Infanticide

[Nick_A]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429

A new set of bills under consideration in the Maryland House and Senate are raising eyebrows for what they would change in the law concerning mothers who abandon their newborns to die either because they no longer want the child or are unable to care for their baby.

Maryland Senate Bill 669 and House Bill 626, dubbed the "Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022," not only erase women by adopting the left's gender-confused newspeak that ludicrously assumes men can get pregnant but, as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained in its analysis of the legislation, "the bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion."

In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide. The exact language of the bill states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.” (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death. The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.

As the ACLJ — which is preparing to testify against the bill — also notes, "Because the language that is used is without clear definition, the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!" under the medical definition of "perinatal" that ranges from 7 to 28 days.............

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

[Age]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429

A new set of bills under consideration in the Maryland House and Senate are raising eyebrows for what they would change in the law concerning mothers who abandon their newborns to die either because they no longer want the child or are unable to care for their baby.

Maryland Senate Bill 669 and House Bill 626, dubbed the "Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022," not only erase women by adopting the left's gender-confused newspeak that ludicrously assumes men can get pregnant but, as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained in its analysis of the legislation, "the bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion."

In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide. The exact language of the bill states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.” (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death. The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.

As the ACLJ — which is preparing to testify against the bill — also notes, "Because the language that is used is without clear definition, the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!" under the medical definition of "perinatal" that ranges from 7 to 28 days.............

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same.

Can you not find ANY way AT ALL how a human body living WITHIN another human body is NOT objectively DIFFERENT from a human body which is living OUTSIDE of another human body?

So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

What does a 'mother' 'need'? And,

Does this apply to EVERY 'mother'?

Also, where do you, so-call, 'draw the line'? And,

Should EVERY one 'draw the SAME line' as you do?

Furthermore, I suggest that if you are going to make claims like: "The exact language of the bill states:", then you do NOT add ANY 'thing', including ANY emphasis AT ALL.

Now, WHY can the 'mother' and the 'father' of the human being instead of just KILLING 'it' not just put an advertisement in the local paper, or on the internet, and see if ANY one else would like this 'newish human being', BEFORE they got RID of 'it' through KILLING 'it'?

There might be someone else on earth who might like a 'newish baby', and so it could just be a WASTE to just think that KILLING a baby is the ONLY possible way around this situation. If 'this mother' does NOT want 'this baby', then there might be 'another human being' who wants to look after and care for this 'smaller human being'.

It might saves the "parents" having to buy a gun, or a knife, or even a brick, and so just getting RID of the 'human being' by just handing 'it' over to some loving and caring human beings might be just EASIER, and CHEAPER and CLEANER.

Or, do you reckon its still just simpler and easier to KILL an up to seven, or 28, day old HUMAN BEING instead?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Poor religofuck can't tell the difference between a 7 day old baby and a 24 week old foetus, which is about the earliest a foetus can survive outside its mother and even then it will need medical intervention.

[Nick_A]

Age asks

What does a 'mother' 'need'? And,

The self esteem and the opportunity to become all she can be


Does this apply to EVERY 'mother'?

No, some are prevented from doing so by psychological repression

Also, where do you, so-call, 'draw the line'? And,

Why do you believe some man like me must draw the line referring to a woman's ability to be?

Should EVERY one 'draw the SAME line' as you do?

No, all women are different but all have the same potential to become themselves

[RCSaunders]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429

A new set of bills under consideration in the Maryland House and Senate are raising eyebrows for what they would change in the law concerning mothers who abandon their newborns to die either because they no longer want the child or are unable to care for their baby.

Maryland Senate Bill 669 and House Bill 626, dubbed the "Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022," not only erase women by adopting the left's gender-confused newspeak that ludicrously assumes men can get pregnant but, as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained in its analysis of the legislation, "the bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion."

In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide. The exact language of the bill states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.” (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death. The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.

As the ACLJ — which is preparing to testify against the bill — also notes, "Because the language that is used is without clear definition, the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!" under the medical definition of "perinatal" that ranges from 7 to 28 days.............

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

[promethean75]

"And thus Saunders counsels you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangmen and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had—power.

Generally speaking, punishment makes men hard and cold; it concentrates; it sharpens the feeling of alienation; it strengthens the power of resistance" - FN

[Sculptor]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429

A new set of bills under consideration in the Maryland House and Senate are raising eyebrows for what they would change in the law concerning mothers who abandon their newborns to die either because they no longer want the child or are unable to care for their baby.

Maryland Senate Bill 669 and House Bill 626, dubbed the "Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022," not only erase women by adopting the left's gender-confused newspeak that ludicrously assumes men can get pregnant but, as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained in its analysis of the legislation, "the bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion."

In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide. The exact language of the bill states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.” (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death. The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.

As the ACLJ — which is preparing to testify against the bill — also notes, "Because the language that is used is without clear definition, the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!" under the medical definition of "perinatal" that ranges from 7 to 28 days.............

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

My view is the you should take more care in your choice of news media.
This is just childish polemic, misdirection and staw man arguing. You might want to get a life?

[Sculptor]

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/ ... ?ys=2022RS

Not exactly as characterised by the media posted in the OP

[Nick_A]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429

A new set of bills under consideration in the Maryland House and Senate are raising eyebrows for what they would change in the law concerning mothers who abandon their newborns to die either because they no longer want the child or are unable to care for their baby.

Maryland Senate Bill 669 and House Bill 626, dubbed the "Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022," not only erase women by adopting the left's gender-confused newspeak that ludicrously assumes men can get pregnant but, as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained in its analysis of the legislation, "the bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion."

In other words – this bill will effectively legalize infanticide. The exact language of the bill states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.” (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death. The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.

As the ACLJ — which is preparing to testify against the bill — also notes, "Because the language that is used is without clear definition, the bill could prevent any investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!" under the medical definition of "perinatal" that ranges from 7 to 28 days.............

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

You are referring to primitive thinking. Now we've learned through education that we should be celebrating this need for freedom and justice we used to desire to punish. A baby of several days old is as defenseless as a fetus and cannot contribute anything for society. We know the fetus can only be given worth by the mother. It is the same with the newborn. Infanticide is just the normal progression of the conception of value.

[Walker]

...

Every day it's getting tougher for kids to make a go of it.
Putin is also targeting Ukrainian children.

It's almost like some kind of animal law to thin the herd.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429



Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

You are referring to primitive thinking. Now we've learned through education that we should be celebrating this need for freedom and justice we used to desire to punish. A baby of several days old is as defenseless as a fetus and cannot contribute anything for society. We know the fetus can only be given worth by the mother. It is the same with the newborn. Infanticide is just the normal progression of the conception of value.

It's not as defenceless as a FOETUS, you illiterate fuck. A woman can end the life of HER foetus at any time, whether or not it means ending her own life (which frequently happens, much to your joy), and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Once birth occurs then anyone could look after it using modern formulas. Even after birth, without those formulas, a mother can easily end the life of her baby simply by with-holding feeding. Often women had no other option. Does that 'power' bother your tiny little male religioturd 'brain'?

[RCSaunders]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbr ... e-n2604429



Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

You are referring to primitive thinking.

It's not my thinking. It's the OP that complained that, "nothing could be done to punish those who participated," which I think is absurd. How could punishment of any kind change anything for the better?

[Nick_A]

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

You are referring to primitive thinking. Now we've learned through education that we should be celebrating this need for freedom and justice we used to desire to punish. A baby of several days old is as defenseless as a fetus and cannot contribute anything for society. We know the fetus can only be given worth by the mother. It is the same with the newborn. Infanticide is just the normal progression of the conception of value.

It's not as defenceless as a FOETUS, you illiterate fuck. A woman can end the life of HER foetus at any time, whether or not it means ending her own life (which frequently happens, much to your joy), and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Once birth occurs then anyone could look after it using modern formulas. Even after birth, without those formulas, a mother can easily end the life of her baby simply by with-holding feeding. Often women had no other option. Does that 'power' bother your tiny little male religioturd 'brain'?

You seem to have something against the freedom to kill. Of course a woman can nourish a fetus while inside her and nourish a baby after birth. A woman can also kill a fetus while within her and also cause its death after birth. This is the freedom to kill. Do you have anything against a woman's right to choose as the most important consideration?

[RCSaunders]

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

You are referring to primitive thinking. Now we've learned through education that we should be celebrating this need for freedom and justice we used to desire to punish. A baby of several days old is as defenseless as a fetus and cannot contribute anything for society. We know the fetus can only be given worth by the mother. It is the same with the newborn. Infanticide is just the normal progression of the conception of value.

It's not as defenceless as a FOETUS, you illiterate fuck. A woman can end the life of HER foetus at any time, whether or not it means ending her own life (which frequently happens, much to your joy), and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Once birth occurs then anyone could look after it using modern formulas. Even after birth, without those formulas, a mother can easily end the life of her baby simply by with-holding feeding. Often women had no other option. Does that 'power' bother your tiny little male religioturd 'brain'?

Observing one thing you said that I always consider. In those cases where a women has no other choice (because there just isn't anything to feed the baby, for example) where the hell is the father (who's probably a good Christian anti-abotionist).

[Nick_A]

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

You are referring to primitive thinking.

It's not my thinking. It's the OP that complained that, "nothing could be done to punish those who participated," which I think is absurd. How could punishment of any kind change anything for the better?

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong. But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right? The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby? Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?