Murder, rape, racism and the Democrat party

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that one was dismissed but not because others experts agreed the death was because of umbilical being wrapped around the neck but because they really didn't have a clear law on charging her.

However since 2005, the number have skyrocketed with 200 additional documented cases of prosecutors criminally charging women under so-called fetal harm laws. Those prosecuted were disproportionately low-income women and women of color.

Try to find a valid case and we can discuss it. Try not to troll.

 

[We Never Know]

Try to find a valid case and we can discuss it. Try not to troll.

Who's trolling. I'm stating a fetus isn't considered a person but then again it is sometimes.
A woman that has an abortion intentionally killing the fetus, it's not considered a person.
Anyone else kills the fetus by accident, the fetus is considered a person and they are charged with a crime.
A woman doing drugs that evidently doesn't care if she loses the fetus or not, if she loses it, she is charged with a crime.
In all three cases a fetus was taken, not a person.

 

[We Never Know]

Try to find a valid case and we can discuss it. Try not to troll.

By the way, this "However since 2005, the number have skyrocketed with 200 additional documented cases of prosecutors criminally charging women under so-called fetal harm laws. Those prosecuted were disproportionately low-income women and women of color" is from your link.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Here is another opinion to not care less about. This is absolute nonsense.

You are so committed to decrying what you consider a religious view, that you fail completely to look at the legal view.

Moral issues are based upon a whole variety of perspectives. For some, euthenasia is moral, for some, pedophilia is moral, for some killing people of a particular race is moral, for some taking what one person owns to give to another who has less is moral.

Itś all irrelevant before the law and Constitution. These actually are what compels behavior, whether one considers them, moral or not.

Rights that are not variable, are not revokeable apply to every person under the Constitution. Primary is the right to life.

roe v. wade, the abortionists license, denied this right to unborn children in two ways. First, it conjured up an unenumerated right to privacy by cobbling together bits of amendments to shield the killing of the unborn from the law.

Because of this shield, the law cannot ¨ see ¨ the act of destroying the baby.

Second, it arbitrarily decided that the unborn child is not a person, but only for the purpose of abortion.

In other contexts, like the murder of a pregnant woman being a double murder, the unborn is a person, you cannot be tried for murder if you haven´t killed someone.

The Supreme court has never made a blanket ruling on when one becomes a person in any and all cases.

Any biologist or obstetrics physician will tell you that a persons life begins at conception, progresses through being an embryo, to a so called fetus, to a birthed baby. All stages of being a person.

If my moral position would be what I am advocating, I would demand no abortion at anytime. But I have no right to demand that others comply with my morality.

So, I legally support unlimited abortion in the first trimester when the baby is in essence is a clump of non specialized cells.

On the other hand, when the baby is recognizable as such, a person, with a beating heart and can most likely feel pain, they have the right to life under the Constitution.

If you are not an American, you probably live in a democracy.

The US is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

In a democracy, the ,majority rules or the government shoves stuff down your throat.

Free speech is curtailed because someone might have their feelings hurt, the press and media are subject to government control, the rights of assembly and association may limited, because in the world of situational ethics, anything can be deemed as right or wrong.

The rights in the Constitution are unalienable. They apply 100% at all times. There is no right to kill someone except in self defense or an execution, or as a result of war.

No matter all the situational ethics diatribes about handicaps, post natal care or cost.

One cannot void another´s right to life.

An unborn can be a person in one context, but not in another, this hypocrisy in the law will be corrected by the Supreme court.

It has nothing to do with my moral view of anything. The equation that some atheists and non fundamental Christians support killing the unborn, and most Conservative Christians do not because of a moral position does not apply here.

It is an unresolved legal issue, and in my view legally, babies are being murdered because they are inconvenient to someone, their right to life under the Constitution is being egregiously being denied to them

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, this "However since 2005, the number have skyrocketed with 200 additional documented cases of prosecutors criminally charging women under so-called fetal harm laws. Those prosecuted were disproportionately low-income women and women of color" is from your link.

Yes, people have attempted to abuse the law. I am willing to bet that there is a strong connection between anti-abortion politics and those sort of charges. Did any stick is the question. There are a few reasons that the poor will be over represented. People with money can afford to get into treatment. And if they do not do that they can afford to hire lawyers for their defense. That indicates that his is more of a political move rather than one of justice. They go for the easy win to try to be alter the law.

 

[shmogie]

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.

What I think, but what about facts ? Your desire to preserve baby killing isn´t so legally clear cut, is it ?

 

[shmogie]

I don't know the law on that... and I don't know if it is the same in every jurisdiction.. but I'll take a stab at it.

A person prosecuted for murder or manslaughter must have intended to cause the death of a viable fetus or to cause serious physical injury to a viable fetus; or willfully and recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person’s actions would cause the death of or serious injury to a viable fetus..

I'm against late term abortions as well.

No, manslaughter specifically does not have the element of intent to kill. No, people have been sent to prison for double murder, who did not know the woman they killed was pregnant, intent to kill an unborn baby was not an element of that crime.
No, viability is not an element of murder for killing an unborn baby.

Three strikes, you are out

 

[shmogie]

Isn't abortion intended to cause death to a viable fetus?

Bingo !!!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What I think, but what about facts ? Your desire to preserve baby killing isn´t so legally clear cut, is it ?

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I think, but what about facts ? Your desire to preserve baby killing isn´t so legally clear cut, is it ?

Nope. No one wants to kill babies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.

His goal is to get you mad. And hat is why the use of inflammatory language that he cannot justify. The good news is that if you do keep refuting him, sooner or later he will put you on ignore.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

His goal is to get you mad. And hat is why the use of inflammatory language that he cannot justify.

Oh, I'm well aware of basic bully tactic #26 "incite and escalate incident then cry to an authority figure". I'm just quoting his exact own words back to him now, though, so any complaint or use of ignore is a tacit admission of his own inappropriate conduct

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.

 

[shmogie]

Oh, I'm well aware of basic bully tactic #26 "incite and escalate incident then cry to an authority figure". I'm just quoting his exact own words back to him now, though, so any complaint or use of ignore is a tacit admission of his own inappropriate conduct

Oh please, what a dramatic victim. My response was a perfect response to your flippant comment. But, as I told you, I couldn´t care less.

 

[Shad]

No, people have been sent to prison for double murder, who did not know the woman they killed was pregnant, intent to kill an unborn baby was not an element of that crime.

Those are state laws not Fed. It does create a situation in which laws are in conflict that have not been pushed to SCOTUS yet for a resolution.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh please, what a dramatic victim. My response was a perfect response to your flippant comment. But, as I told you, I couldn´t care less.

I couldn´t care less about what you think on any issue, including this one.

 

[Prestor John]

so he's a rapist......do you care????

Being accused of something doesn't make it true.

Are you not aware of this?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Being accused of something doesn't make it true.

Unless it's someone the Trumpettes don't like, of course.

 

[Prestor John]

Unless it's someone the Trumpettes don't like, of course.

Like with Kavanaugh?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Like with Kavanaugh?

No, pretty sure the Trumpettes like Kavanaugh.

 

[Prestor John]

No, pretty sure the Trumpettes like Kavanaugh.

Yet, according to the leftist Democrats, the accusation was all the evidence they needed to ruin his life.

Notice their action against Kavanaugh with an accusation decades old by a woman who could not remember exactly where/when it happened, how she got to the party, how she got home, who was in the room and with no other witnesses collaborating her story.

Then notice their inaction against other Democrats who were accused of sexual assault with women who claim to remember exactly where/when it happened, how they came into contact with their attackers, what they did immediately following the assault, who else was present and with witnesses to the assault.

When the accused is a Republican - men need to shut up and believe the woman.

When the accused is a Democrat - the woman is a liar.

When the accused is a Republican - they need to step down from their office.

When the accused is a Democrat - they get full endorsement by the DNC.

The leaders of the Democratic party are liars and hypocrites.