Holding The Language Captive.....

[PoliticalChic]

And if an abortion fails and the child is born, it is an infant, is it not?

What is your point?

My point was you can't call it infanticide accurately if it's not an infant. I mean duh.

What I don't get the point of is your contrived scenario argument

Your post is exactly what I stated about holding the language captive.
It is exactly the same murder whether the child is in the birth canal or out.

Case in point:

par·tial-birth a·bor·tion
noun

1. a late-term abortion of a fetus that has already died, or is killed before being completely removed from the mother.

Is that partial infanticide????



And....Obama hired a "scientist" who extended 'abortion' until well after the birth of the child.

a. In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

b. “Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

c. Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.” Campus president condemns Coulter event, silent as professor who calls sex with animals potentially ‘satisfying’ speaks

As I pointed out, you're using the term "infanticide" when there is no infant involved. That is the only language skewering here. If you consider it "murder" that's fine, it's your opinion. But it's not infanticide unless an infant is killed

As I pointed out, you're using the term "infanticide" when there is no infant involved. That is the only language skewering here. If you consider it "murder" that's fine, it's your opinion. But it's not infanticide unless an infant is killed.

The world is upside down. Murderers and rapists get life in prison with the chance for parole, because somewhere in their life, they "MIGHT" change to the better. Here are born and unborn babies, being executed without any chance of proving themselves. It is a shame that more liberal mothers didn't abort their children. The world would be a better place.

I understand your point, but I can't agree with it.

First of all, Liberals don't have children....it's one of those results of the "I'm the only thing that counts' attitudes.

The more secular, the fewer the children.


1. A number of demographers, journalists, and sociologists have noted a strong correlation between religious values and fertility rates. The more frequent the church attendance, the higher the birthrate. "White fundamentalist Protestants" who attend services weekly show a fertility rate 27 percent higher than the national average. Mormons show twice the national birth rate.

2. David Brooks, in a New York Times opinion piece, calls this "little- known" movement natalism. The significant difference in fertility between the religious and the secular has some alarmed, notably Phillip Longman, author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. In the March 13, 2006, issue of USA Today, he solemnly warns that this disparity will continue to fuel the rise of "fundamentalism and social conservatism," which may herald the end of the culture war and nothing less than the "death of the Enlightenment.”
A Counter Trend—Sort Of