This sort of crap makes me sick.

Look, debate the effectiveness of a vaccine all you want, but...

Well, just read this.

Holy ****!

A loophole in state law is preventing Campbell County investigators from charging a woman they say killed her newborn baby.

Deputies were called to a home in the 1200 block of Lone Jack Road in Rustburg around 11:00a.m. Friday. The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor. When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1:00a.m., about ten hours earlier. Investigators say the baby was already dead when deputies got there.

Investigators tell WSLS the baby's airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

"In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.", says Investigator Tracy Emerson. "She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it's still
attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it's no crime in the state of Virginia."

The Campbell County Sheriff's Office and Commonwealth's Attorney's office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Emerson tells us there's a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.

The baby's grandmother was home and was the one who called 911. Police say she will not be charged because the baby was born in the middle of the night and the grandmother did not know until late morning. Investigators tell us the baby's father was upset when he showed up at the home after deputies.

"He was very upset. I think the grandparents were upset. I believe everyone was upset, except for the person who should have been upset, the mother.", says Emerson.

Emerson tells us the woman knew she was pregnant and had received prenatal care. He says the baby was full-term, due Tuesday. The medical examiner says the baby was born healthy. An autopsy is being performed. The baby's body will then be released to the family.

Link

Socialist Stupidity? Say it ain't so!

Zygotes are not eggs, and I clarified this in my first post, but this is the first time I have ever seen an embryo or fetus called an "egg".

They then go on to commit the sperm fallacy and quote a stupid argument debunked a thousand times.

Seriously, I think that five halves of my braincells died wen me reed funee articpdsalkfcdkddfffffffvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv...

Opposition to justice for Baby Velez

This kind of thing makes me struggle to not call the pro-abortion camp "anti-life". When they fight tooth-and-nail against things like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or expanding health care to the unborn or even allowing pregnant mothers to use deadly force in defense of their unborn children, they loose a lot of credibility.

The "Kill the Gays" Bill

Okay, Uganda is now considering the death penalty for homosexuality. Now, I think that Uganda is in Africa (I'm too lazy to look it up).

Regardless, this is just freaking stupid.

China bans physical punishment for internet addicts

I... guess this is good news?

I may have posted this before, but...

Morally equivalent does mean politically equivalent.

I am very, very, very offended by the assertion that I am "anti-choice". You claim I want others to follow my beliefs and that everyone should be allowed to follow their own conscience. This is the relativist fallacy. This is clearly not true; if the unborn have rights, it is the duty of every human being to respect those rights.

Some people think lynching is okay.

Some people thought slavery was okay.

Some people believe it is okay to fly planes into buildings to kill the infidel.

Clearly, this is not an issue of being "anti-choice". I take it that you do not oppose those laws criminalizing rape, or assault, or arson? Does that make YOU anti-choice? After all, that IS forcing others to follow your morality.

The claim that I am a terrorist is simply absurd. I have never attempted to make a government surrender by force. I am a pacifist.

My desire to have everybody respect the natural rights of every other human being does not make me a terrorist.

It makes me a humanist.

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that the author adds the caveat "as long as they don't hurt other people." Well, then. I guess he refuted his own argument.

WTF

OH EM GEE.

I smell a Colbert Report segment...

Okay, wait a second.

After actually reading the Stupak amendment, I'm going to have to come out against it. It's just as I feared: the Stupak amendment doesn't just restrict abortion to medically necessary cases (you know, health care?). Instead, it forces me to pay for abortions in the cases of incest (why does incest get a separate exception?) and rape. Because if you're the victim of a violent act (rape, assuming the incest was unconsensual, in which case a separate exception is unneeded and dangerous), I'm apparently expected to pay for you to inflict graver violence (homicide) upon an innocent third party!

That's not compassion.

Gang Rape

A 15-year-old girl was gang raped. The rapists are being prosecuted. Everything's fine and dandy, right?

Right?

Apparently not. There were bystanders that failed to report the crime. Some want them held accountable.

Such a law would be unenforceable. If one person reports it, do the rest of the people still get prosecuted? What if there's a shooting, does everyone in the neighborhood get arrested?

And some people, horror of horrors, took pictures of it. And people are trying to arrest them for it! What's next, the school is arrested for activity on their surveillance tapes? If this happens, these bystanders will find it almost impossible to find a job or a house due to sex offender laws. This is just more of the government legislating data. Of course, someone cited the sexting cases to justify this. PROTIP: Don't cite stupid laws.

Then there's the issue of the underage rapists being tried as adults. Many of the rapists I assume were also under the age of consent; so, technically, they were also raped. But this stupid technicality aside, it is absurd to treat youth as inferior until it comes time to punish them. These criminals had no say in electing the judges, will not get a jury of their peers, and are being seen as too irresponsible to drink or vote or drive but responsible enough to be tried as adults.

Democrats against democracy?

This disgusts me. Most Americans are against coverage of abortion in health care.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": Pirates versus Ninjas

On the series of tubes, there's a common question posed: who would win in a fight: pirates or ninjas?

Seriously?

The pirates wouldn't know what hit 'em.

Cognitive dissonance

This is just sick.

I'm not talking about abortions while pregnant. I'm talking about recognizing the humanity of the unborn and still killing them.

Invalid birthday?

I've noticed a non-COPPA form of ageism on the 'nat against the unborn and supercentenarians.

Basically, anyone older than 100 or younger than 0 has to lie.

Doe, oh dear.

I've discussed Doe v. Bolton before, so I'll just do a brief overview.

Basically, Roe v. Wade presented what seemed to be a reasonable compromise, and many people still see it as one. However, it demanded that abortions be allowed until birth for "health", which they Doe (decided the same day as Roe) defined so broadly as to cover emotional concerns, familial concerns, the mother's age, et cetera.

In the same thread I mentioned yesterday, someone claimed that this means no elective abortions can be performed after viability. In his/her opinion, a woman could be carrying a postterm baby, the doctors could be about to induce labor, and the mother could decide at the last minute that she wants an abortion. Because she wants it, not getting it would logically have a negative emotional effect. By this poster's logic, killing a 42-week fetus would count as "therapeutic".

Why do people laugh at Roebots?

Only Roebots don't understand why.

Baby = cat?

It's a well-known fact that humans are a highly altricial species. We have some of the least developed newborns.

In order to deny the rights of the unborn, many people base personhood on properties such as self-awareness. The problem is that nothing happens developmentally at birth; neonates are practically identical to prenates. Self-awareness takes place 12-15 months after birth.

Some Roebots bite the bullet. One even told me killing an infant is no worse than killing a cat.

Why do people laugh at Roebots?

Only Roebots don't understand why.

Articles

There were a few WTF news stories, but there's one I want to call your attention to.

If any of my international readers live in Venezuela, here's your time to shine.

Insanity

This article made me so angry.

The school board president's email is here. Do with it as you please.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?

Did he do anything to deserve it? He's promised lots, but what has he actually done? Not really much. At least he wasn't given the prize for promoting the barbaric practice of prenaticide overseas, as least not according to the Nobel committee.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": medical marijuana

Seriously? Why?

If there's a naturally abundant plant that's very safe and very affective at treating ailments, why ban it?

Typically, drugs are approved by the FDA based on safety and effectiveness.

Even with cures that aren't FDA-approved, it's the doctor that gets in trouble, not the patient that's jailed.

Now, I understand that normal citizens aren't allowed to smoke it (they should be, but that's another issue), but the same is true of all prescribed medications.

Just... just explain this debate to me, will ya?