Page 21 of 73 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 722

Thread: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

  1. #201
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Your argument fails when you realize except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.
    In most cases of slavery these days, the victim was not physically forced either.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #202
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,175

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The real complicator in this matter, from my perspective, is that the man ended this pregnancy in the same manner that the woman could have ended the pregnancy herself, had she choosen to do so. It calls into question why a woman could "murder" and creates two classes of people. I don't know the medical complications that can possibly occur if such a drug is administered even if the woman knows. I guess it's possible that any drug could be deadly. In that regard, I think a charge of attempted murder or attempted manslaughter may have been more appropriate if there is medical research that would support the pill could be harmful in some circumstances.
    Yes, and it's intended to create that complication. It's a way of forcing the appeals to emotion into the legal code.

    I do know a bit about those drugs, and I think it is entirely possible they could charge the man with something like attempted murder.

    You don't just give someone an abortive pill. Before that, the woman must take a progesterone blocker that helps the process go more smoothly. She must also take antibiotics.

    In the absence of those two things, the abortion is far more traumatic. Risk of hemorrhage is high, and risk of infection is higher as well. Also she wasn't assessed for possible medical complications, obviously.

    On top of that, you could add yet another bodily harm charge, because she wasn't tested for conflicting blood types. This means that, if this embryo had a conflicting blood type she was exposed to and she gets pregnant in the future, she could lose the pregnancy.

    That is not a safe abortion by medical standards, and it could have potentially killed her or permanently damaged her reproductive function.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-19-13 at 01:52 PM.

  3. #203
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,205

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Yes, they do, actually. As long as they're religious. This has been a big point of friction over the years with Christian Scientists who believe prayer will heal their sick children. They wind up dying of simple, treatable illnesses like ear infections. And the doctors can't report if they never see the children, obviously.

    Yes, there is a voluntary reporting system if you intend to deny your child medical care, but obviously no one actually uses that.
    Perhaps America is different from my experience here - we've had children removed from parental control for not providing the necessities of life.

    Our Child and Family Services Act gives the relevant Minister the authority: (e) a child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering, and the child's parent or guardian does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or is unable to consent to, the treatment;

    I'm surprised the US would not similarly protect its children.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #204
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Your argument fails when you realize except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.
    Meh. Forced to stay pregnant is the same thing. There are consequences to personal decisions, but that doesn't mean we get to dictate what those consequences are in contradiction to the human rights and natural prerogatives of the people who've made them.

  5. #205
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    Just because it's natural doesn't mean that it's morally good.
    Uh-huh? Are you... O_o Are you seriously going to state that pregnancy is somehow morally evil?

    What else do you call an organism that survives solely through the forcible extraction of nutrients from another organism's metabolic processes? It's an absolutely appropriate comparison that you are only dismissing because you are trying to justify an irrational and inhumane moral stance that denies human rights to half of humanity.
    Well, seeing as the two organisms involved in the situation are both the same species, the older one should call the other one "son" or "daughter" in this case, not "parasite."

    They're not property because they cannot be bought and sold. They can be killed because they are not members of society, but they cannot legally or morally be exploited.
    They can't be bought or sold only as a technicality - a human baby has its human rights protected, a human fetus does not. As soon as a human in the fetal stage of life leaves its mother, no matter how far along its embryological development, the kid is no longer a fetus but a baby. It's like lava vs. magma - if it ain't below the surface of the earth, it ain't magma.

    Nevertheless, a fetus IS regarded as subhuman property under the terms of our current legal status quo; property to be disposed of at the whim of its owner.

  6. #206
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    It's not even close to being self-evident.

    The constitution only protects the rights of "persons". Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born. Therefore, until it is born, a child can not be protected by the law because the constitution does not grant the govt the power to protect the unborn
    You know, you just may be right about that "person" stuff...or maybe not. And perhaps it is just because I am blind, or blinded by my own ideology, but maybe you could help me find exactly where, as you put it, and I cut and paste your quote here, "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." So please point out that language, or similar, in our US Constitution... as truly, I have searched myself, read, used my search function... cannot locate that exact, or even a semblance, of that language in the document itself.

    And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?

    So, lets see what just what it is you can locate on the former... and then we maybe we might discuss the latter as well. Oh, and not to worry, I have not forgotten the self evident stuff, either.

    Thanks in advance for the assistance, sincerely, as I am a seeker of truth, so want to be as often as possible in possession of the applicable facts. Also, in the absence of a reply, I will assume you cannot locate those necessary passages either.

  7. #207
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Perhaps America is different from my experience here - we've had children removed from parental control for not providing the necessities of life.

    Our Child and Family Services Act gives the relevant Minister the authority: (e) a child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering, and the child's parent or guardian does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or is unable to consent to, the treatment;

    I'm surprised the US would not similarly protect its children.
    For the most part, the law does protect children from their idiot parents. However, there are exceptions for religious beliefs
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #208
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Uh-huh? Are you... O_o Are you seriously going to state that pregnancy is somehow morally evil?
    No. I'm stating now that pregnancy, like most things, is morally conditional upon the circumstances. The pregnancy of a woman with a stable family who wishes to grow that family, and is having a hale and healthy child to do so, is an unquestionably good thing. Other pregnancies may be less so. The pregnancy of a woman being forced to gestate a child she does not want is unquestionably bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Well, seeing as the two organisms involved in the situation are both the same species, the older one should call the other one "son" or "daughter" in this case, not "parasite."
    It doesn't become a "son" or a "daughter" until it becomes someone's son or daughter, and it doesn't do that until it is named such by a family that wants one.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    They can't be bought or sold only as a technicality - a human baby has its human rights protected, a human fetus does not. As soon as a human in the fetal stage of life leaves its mother, no matter how far along its embryological development, the kid is no longer a fetus but a baby.
    That's hardly a technicality. That is a qualitative differences in the circumstances of the child's existence. A child out of the womb can have rights, and have those rights protected, without infringing upon the rights of a free citizen.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Nevertheless, a fetus IS regarded as subhuman property under the terms of our current legal status quo; property to be disposed of at the whim of its owner.
    No. It cannot be bought or sold. It can only be nurtured into a named infant or destroyed. There are no other options. It is not a person under the law, but neither is it property.

  9. #209
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    You know, you just may be right about that "person" stuff...or maybe not. And perhaps it is just because I am blind, or blinded by my own ideology, but maybe you could help me find exactly where, as you put it, and I cut and paste your quote here, "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." So please point out that language, or similar, in our US Constitution... as truly, I have searched myself, read, used my search function... cannot locate that exact, or even a semblance, of that language in the document itself.
    Count the number of times the word "born" appears in the Constitution compared to the number of times "conceived"-- in reference to the conception of a child-- appears. While I disagree with this on a moral-- and ideological-- level, citizenship and human rights are attached to the human being only upon its birth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?
    The problem is that the power to "protect the unborn" violates the 13th Amendment, because the unborn only exist through the labor of their biological mothers.

  10. #210
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    You know, you just may be right about that "person" stuff...or maybe not. And perhaps it is just because I am blind, or blinded by my own ideology, but maybe you could help me find exactly where, as you put it, and I cut and paste your quote here, "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." So please point out that language, or similar, in our US Constitution... as truly, I have searched myself, read, used my search function... cannot locate that exact, or even a semblance, of that language in the document itself.

    And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?

    So, lets see what just what it is you can locate on the former... and then we maybe we might discuss the latter as well. Oh, and not to worry, I have not forgotten the self evident stuff, either.

    Thanks in advance for the assistance, sincerely, as I am a seeker of truth, so want to be as often as possible in possession of the applicable facts. Also, in the absence of a reply, I will assume you cannot locate those necessary passages either.
    It's in Roe v Wade.

    Google Scholar

    The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3;[53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.[54]

    All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn
    In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

Page 21 of 73 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •