Proxy, by refusing to address those rebukes, nor the posts we've made before of why we justify it and think it is a necessity, despite being given many chances by us to do so, I feel there is little point to continue talking to you until you specifically do.

You can try to get the gag factor by talking about 'babies' (read, pea-sized bean-shaped things) getting their 'brains sucked out'- and the best you deserve is a proposition to kill them more humanely.

In other words, your trashy debating tricks don't work because they miss the point. (read it).

Protagoras,
If you are able to separate your contempt for the religious trappings
of this woman’s mind (I am not religious yet I manage to do so) maybe
you can see that she has exposed a great wrong.
“Another nurse from Christ Hospital also testified with me in
Washington. Allison described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on
two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a
scale and the metal counter. I testified about a staff worker who
accidentally threw a live aborted baby in the garbage. The baby had
been left on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a
disposable towel. When my coworker realized what she had done, she
started going through the trash to find the baby, and the baby fell
out of the towel and onto the floor.
Other hospitals have now admitted that they commit live birth
abortion. It apparently is not a rare form of abortion. But Christ
Hospital was the first hospital in the United States to be publicly
exposed for committing this form of abortion.”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm
As a result of Jill Stanek’s testimony, the Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act was passed by unanimous consent of the US Senate on
August 5, 2002.
The entire US Senate agreed on this matter.
Barack Obama blocked the Illinois equivalent.
What nuances of the word infanticide are you having trouble with Protagoras?

‘So a person who advocates leaving living aborted babies to die doesn't advocate violence,’

Try to think for yourself Proxy rather than parroting the unsubstantiated allegations of a religious fundie.

And indeed, Mr Bush signed the Born Alive Act – a duplication of the criminal code. And it is with some regret that the hypocritical Bush fails to acknowledge the myriad of still births and grossly deformed live babies born to innocent civilians in Iraq who were exposed to Bush’s crimes against humanity – ie, the use of depleted uranium.

Similarly Stanek claims that gays are an abomination and ‘that your children will be indoctrinated by homosexual teachers.’ Oops….is Stanek recommending that ‘abominable’ gays be put down at birth?

She also believes that the murder of Dr George Tiller by anti-abortionist, Scott Roeder, could be appropriate owing to ‘his honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.’

Thankfully for an enlightened and democratic society, you and the unhinged Stanek, remain a minority.

Protragorus

accuracy is always helpful.

Leviticus 18

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Notice that the issue is the BEHAVIOR... not the person. "That"

-Child sacrifice
-Homosexual acts
-Bestiality

Interesting...they are all grouped together...hmmmm...

Anyone doing such things has serious 'mind wiring' problems, even if they were born that way... it's not the wiring that's the sin..it's acting on it.

It would be patently rediculous, not to mention repulsively irrational, to suggest that a man claiming to have been 'born' with a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children should be allowed to act on that 'condition'...in spite of anything Peter Singer might offer.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2001/03/08/2591/

Protagoras,
"Try to think for yourself Proxy rather than parroting the
unsubstantiated allegations of a religious fundie."
Those "unsubstantiated allegations" were of sufficient veracity to
qualify as evidentiary testimony to the US Senate which then acted on
those "unsubstantiated allegations" by unanimously implementing the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
The very fact that her allegations were substantiated but that there
was no lawful mechanism to stop this practice is what led to the new
law being implemented.
In other words, the matter was investigated and found to be true but
no laws were being broken. Hence the necessity for the new laws which
received 100% bipartisan support in the US Senate. This is hardly
likely if the new law was mere window dressing and a duplication of
existing laws, as you are suggesting.

This thread is going into ridiculously off-topic loony-religious grounds, that have not provided a single actual good argument against what has been expressed.
I think I'm done here.