Killing children to protect children..mkaes sense?

Description of your first forum.

Killing children to protect children..mkaes sense?

Post by K?i-L » Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:21:52



    *** was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children.
The theory was that unwanted children were abused, and preventing their
birth would end the abuse. Facts disprove the theory. Child battering
has greatly increased, as the following press report discloses:
"Looser *** laws do not result in fewer battered children-a
five-year study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, professor of pediatrics at the
University of Southern California found that following the passage of
'*** on demand', cruel infanticide and child battering
increased three-fold-a logical result of the concept that 'life is
cheap.'" Instead of remedying the battering of children, ***
has added to this the battering of millions of babies in the womb.
 
 
 

Killing children to protect children..mkaes sense?

Post by Ray Fisch » Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:32:55


Quote:

>    *** was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children.

No it isn't.

--
Ray Fischer        

 
 
 

Killing children to protect children..mkaes sense?

Post by schmoo.. » Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:10:07


Quote:

> *** was supposed to alleviate is that of battered children.

Absurd.

===================================
Schmoozes AOL Chatrooms Scheduler
http://www.moonsgarden.com/