let it roll into the lake, for them to drown (remember her?) she had the "right" to do what she did, and shouldn't have gone to prison?

[lily]

Most of us don't think you can be killed if you haven't been born.

It's retarded to think that a moment before the baby's head emerges from the birth canal, it's not alive.

I thought we only had one person on this site (no names mentioned) who subscribed to that absurd, stupid belief.

[BooRadley]

It's retarded to think that a moment before the baby's head emerges from the birth canal, it's not alive.

I thought we only had one person on this site (no names mentioned) who subscribed to that absurd, stupid belief.

It's retarded to think that a moment after the zygote is fertilized, it's a human being.

I thought we only had one person on this site (no names mentioned) who subscribed to that absurd, stupid belief.

[Freedom&Liberty]

So Susan Smith, the mother who strapped her boys into the car, put it in drive and let it roll into the lake, for them to drown (remember her?) she had the "right" to do what she did, and shouldn't have gone to prison?

If the children's father agrees and both are of sound mind, why not? The only thing we can hope is that like abortion, it should be rare. Without this right we have the situation we have now. Where government can legally take children from parents for a swat on the ass in a grocery store. Where parents are locked up for letting 3 year olds run naked at a camp ground. Where government forces kids into the ineptitude's of a public school system. Do we have children so that government can raise them all the same? And parents have no rights? Parents should have the right to instill their values, morals and traditions into their children without interference from government, you or me. I see no better way to restore these rights to parents than to give them the right to kill their children, effectively taking government out of the picture.

[lily]

It's retarded to think that a moment after the zygote is fertilized, it's a human being.

I thought we only had one person on this site (no names mentioned) who subscribed to that absurd, stupid belief.

If you think I'm the only person who believes life starts at conception, then you don't get out much.

And it is undeniable that the baby (at ALL stages, starting from zygote to full term) is:

a) a member of the human species, Homo sapiens.

b) alive.

If you want to refute either of those, go ahead and try.


Now getting back to my point, which you totally dodged, (and misunderstood yet again, I noticed) it is silly and ignorant to think that the process of the baby's head coming out of the birth canal somehow magically creates the baby at that moment.

I don't want to explain the birds and the bees but the baby has been there for 9 months, it doesn't suddenly exist *ta-da!!* the moment of birth, so to use that as to say when life begins is yes, retarded, and totally out-dated thinking.

[lily]

If the children's father agrees and both are of sound mind, why not? The only thing we can hope is that like abortion, it should be rare. Without this right we have the situation we have now. Where government can legally take children from parents for a swat on the ass in a grocery store. Where parents are locked up for letting 3 year olds run naked at a camp ground. Where government forces kids into the ineptitude's of a public school system. Do we have children so that government can raise them all the same? And parents have no rights? Parents should have the right to instill their values, morals and traditions into their children without interference from government, you or me. I see no better way to restore these rights to parents than to give them the right to kill their children, effectively taking government out of the picture.

I feel nauseous. I hope you don't have children.

I'm speechless, so I'll let Alan talk to you for now.

[CCC]

I'm speechless, so I'll let Alan talk to you for now.

Naw, I'm done here with this tangent. What more can be said after what he just said?

Betty, back to you in the studio.

[fat mike]

he's playing games with you guys-heaven only knows waht he really thinks

[Freedom&Liberty]

I rarely post in abortion threads. The typical left/right debate is pointless.

[AlbertJ]

It's retarded to think that a moment before the baby's head emerges from the birth canal, it's not alive.

I thought we only had one person on this site (no names mentioned) who subscribed to that absurd, stupid belief.

A babys head does not, in fact, emerge from the birth canal.

There is no baby until the emergence takes place.

They call it it birth for a reason honey.

The whole "citizen" thing is a dumb, non-argument when it comes to the right to not be killed.

There is such a thing as human rights.

A deceased person is still "human".

[AlbertJ]

I rarely post in abortion threads. The typical left/right debate is pointless.

It can really be a good experience. You seem the type of person able to take a beating. You ought to try once in a while. It only gets personal when people call one another liars for no good reason. There is a lot of common ground, but it doesn't come out on the first few pages of a thread - usually anyway.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Liar!!!!

It's been done hundreds of times. No one changes their mind and no new information is imparted. My approach is to shock and awe people into submission. It seems to have worked.

[AlbertJ]

I support shock and awe.

[Plastik]

I like this, but a libertarian or any citizen also has to look at the other side of the equation and realize that the person inside of citizen, isn't a citizen yet. The mother should have the freedom to exercise complete control over her own body and anything within it without interference from anyone including government. The federal government should have never entangled itself in this mess.

The law doesn't protect 'citizens' from being murdered it protects everyone from it.

Again, authoritarian communists and anarcho-libertarians may bot agree 'it should be against the law to murder people', the difference is what they consider a 'person' not whether the government should be involved in something.

Whether or not an embryo is a person is not a political issue, it's a biological issue.