• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I don't understand how I'm attacking anyone in his family. I only mentioned his daughter and the mother of his child and neither of which I attacked in any way.

My own POV is that whether online or IRL, it is always morally wrong to bring anyone's family or love interest into an abortion debate, as if the people we love are just grist for the mill, all bets are off, we have no limits we'll impose on ourselves, etc. We are still civilized, decent people, Henrin, so act like it.

I believe that is how the TOS here are interpreted as well, and this is at least the second time I have told you, your use of Objective J's family to make your point is grossly offensive to me.

I expect you to behave like a civilized man, and I dunno why you aren't, but this crap seems out of character for you to me, so please -- knock it off.
 
You are struggling with the nuances of the legal concept of "intent" and the degrees of homicide charges, and while I can appreciate that this is complex, you are wrong.

W-R-O-N-G.

The man who causes a pregnancy that cannot be aborted and ends up killing the woman via raping that woman is guilty, guilty, guilty of her death, and what level of homicide charge he would face would be decided by the DA, but even Murder One would be legally correct.

There is no such thing as an unintentional murder. NONE.
Do you think that if you keep repeating something I never said it'll make you right? There's no such thing as an unintentional murder because it's called manslaughter. Glad we agree on that.

I guess I'm being silly for providing legal definitions of what constitutes murder vs manslaughter. These definitions show that for murder charges the intent of the attacker must be to kill.

Seeing as how we've already cleared up that the rapist had no intention to kill, he can't be charged with murder 1 or murder 2, he must be charged with manslaughter.

Your thesis that people can be charged for murder for an unintentional killing isn't grounded in any kind of legal definition or reference. You've provided zero evidence for your claims. You've provided not one case study where a person is charged with murder who had zero intent to kill the victim.

Getting emotional and writing things like "W-R-O-N-G." and "guilty, guilty, guilty" doesn't really do anything to help your case.

Drunk driving isn't charged as murder, it's manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter.
 
Do you think that if you keep repeating something I never said it'll make you right? There's no such thing as an unintentional murder because it's called manslaughter. Glad we agree on that.

I guess I'm being silly for providing legal definitions of what constitutes murder vs manslaughter. These definitions show that for murder charges the intent of the attacker must be to kill.

Seeing as how we've already cleared up that the rapist had no intention to kill, he can't be charged with murder 1 or murder 2, he must be charged with manslaughter.

Your thesis that people can be charged for murder for an unintentional killing isn't grounded in any kind of legal definition or reference. You've provided zero evidence for your claims. You've provided not one case study where a person is charged with murder who had zero intent to kill the victim.

Getting emotional and writing things like "W-R-O-N-G." and "guilty, guilty, guilty" doesn't really do anything to help your case.

*Sighs*

Imma try once more to school you. You in law school, RabidAlpaca? If so, you need to master this **** before you take your finals.

Intent is a question as to the criminal act, and the consequences of that act may result in heavier charges even if the criminal did not foresee, desire or plan to cause them.

Manslaughter is a term used in some state homicide laws, but not all, and denotes a level of intent that usually resembles negligence, such as forgetting the baby is in the car and allowing it to be cooked to death in the summer heat.

Murder One is premeditated murder. If I stalk you and hit you on the head with my purse, and you die because you have a defective skull I knew nothing about I am guilty of Murder One because the stalking and purse-bashing were intentional even if I can prove I did not intend to cause your death. IRL, on such facts, DAs will rarely if ever charge this heavily, but it is legally correct.
 
Henrin, what is "libertarian" about this hyper-authoritarian POV you espouse as to the reproductive rights of women?

You misunderstand my intentions. You can read through all my posts on abortion if you want and almost nothing about it has changed. I admittedly trolled one thread a year and half ago or so humoring the idea of laws on the matter, but I do not actually favor such a thing. I simply can not endorse the act and if I speak of it I will always speak against it as it is a blatant violation of human rights.
 
1.)I understand it perfectly, thanks.



2.)Nope.



3.)Stop moving the damn goalposts. If you don't know what I was saying, just ask.



Ok.



So its was an embryo? Well ok then.



I think I have followed you along well enough to know you wanted it aborted, you know it was alive and STILL you deny you wanted it killed. Now you have even moved into embryo stage making your point even weaker.

1.) obviously not since facts disagree with you
2.) wrong again
3.) never did one single time my stance as be the exact same this is you lying , you deflecting or you getting lost not me lMAO
4.) yep
5.) yep
6.) 100% WRONG again, the mixture of words and thier meanings, logic, facts, reality and your opinion seem to get you in trouble a lot LOL I didnt move anything and the facts are just as sound when i first stated them. Your opinon as gain zero traction though.

lets reflect
Ii never wanted to kill HER.
I never wanted to kill my DAUGHTER dead.
I never WISHED HER dead.
I never WISHED my DAUGHTER.

these are all 100% fact and nothing you have said or cried about as even budged these facts one bit LMAO
I have no idea how you think opinion can change these facts or why such simply facts are so hard for you to comprehend lol

please stay on topic
 
You misunderstand my intentions. You can read through all my posts on abortion if you want and almost nothing about it has changed. I admittedly trolled one thread a year and half ago or so humoring the idea of laws on the matter, but I do not actually favor such a thing. I simply can not endorse the act and if I speak of it I will always speak against it as it is a blatant violation of human rights.

So, your POV is that abortion is wrong but you would not support criminalizing it? If so, I have no heartburn with that -- I don't think I'd have aborted if I had gotten pregnant after my divorce, as I had the resources to adequately raise another child. So I do not think abortion is morally correct in every case, either.

As long as we agree that ONLY the pregnant woman should decide what HER morals dictate, we agree.
 
*Sighs*

Imma try once more to school you. You in law school, RabidAlpaca? If so, you need to master this **** before you take your finals.

Intent is a question as to the criminal act, and the consequences of that act may result in heavier charges even if the criminal did not foresee, desire or plan to cause them.

Manslaughter is a term used in some state homicide laws, but not all, and denotes a level of intent that usually resembles negligence, such as forgetting the baby is in the car and allowing it to be cooked to death in the summer heat.

Murder One is premeditated murder. If I stalk you and hit you on the head with my purse, and you die because you have a defective skull I knew nothing about I am guilty of Murder One because the stalking and purse-bashing were intentional even if I can prove I did not intend to cause your death. IRL, on such facts, DAs will rarely if ever charge this heavily, but it is legally correct.

So you don't have anything, no case examples, citations, nothing, to support your case that this should be tried different than every other murder/manslaughter trial?
A prosecutor could charge someone with being an asshole, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense or falls within the realm of the law.

I'm sorry, this is getting too stupid for me. I'm starting to realize why a lot of people around here don't enjoy debating with you. I'm out.
 
An eggshell skull case refers to a case where the attacker is punished for the unintended consquences of his actions. You don't think being charged with manslaughter is being punished for that?

uhmmmm you lost me, i dont understand what you are asking?

Im fine with a manslaughter charge?
 
1.) obviously not since facts disagree with you
2.) wrong again
3.) never did one single time my stance as be the exact same this is you lying , you deflecting or you getting lost not me lMAO
4.) yep
5.) yep
6.) 100% WRONG again, the mixture of words and thier meanings, logic, facts, reality and your opinion seem to get you in trouble a lot LOL I didnt move anything and the facts are just as sound when i first stated them. Your opinon as gain zero traction though.

lets reflect
Ii never wanted to kill HER.
I never wanted to kill my DAUGHTER dead.
I never WISHED HER dead.
I never WISHED my DAUGHTER.

these are all 100% fact and nothing you have said or cried about as even budged these facts one bit LMAO
I have no idea how you think opinion can change these facts or why such simply facts are so hard for you to comprehend lol

please stay on topic

No one should EVER be placed in a position where they have to dispute that they'd kill their own child, just to debate abortion.

Personalizing the debate in this way is horrifying to me, and I am deeply offended that it was done to you, Objective J.
 
So you don't have anything, no case examples, citations, nothing, to support your case that this should be tried different than every other murder/manslaughter trial?

I'm sorry, this is getting too stupid for me. I'm starting to realize why people around here don't enjoy debating with you. I'm out.

Manslaughter is a homicide charge, and in most states, it denotes that the killer's intent was negligence.
 
My own POV is that whether online or IRL, it is always morally wrong to bring anyone's family or love interest into an abortion debate, as if the people we love are just grist for the mill, all bets are off, we have no limits we'll impose on ourselves, etc. We are still civilized, decent people, Henrin, so act like it.


I believe that is how the TOS here are interpreted as well, and this is at least the second time I have told you, your use of Objective J's family to make your point is grossly offensive to me.

I expect you to behave like a civilized man, and I dunno why you aren't, but this crap seems out of character for you to me, so please -- knock it off.

Ok Pinkie. I'm sorry.
 
No one should EVER be placed in a position where they have to dispute that they'd kill their own child, just to debate abortion.

Personalizing the debate in this way is horrifying to me, and I am deeply offended that it was done to you, Objective J.

thanks Pinkie but its no sweat really, its common place of certain posters to be uncivil, dishonest etc and im used to it. Its also no big deal since he was simply wrong and facts disagreed with him. While I agree its not the proper place to go I could never get offended or angry on a message board but hey, thats just me
 
uhmmmm you lost me, i dont understand what you are asking?

Im fine with a manslaughter charge?
I assumed you brought up the eggshell skull reference to try to state that people are responsible for unintended consequences.

My response is: Of course they are, nobody claimed they weren't. That's why he'd be charged with manslaughter and not just rape.
 
I assumed you brought up the eggshell skull reference to try to state that people are responsible for unintended consequences.

My response is: Of course they are, nobody claimed they weren't. That's why he'd be charged with manslaughter and not just rape.

ooooooh, well yes and no, people are responsible for unintended consequences and i am fine with a manslaughter charge.

I should have been more clear in my original question but thats why i used the word involuntary i was trying to point to involuntary manslaughter and i was simply including it in the murder charges.

We were talking the same but different but the same lol
 
TO BE CLEAR :)

when I say murder im including all forms of illegal killing including manslaughter
 
thanks Pinkie but its no sweat really, its common place of certain posters to be uncivil, dishonest etc and im used to it. Its also no big deal since he was simply wrong and facts disagreed with him. While I agree its not the proper place to go I could never get offended or angry on a message board but hey, thats just me

It's a big deal to me -- our loved ones should be off-limits in trash talk about abortion.
 
TO BE CLEAR :)

when I say murder im including all forms of illegal killing including manslaughter

I agree, except that there is no such thing as a "negligent rape"; any rape resulting in death is (strictly speaking) Murder One.
 
So, your POV is that abortion is wrong but you would not support criminalizing it? If so, I have no heartburn with that -- I don't think I'd have aborted if I had gotten pregnant after my divorce, as I had the resources to adequately raise another child. So I do not think abortion is morally correct in every case, either.

As long as we agree that ONLY the pregnant woman should decide what HER morals dictate, we agree.

I don't agree with criminalizing for two reasons.

1. The government hasn't shown me it understands proper restraints and an issue like this dictates that it not only understands them, but practices them.

2. I'm not convinced it will make much of a positive difference, but I'm more than convinced it will result in many negative consequences. While I want to protect human life at the maximum of my abilities I'm not sold this is the way to do it.

Still, I can not join in with people that say it should be a choice. That implies there is nothing wrong with it and its just a matter of choice if that is what people want. That would mean that certain right violations are just a matter of choice if you want to take part in them. I can not agree with such a premise.
 
ooooooh, well yes and no, people are responsible for unintended consequences and i am fine with a manslaughter charge.

I should have been more clear in my original question but thats why i used the word involuntary i was trying to point to involuntary manslaughter and i was simply including it in the murder charges.

We were talking the same but different but the same lol
Glad to see we agree on that.

Rape is already a really tricky thing to prove in court. Too many cases happen where a guy has sex with a willing woman, the woman gets pregnant, then turns around and calls it rape to save face. On no planet can that be considered murder.
 
It's a big deal to me -- our loved ones should be off-limits in trash talk about abortion.

well i agree with you point in general im just pointing out that for me i couldnt possible be offended in this situation. For me dishonesty had to impact.
 
I assumed you brought up the eggshell skull reference to try to state that people are responsible for unintended consequences.

My response is: Of course they are, nobody claimed they weren't. That's why he'd be charged with manslaughter and not just rape.

No, no, no. Of course a DA can take a plea to a lesser charge, or undercharge a crime due to trial strategy, but academically speaking, the rapist who causes a death commits Murder One because the act that injured and caused death -- the rape -- was premeditated and intentional.
 
well i agree with you point in general im just pointing out that for me i couldnt possible be offended in this situation. For me dishonesty had to impact.

None of us is best served when we crawl in the gutter, and it can chill other posters who would otherwise join the debate.

Plus, it debases all of us and it's just not morally right.
 
Glad to see we agree on that.

Rape is already a really tricky thing to prove in court. Too many cases happen where a guy has sex with a willing woman, the woman gets pregnant, then turns around and calls it rape to save face. On no planet can that be considered murder.

Whether the woman consented is certainly key to determining that a rape occurred, but there's no "accidental" sex act that could leave her pregnant.

If she did consent to sex but not to being infected with a deadly STI, and she dies, it's Murder One.
 
Back
Top Bottom