Home - List All Discussions

Texas teen tries to flush full term baby down toilet

Baby cries, later found dead

by: yoda

Texas Teenager Gives Birth To Full-Term Baby At School


(April 1, 2008) - A 14-year-old Houston-area girl gave birth to a full-term baby Wednesday at school, police say. The girl then allegedly attempted to flush the newborn down a toilet in a school restroom.
Students told police they heard the baby crying. The infant was found dead, authorities said. Police are treating the case as a homicide.
It happened at Cedar Bayou Junior High in Baytown. Other details weren't immediately available. Police are investigating.

full article: http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/17232314.html (chanel 10 News)
Other links: http://news.google.com/index.html?ned=tus&ncl=1147999636&hl=en&topic=n

reply from: kayluvzchoice

I think that is horrible. The girl obviously did know she was pregnant and she didn't have to kill it.
But just wondering, how does this help ban abortion?

reply from: faithman

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

reply from: kayluvzchoice

fm- Don't you have a clinic to bomb?

reply from: faithman

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

reply from: LolitaOlivia

At least it's not goatse. Sometimes, I think faithman is just a brilliant troll.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

It's horrible to try to flush a crying newborn baby down the toilet. What a welcome. This shows that Junior High students should have classes on how to value and respect human life.
She can spend the rest of her life in an orange jumpsuit looking through bars.

reply from: cracrat

There speaks the voices of compassion.
I understand she tried to kill newborn, but try and put yourself in her position. She's 14 and pregnant. I assume if she gave birth in school then nobody else knew about it. She's spent months trying to figure out what to do, with nobody to turn to. She's in school and goes into labour with still no idea of how to deal with this. She's absolutely terrified, she panics and does what any teenager does - get rid of the evidence. Yes she should be punished, but lay off heaping the opprobium upon her. She's only a little older than the children you're trying to save.

reply from: carolemarie

Please!
Texas has a law that enables moms who don't want the baby to leave it at a safe place (hospital or firestation) with no questions asked up to 90 days.
She could have called a Help center and gotten help months ago.
She could have left the baby on the floor, and not flushed it.
This is absolutely terrible and there is NO JUStification FOR WHAT SHE DID.

reply from: cracrat

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm asking you to put yourself in her shoes AS A 14 YEAR OLD CHILD. Not as the adult you are now, with all the knowledge and wisdom associated with that title, but a CHILD. She was no more capable of making a rational decision about what to do about her impending family as she would be about which boy she should bring home to meet her father

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Can't you visualize what mom actually did. She actually had a crying baby she tried to flush down the toilet; it seems it drown or broke it's neck. Baby, violently kill. Does any of that make sense?
Would your compassion would include getting out at 18 for this "mistake"?
It is a major, major step to try to cram a crying baby down the toilet and do your best to kill him or her.
The mother only has to wear the jumpsuit until her time in the jail comes to full-term. She will be treated much more humanely, lethal injection instead of drowning. Also, rather than being put in the trash or flushed, she can choose which box she wants to be put in for burial. I believe society should pay for the cost of her coffin and funeral services; something she didn't provide the child.

reply from: cracrat

Don't even get me started on your savage nation's adherence to barbarism AKA the death penalty. How can any person come to this site, proclaiming a respect for human life then tacitly approve of state sponsored MURDER.
BTW, did you realise that in most parts of the US it would be illegal to put down an animal in the same way as you put down criminals? The first drug paralyses the victim so that (s)he doesn't flop about in a manner that the ghoulish spectators would find distressing. It also stops the victim from indicating pain. Do that to a dog, you go to jail. Do it to a person, a "pro-lifer" congratulates you on dishing out what is deserved.
GodsLaw4Us2Live(except when it gets in the way of vengence). THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Babies or criminals. Bloody hypocrite.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Don't even get me started on your savage nation's adherence to barbarism AKA the death penalty. How can any person come to this site, proclaiming a respect for human life then tacitly approve of state sponsored MURDER.
BTW, did you realise that in most parts of the US it would be illegal to put down an animal in the same way as you put down criminals? The first drug paralyses the victim so that (s)he doesn't flop about in a manner that the ghoulish spectators would find distressing. It also stops the victim from indicating pain. Do that to a dog, you go to jail. Do it to a person, a "pro-lifer" congratulates you on dishing out what is deserved.
GodsLaw4Us2Live(except when it gets in the way of vengence). THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Babies or criminals. Bloody hypocrite.
A couple days ago I watched a documentary on America's first woman serial killer. It included her final interviews. She started doing sexual favors for boys at age 9. She chose to live as a homeless person at age 15. Her first husband she assualted with his walking stick. She had a woman live with her for lesbian acts. She was a hitchhiking hooker. She shot and killed 7 men.
When caught, she accused the men of trying to rape and abuse her. Later, she admitted that she knew as she was getting into the vehicle whether that man would be one she would shoot and rob. Later she confessed that she had to be executed, otherwise, she said she would kill again. The day before her execution she spent in a rage condemning society for railroading her and ripping her off. Ulimately, the right thing was done, she received a lethal injection. The Bible says that if anyone is a murderer, by man shall his blood be shed. Those in authority yield God's sword and they are commanded to execute murderers. Government's responsibilty is to get rid of murderers. You are wrong to call the Government a murderer for doing so.

reply from: jujujellybean

No it's not. He's had that link there forever, always the same. Do you not want to click on it because you dread seeing what you support killing?

reply from: cracrat

I could not give a rat's flying turd what the Bible says in relation to anything. I'm not well versed in it, though I was raised a Catholic so have a passing understanding of some of the important themes and stories. I am aware that any person who has read it thoroughly enough can contradict pretty much any part with another.
I have been attacked here because I don't believe a ban is the most effective way of reducing abortions. Fine. You all have your own view on how to achieve your ends and I have mine. But at least I'm consistant. I don't care who is doing the killing and who is being killed. Taking the life of another human being is wrong. Under any circumstances and in every situation. Rapist or saint, peadophile or unborn, Gandhi or Stalin. Nobody deserves to die by the hand of another. Whatever else people might convince me of, that view will never change.
Pro-life GodsLaw4Us2Live? Absolute rubbish. You are a disgusting, hypocritical, putrid excuse for a person.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

All of the things you mentioned were in the film. Yes, she testified that she was kicked out of her home. I believed that about as much as I believed her telling us she killed in self defense. As a rebellious and belligerent person, her surviving parent may not have been able to handle her. Plus there were accusations that her lawyer was incompetent and prison guards, police and others were going to profit from her story.
The film was done by a fellow who was sympathic to her cause and probably held the same views as you.
I didn't buy the BS. She was basically saying everyone else was at fault except her. I believe she was belligerant and rebellious. Unlike you and the documentary filmmaker, my perspective is that she is one for whom the death penalty is meant. I believe she had a lot to do with making her own bed. This blaming others doesn't cut it. She is the appropriate example for the death penalty.

reply from: cracrat

There is NEVER an "appropriate" example for the death penalty.
How can you campaign on behalf of unborn children on the one hand and support the killing born children on the other?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I could not give a rat's flying turd what the Bible says in relation to anything. I'm not well versed in it, though I was raised a Catholic so have a passing understanding of some of the important themes and stories. I am aware that any person who has read it thoroughly enough can contradict pretty much any part with another.
I have been attacked here because I don't believe a ban is the most effective way of reducing abortions. Fine. You all have your own view on how to achieve your ends and I have mine. But at least I'm consistant. I don't care who is doing the killing and who is being killed. Taking the life of another human being is wrong. Under any circumstances and in every situation. Rapist or saint, peadophile or unborn, Gandhi or Stalin. Nobody deserves to die by the hand of another. Whatever else people might convince me of, that view will never change.
Pro-life GodsLaw4Us2Live? Absolute rubbish. You are a disgusting, hypocritical, putrid excuse for a person.
And I imagine once the saints inherit the Kingdom, and they begin to rule the earth and Universe, they will let the wicked throw lightning bolts around and destroy the earth. The Bible says God will destroy those who destroy the earth. But you would have the timid rulers let the subjects destroy the creation because they cannot destroy those people who destroy the earth.
People can do damage, so much so, that life is impossible. The bad apples must be executed so life can flourish and not become extinct.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I could not give a rat's flying turd what the Bible says in relation to anything. I'm not well versed in it, though I was raised a Catholic so have a passing understanding of some of the important themes and stories. I am aware that any person who has read it thoroughly enough can contradict pretty much any part with another.
I have been attacked here because I don't believe a ban is the most effective way of reducing abortions. Fine. You all have your own view on how to achieve your ends and I have mine. But at least I'm consistant. I don't care who is doing the killing and who is being killed. Taking the life of another human being is wrong. Under any circumstances and in every situation. Rapist or saint, peadophile or unborn, Gandhi or Stalin. Nobody deserves to die by the hand of another. Whatever else people might convince me of, that view will never change.
Pro-life GodsLaw4Us2Live? Absolute rubbish. You are a disgusting, hypocritical, putrid excuse for a person.
And I imagine once the saints inherit the Kingdom, and they begin to rule the earth and Universe, they will let the wicked throw lightning bolts around and destroy the earth. The Bible says God will destroy those who destroy the earth. But you would have the timid rulers let the subjects destroy the creation because they cannot destroy those people who destroy the earth.
People can do damage, so much so, that life is impossible. The bad apples must be executed so life can flourish and not become extinct.

reply from: cracrat

By all means imprison them for the rest of their lives if their crime merits it. But nobody, nobody, has the right to decide that another person should die.

reply from: faithman

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nope. I've clicked on FM's links a few times now, and they all lead back to the same moronic site.

Only a fool would click on any of FM's links ever again.

reply from: carolemarie

I was 15 when I was pregnant for the first time. I know her shoes quite well.
There was no excuse for what she did....

reply from: cracrat

I'm not excusing her behaviour. But I can understand her being terrified of the consequences of having a child at 14. People can, and do, do astoundingly stupid things when their scared.
What happened to your child?

reply from: faithman

http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby11.html

reply from: carolemarie

She may have been scared, ...but she had 9 months to come up with some glimmer of a plan. She could have used the internet, made a phone call to get information to make a plan. Heck they run adds on tv about leaveing your baby in a safe place, no questions asked ...
She had choices other than flushing her baby down the toilet....
You should be able to see that.
If at 14 you have the legal right to decide to have an abortion you must have the abilibity to know that flushing living children down the toilet is an evil decision.

reply from: faithman

http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby11.html

reply from: faithman

There is NEVER an "appropriate" example for the death penalty.
How can you campaign on behalf of unborn children on the one hand and support the killing born children on the other?
http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby5.html

reply from: sander

There is NEVER an "appropriate" example for the death penalty.
How can you campaign on behalf of unborn children on the one hand and support the killing born children on the other?
If the distinction between killing a defensless child who couldn't even hold a bottle and an adult who deliberatley murders another human being is lost on you then you've got bigger problems than you realize.
Nobody is supporting the killing of born children, there is a difference between a child and an adult. Surely, even you know that.
This girl who murdered her newborn deserves the full extent of the law, unless she is legally found insane. Then the law/state even provides for her care.
I don't care what age she is, she knows when her period has stopped, and a defense that says she didn't know is ludicrous on it's face.
All charged then convicted murderers are given due process. That is the very thing their victims never receive, never mind the almost always gruesome ways their victims die.
So, the convicted murderer gets some shots...cry me a river.
There is something fundamentally wrong with your views. On the one hand you think killing babies in the womb is wrong, but hey...it's everyone's personal choice, so go ahead and let the baby die a tortureous hideous death.
Yet you scream bloody blue murder when a convicted adult receives his or her just punishment, usually 12-20 years after the crime was committed.
Fairness should play a part in everyone's thinking process, yours is messed up.

reply from: sander

What voice of compassion did the baby hear?

reply from: cracrat

I'm really not defending her actions. I'm just not willing to write off the girl as an evil child because of a mistake she's made, albeit a horrifying one.
Between you deciding she's capable of evil at 14, GodsLaw4Us2Live advocating the lethal injection and Sander telling me that compromises which might save lives are unacceptable, I'm beginning to wonder how much compassion really exists in this group.
What happened to your child at 15?

reply from: faithman

All who think killing womb children is a horible crime...http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html

reply from: cracrat

I am aware of the differences, but they are still both people. I don't care waht they have or haven't done, nobody deserves to die.
Yes you are. Everybody is someones child.
Anybody who is convicted of a crime deserves to be punished. But any law that punishes murder with murder is vengence, not justice.
I have no idea what her defense will be (was). I'm not justifying what she's done. But I am abundantly aware of the stupidity that can take hold when fear really sets in. Judging any action is exceedingly easy with hindsight.
You Americans do so love your due process. Apart from that, what separates the murder commited from the murderous punishment?
When a person's death, any death, no longer evokes any emotion or sympathy, something tragic is happening somewhere inside you.
My views are perfectly fair. It doesn't matter who is doing the dying, I will stand against it. We have no capital crimes in this country so I need expend no effort changing that. We do still have children dying via abortions so I expend effort to change that.

reply from: sander

What effort??? At the same time you support a women's "choice" and "right" to make her own decsion on the life and death of her own child.
You don't get it both ways, no matter how you try and twist it.
You admit to being pro-chioce...you're stuck with the hypocricy.

reply from: cracrat

What effort??? At the same time you support a women's "choice" and "right" to make her own decsion on the life and death of her own child.
You don't get it both ways, no matter how you try and twist it.
You admit to being pro-chioce...you're stuck with the hypocricy.
You don't have the slightest clue what effort I have or haven't expended to encourage people to make the right choice. You are in absolutely no position to judge me. I'm no hypocrite, I mean what I say and act by my conscience. The simple fact that I can see execution as being just as immoral as abortion tells me you're the murderous viper in this conversation, not me.

reply from: sander

So, why don't you enlighten us? Seems to me you've all ready said all you do is talk.
Yes, you are indeed a hypocrite. You said, by your own words, with your very own mouth you are PRO-CHOICE! Therefore, you are very much FOR the murder of defensless children in the womb. Period.
So, your conscience says the murder of defensless children is fine.
Yes, I see that your simple fact is that convicted adults facing the consequenses of their crime of murder is immoral, but you support a women's right to choose to murder her own child.
I understand you need to lash out at me, it's projecting, but it still doesn't erase the fact that you are for the murder of the innocent and against just punishment of the convicted.
You've created a real dilema for yourself...but, you're on your own with that one.

reply from: cracrat

As I have posted elsewhere, I have engaged in debate at uni, signed petitions to the government, argued with innumerable people, I have writen letters to Members of Parliament. What else would you have me do? Run amok in a clinic, knocking things over till they arrest me?
Yes, I am pro-choice but I am staunchly anti-abortion. I don't know why you people find this part so hard to understand.
Any murder is immoral.
I have and will continue to try and convince people of this. That includes with respect to abortion. I will not waste my energies pushing for a ban which will never come in and would not be, in my opinion, the most effective way of stopping babies dying.

reply from: sander

We're not the ones finding it hard to do the understanding.
It's pretty basic, you cannot possibly be FOR abortion while you're AGAINST it at the very same time.
A small child could see the difference. It's a dilema for sure, but like I said, you're the one left with trying to justify it.

reply from: 4given

How horrible! And to think that if she visited the clinic run by Tiller, she would have been found unwell enough to have her child aborted without any legal consequences. I can only imagine what it must have been to hear that child cry from the next stall. How traumatizing that must have been to those that found the baby! How sad!

reply from: Skippy

Don't sweat it. This girl won't be executed. Most likely, she won't even be tried as an adult.

reply from: faithman

Don't sweat it. This girl won't be executed. Most likely, she won't even be tried as an adult.
All who think Skippy is a borty scum bag..http://]http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html OOOOOOOOHHH!!! Skippy the scum bag it is!!!!

reply from: 4given

Her age is not an excuse for her actions. This is a human life- not a bag of weed. In the US we have safe haven laws where women can drop off their child at any police station, hospital or fire station (I imagine that an abandoned child in a school building would be treated the same) without any questions asked. She did not try to kill a newborn- she killed a child! Her despair doesn't justify what she did. I hope this young girl gets the help she so desperately needs. I imagine many women that have aborted their children, did so out of the same desperation you describe. It does not make it right though. It is really sad.

reply from: carolemarie

I'm really not defending her actions. I'm just not willing to write off the girl as an evil child because of a mistake she's made, albeit a horrifying one.
Between you deciding she's capable of evil at 14, GodsLaw4Us2Live advocating the lethal injection and Sander telling me that compromises which might save lives are unacceptable, I'm beginning to wonder how much compassion really exists in this group.
What happened to your child at 15?
Everyone is capable of evil.
It is more than a mistake, to flush a living child down the toilet! That is a vicious thing to do. I don't think she should be put to death because she is 14 and can be rehabilitated. She obviously needs serious help....and being in a treatment facility till she is 18 will make sure she gets that help.

reply from: sander

Wait a minute, if she needs serious help and a treatment facility, why do mothers who abort their children get off scott free?
You're advocating treatment and a stint in a state run mental facility for one set of mothers and nothing for another set of mothers. Why so?
That's pretty double minded.

reply from: carolemarie

Wait a minute, if she needs serious help and a treatment facility, why do mothers who abort their children get off scott free?
You're advocating treatment and a stint in a state run mental facility for one set of mothers and nothing for another set of mothers. Why so?
That's pretty double minded.
Seriously???
Abortion is legal, a point that you seem to forget, so why would anyone punish people who are obeying the law...
Drowning your newborn in a toilet isn't legal, and is seriously depraved and she OBVIOUSLY needs help.
The two acts are NOT the same thing at all

reply from: sander

The end result is the same! Does that miss you entirely?
Just because something isn't against the law doesn't make it right, now does it?
Unless of course you think that abortion being legal is just fine. Which by the way you double speak makes sense.
But, you don't want women to face any consequenses even when abortion becomes illegal.
You are double minded. Deal with it.

reply from: sander

I don't know why I missed this little gem:
Egads! You make it sound like women who don't abort are dis-obeying the law! It's stunning!
My how you seem to want that law protected.

reply from: carolemarie

Egads! You make it sound like women who don't abort are dis-obeying the law! It's stunning!
My how you seem to want that law protected.
I neither said nor implied that at all. Let me make it simple so you can grasp this.
We are talking about a 14 year old who gave birth to a child and drowned it in a toilet. This is called murder, it is a crime. I think she is obviously crazy and needs long term help, which she would get while in custody. We don't give 14 year olds the death penelty here in Texas.
Women or 14 year old girls who get abortions are not breaking any law, so we don't get to punish them, or make them get help.

reply from: sander

Egads! You make it sound like women who don't abort are dis-obeying the law! It's stunning!
My how you seem to want that law protected.
I neither said nor implied that at all. Let me make it simple so you can grasp this.
We are talking about a 14 year old who gave birth to a child and drowned it in a toilet. This is called murder, it is a crime. I think she is obviously crazy and needs long term help, which she would get while in custody. We don't give 14 year olds the death penelty here in Texas.
Women or 14 year old girls who get abortions are not breaking any law, so we don't get to punish them, or make them get help.
Of course that's what you said and implied...read it again:
so why would anyone punish people who are obeying the law
If you meant to say someone aborting isn't breaking the law then say it, don't say
if she is she is just obeying the law...egads, how dense can one be?????
And who said she should get the death penalty? I sure didn't. I said she should face the full extent of the law. If that doesn't include the death penalty, then so be it.
But, why should she get any punishment? Why should she have to face a court of law at all, why should she be made to get treatment? She was just doing what other women do, she just waited til the baby was born.

reply from: carolemarie

Egads! You make it sound like women who don't abort are dis-obeying the law! It's stunning!
My how you seem to want that law protected.
I neither said nor implied that at all. Let me make it simple so you can grasp this.
We are talking about a 14 year old who gave birth to a child and drowned it in a toilet. This is called murder, it is a crime. I think she is obviously crazy and needs long term help, which she would get while in custody. We don't give 14 year olds the death penelty here in Texas.
Women or 14 year old girls who get abortions are not breaking any law, so we don't get to punish them, or make them get help.
Of course that's what you said and implied...read it again:
so why would anyone punish people who are obeying the law
If you meant to say someone aborting isn't breaking the law then say it, don't say
if she is she is just obeying the law...egads, how dense can one be?????
And who said she should get the death penalty? I sure didn't. I said she should face the full extent of the law. If that doesn't include the death penalty, then so be it.
But, why should she get any punishment? Why should she have to face a court of law at all, why should she be made to get treatment? She was just doing what other women do, she just waited til the baby was born.
I am sorry my statement wasn't up to your high standards. I wasn't aware of any grammar police on this board...
She BROKE the law. That is why she is in trouble. That's why she will be punished. There was no reason to do this to that poor little baby! She had other choices than drowning a newborn in a toilet....and she had to pickup her baby and put it in the toilet and drown it herself....that is depraved and it is not even remotely like getting an abortion....if you can't see that you need mental help...

reply from: sander

When you're speaking to someone, it's important to make yourself clear.
If you have a problem with that, oh well.
Well, that's rich. I need mental help because you think putting a baby in a toilet is worse than laying down to allow an abortionist to rip your baby's head off, perhaps snap his or her spine, crush the skull, suck out the brains....
Carol, I sincerely hope you will allow God to show you that we can think we can be sincere in our beliefs but we can be sincerely wrong.
I'm no exception, but I do know that God does not view a few inches of skin and muscle to determine murdering a child is equally as wrong as one putting their child in a toilet versus having their skulls crushed, etc.

reply from: carolemarie

When you're speaking to someone, it's important to make yourself clear.
If you have a problem with that, oh well.
Well, that's rich. I need mental help because you think putting a baby in a toilet is worse than laying down to allow an abortionist to rip your baby's head off, perhaps snap his or her spine, crush the skull, suck out the brains....
Carol, I sincerely hope you will allow God to show you that we can think we can be sincere in our beliefs but we can be sincerely wrong.
I'm no exception, but I do know that God does not view a few inches of skin and muscle to determine murdering a child is equally as wrong as one putting their child in a toilet versus having their skulls crushed, etc.
I never said abortion wasn't wrong. Never. Not once. I know it is wrong.
I said it isn't the same thing as what this gal did.
There is a big difference between taking a 9 month old born child and drowning it in a toilet than having an abortion.
If you are unable to recognize the difference between the two things you do have problems. I suggest you deal with them.
There is also a difference between having an abortion and killing a 7 year old in case you didn't know that either. Also a big difference in killing a 30 year old and in having an abortion.

reply from: sander

Yes, there sure is a difference, it's age. But there is also a commonality, it's called murder.
You need to deal with that.

reply from: joe

For all of the pro-life advocates that support carolemarie....she is guilty before God and her words testify to this fact.
The defense of the unborn is the obligation of every Christian and those that care more about someones feelings than the truth are wrong.
True Christians serve God and truth. Abortion is one of the most horrific sins of mankind, let us not be guilty before the One that can save our souls.

reply from: carolemarie

No Sandler, the difference is legality and personal involvement.

reply from: sander

You call yourself a Christian, so I won't say you're hopelessly blind.
But, your darn near.
The difference is age, the commonality is murder.
Doesn't matter the age, God said we shall not murder. He never gave the caveat that it would fine as long as eartly law calls it legal.

reply from: carolemarie

I AM a Christian.
I feel the same way about you. You are willfully twisting anything I say to have something to complain about.
All I said was that this act of drowning a 9 month old newborn was depraved and not the same thing as an abortion. I never said abortion was okay, or that it wasn't a bad thing. I simply stated this was depraved and worse, since the mother did the killing herself. To look into the eyes of a baby and drown it, is evil.
I never said that abortion was okay with God, and how you get that from my statement is another example of you having an imaginary debate over something that wasn't said. All I pointed out is that I don't have two standards, breaking the law gets you punished and abortion is legal. Drowning your baby in a toilet isn't legal..
Ifyou are unable to realize that abortion and drowning your 9 month old in the toilet are two different things, then you have a problem with reality. It doesn't make abortion okay torecognize that drowning a baby in a toilet is different than obtaining an abortion.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

This post illustrates the problem. The proposed view is that looking a crying baby in the face while killing it is worse that killing a baby in the womb that you can't see and hear. Out of sight, out of mind. Not visible, not in your face, so not as bad. Must not exist or be reality, I don't see it!
Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a baby out of the womb.

reply from: carolemarie

This post illustrates the problem. The proposed view is that looking a crying baby in the face while killing it is worse that killing a baby in the womb that you can't see and hear. Out of sight, out of mind. Not visible, not in your face, so not as bad. Must not exist or be reality, I don't see it!
Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a baby out of the womb.
Of course it is!!!!
Nobody would get an abortion if they were the ones who had to look into their childs eyes then kill it. Abortion would stop overnight.

reply from: Faramir

This post illustrates the problem. The proposed view is that looking a crying baby in the face while killing it is worse that killing a baby in the womb that you can't see and hear. Out of sight, out of mind. Not visible, not in your face, so not as bad. Must not exist or be reality, I don't see it!
Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a baby out of the womb.
The person who aborts out of ingorance is less culpable than someone who has no excuse for ignorance, such as someone holding a child.

reply from: 4given

So you are only excused for the sake of ignorance if you are not holding a child? What about those that know what abortion does to a baby? Those that realize a baby is being ripped apart within the safety of its mother's womb?

reply from: Faramir

So you are only excused for the sake of ignorance if you are not holding a child? What about those that know what abortion does to a baby? Those that realize a baby is being ripped apart within the safety of its mother's womb?
I'm not suggesting igorance cancels out the injustice. Any abortion is unjust.
But if someone has been deceived into thinking her abortion is just removing a blob of stuff, she is not on the same level as someone holding a baby in her hands and drowning it.
But to answer your question, I would agree if a person knows what she's doing, she's just as culpbable as the one who drowns a baby.

reply from: 4given

JESUS I plead YOUR BLOOD over my sins and the sins of my Nation. LORD END ABORTION. Send revival to America.

reply from: sander

Do you agree that this group of women would have to be very small?
I'm trying to imagine how in this day and age ANYONE would not KNOW they are carrying a tiny human being.
The only legitimate reason I can think of would be someone who was mentally challenged and/or someone who was very young.
Anyone outside of those paramaters would have to be willfully ignorant and I don't believe that counts.
I could see that just after RvW became law there was not enough info available, but not now.

reply from: sander

You actually said more than the act of drowning a 9 month old newborn was depraved, you made age a progression of cupilbility.
I'm not twisting your words, I'm only addressing exactly what you said.
I don't think you like them challenged.
Dear, I'm not the one with the reality problem, for your sake, I wish it were so.
The end result of drowing a child and aborting a child is the same; a gruesome death undeserved and equally murdered.
You cling to earthly laws, fine. But, then don't act surprised and insulted when Christians point out that God's laws supercede all man made laws.

reply from: faithman

All who think CM is a confused, self justified, perverter of justice, with hidden agendas that endanger personhood for the womb child...http://www.armyofgod.com/Baby12.html [click blue text for results.]

reply from: sander

This post illustrates the problem. The proposed view is that looking a crying baby in the face while killing it is worse that killing a baby in the womb that you can't see and hear. Out of sight, out of mind. Not visible, not in your face, so not as bad. Must not exist or be reality, I don't see it!
Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a baby out of the womb.
Of course it is!!!!
Nobody would get an abortion if they were the ones who had to look into their childs eyes then kill it. Abortion would stop overnight.
Your argument falls flat.
Seeing the baby didn't stop this mother from murderering her child, now did it?
The same cold heart that murderes the child in the womb is the same cold heart that murders the child they can see.

reply from: carolemarie

This post illustrates the problem. The proposed view is that looking a crying baby in the face while killing it is worse that killing a baby in the womb that you can't see and hear. Out of sight, out of mind. Not visible, not in your face, so not as bad. Must not exist or be reality, I don't see it!
Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a baby out of the womb.
Of course it is!!!!
Nobody would get an abortion if they were the ones who had to look into their childs eyes then kill it. Abortion would stop overnight.
Your argument falls flat.
Seeing the baby didn't stop this mother from murderering her child, now did it?
The same cold heart that murderes the child in the womb is the same cold heart that murders the child they can see.
It didn't stop her because it isn't the same thing! She is crazy.
Maybe you can get it this way....
If you get drunk and drive your car into another person and kill them it is not the same thing as taking a pick aze and hacking a person to death.
Both actions are your fault. Both actions killed someone. But they are not the same! The pick axe killer is more depraved...

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

This post illustrates the problem. The proposed view is that looking a crying baby in the face while killing it is worse that killing a baby in the womb that you can't see and hear. Out of sight, out of mind. Not visible, not in your face, so not as bad. Must not exist or be reality, I don't see it!
Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing a baby out of the womb.
Of course it is!!!!
Nobody would get an abortion if they were the ones who had to look into their childs eyes then kill it. Abortion would stop overnight.
Your argument falls flat.
Seeing the baby didn't stop this mother from murderering her child, now did it?
The same cold heart that murderes the child in the womb is the same cold heart that murders the child they can see.
It didn't stop her because it isn't the same thing! She is crazy.
Maybe you can get it this way....
If you get drunk and drive your car into another person and kill them it is not the same thing as taking a pick aze and hacking a person to death.
Both actions are your fault. Both actions killed someone. But they are not the same! The pick axe killer is more depraved...
There is just about nothing I hate worse than a drunk driver on the road. I've been run off the road several times and drivers would have hit me head on several times if I had not taken evasive action. A worthless drunk on the road who slams into a car carrying a family, killing mom, dad and kids is the worst of creatures. The drunk's actions are as depraved as an axe murderers. Drunks are an "accident" that will eventually happen. Their neligent actions will result in death and/or injury. They are as depraved as axe murderers; it's just that their bulb is too dim to figure that out; they actually think getting sloshed is okay. I am furious that these low-lifers are on the road endangering the lives of my family members.

reply from: carolemarie

They are not the same act.
It is dishonest and untrue to insist that they are.

reply from: Teresa18

This is horrendous. How can a girl to look her living, breathing, crying child in the eyes and toss the child into a toilet? Just a day before, this child could have been legally killed at Dr. Tiller's while the feminazis cheered "women's rights!" outside. The only difference in this and abortion is that killing a born child is legal while abortion is illegal. The difference boils down to size, level of development, and location.
There was mention of the death penalty in this thread. I agree with the Catholic Church's position that we should generally keep them in prison for life unless they are still thought to be too large of a threat. Serial killers like Ted Bundy or violent rapists/molestors would qualify for the death penalty.
Cracrat:
Your support for abortion makes no sense in light of this statement. You admit that a person is dying in abortion, yet it is a situation where you think a woman has the right to decide whether the child should die.

reply from: carolemarie

Your support for abortion makes no sense in light of this statement. You admit that a person is dying in abortion, yet it is a situation where you think a woman has the right to decide whether the child should die.

reply from: sander

Both end in the same result, death.
Both should face the full extent of the law, wouldn't you agree?

reply from: carolemarie

But abortion is legal, there is no punishment under the law. So comparing the two actions is like comparing oranges and apples.

reply from: cracrat

Your support for abortion makes no sense in light of this statement. You admit that a person is dying in abortion, yet it is a situation where you think a woman has the right to decide whether the child should die.
By default, by opposing a ban on abortion, I support open-access to abortion. In no way do I believe it to be the right choice, except in the most difficult times. In no way would I encourage anybody to have an abortion.
We live in on demand societies. The various methods of terminating an unwanted pregnancy exist. Changing the legality of the procedure will not get rid of demand and, in my opinion, will not reduce abortion rates as far as possible.

reply from: sander

Well, now you just changed the subject I was replying to:
Your scenerio depicts an ax murderer and a drunk driver.
So, let me ask you again, (remember, both are the same kind of fruit), should they BOTH face the extent of the law?

reply from: 4given

Deciding to get behind the wheel of an automobile while intoxicated, is knowingly *risking* death and injury to another, or oneself. Deciding to hack someone to death inside or out of the womb is knowingly *sentencing* another person to death. One has potential for death and injury, the other has a definite consequence of death. The pick axe/abortion scenario is worse.

reply from: carolemarie

Sure. Both are against the law and both have penalties attached to violating them. Takinga pick axe to someone is far worse and the sentance reflexs that.
They are not the same thing and the law recognizes that.

reply from: yoda

Wait..... you read the article and diagnosed her as "insane" from that?
It's not possible that a sane 14 year old girl would be so cruel and heartless that she would try to flush her baby to keep anyone from knowing about her pregnancy? That isn't even a possibility?

reply from: yoda

This is getting interesting.
Is there a "big difference" between killing a 7 year old and killing a 30 year old?

reply from: yoda

My personal belief is that any girl who is old enough to get pregnant is old enough to know what a baby is, and that an abortion kills it. She may pretend to be "ignorant", and pretend to believe proabort lies, but she knows.

reply from: yoda

True, the difference is in the certainty of knowledge that the death of an innocent person will result from your actions.
But abortion is not like driving drunk, it is like using a pick axe.

reply from: sander

Right. Good answer.
But, abortion doesn't deserve any punishment for the mother, even though she is participating in that act?
That's where I can't figure out your mindset.
If the law changes and the child is reconized as a person, then laws should be equal. Punishment should fit the crime, just as we discussed with the driver and pix axe.
This is where you have me stumped.
I don't see the fairness in your legal doctrines and I believe we should always be fair.

reply from: yoda

Your support of "open-access to abortion" IS a form of encouragement to have an abortion. If you cannot see that, then you are willfully blind.
No one action will reduce abortion rates "as far as possible", it will take a variety of actions to do that. But making it a crime to kill a baby is an excellent first step, for all those who actually oppose baby killing.

reply from: sander

This is getting interesting.
Is there a "big difference" between killing a 7 year old and killing a 30 year old?
That's what I thought!
How do you reasons with that kind of logic????

reply from: sander

Your support of "open-access to abortion" IS a form of encouragement to have an abortion. If you cannot see that, then you are willfully blind.
No one action will reduce abortion rates "as far as possible", it will take a variety of actions to do that. But making it a crime to kill a baby is an excellent first step, for all those who actually oppose baby killing.
There's another one whose logic defies reasoning!
How do you support and not support at the very same time and think you come off as logical, reasonable or have the sense God gave geese, for that matter???

reply from: carolemarie

Wait..... you read the article and diagnosed her as "insane" from that?
It's not possible that a sane 14 year old girl would be so cruel and heartless that she would try to flush her baby to keep anyone from knowing about her pregnancy? That isn't even a possibility?
No.

reply from: carolemarie

This is getting interesting.
Is there a "big difference" between killing a 7 year old and killing a 30 year old?
no

reply from: carolemarie

My personal belief is that any girl who is old enough to get pregnant is old enough to know what a baby is, and that an abortion kills it. She may pretend to be "ignorant", and pretend to believe proabort lies, but she knows.
You may believe that but it doesn't make it true.

reply from: carolemarie

This is getting interesting.
Is there a "big difference" between killing a 7 year old and killing a 30 year old?
That's what I thought!
How do you reasons with that kind of logic????
killing pre-born persons and born person are different things. That was the point of the post. Not killing 7 years vs 30 year olds.

reply from: sander

You do realize the same could be said about your arugment to the contrary?
So, where does that leave the babies in question? Dead.
As usual, they pay for everyone's excuses, beliefs and opinions.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics