Page 23 of 73 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 722

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

  1. #221
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Does man have a right to procreate? Or to put it another way... If a man has a right to procreate then why can't a man force his seed upon a woman? Even when married a man does not have a right to tell his wife to stop taking contraceptives.
    Then you agree with the OP, that the man had a right to end the pregnancy.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #222
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Then you agree with the OP, that the man had a right to end the pregnancy.
    How did you get that from what I said? If anything it would say the opposite.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #223
    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 Kal'Stang View Post
    How did you get that from what I said? If anything it would say the opposite.
    TBH, I found that post to be pretty confusing. Still not sure what you were getting at
    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..

  4. #224
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    TBH, I found that post to be pretty confusing. Still not sure what you were getting at
    .........

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Does man have a right to procreate?
    I asked a sarcastic rhetorical question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Or to put it another way... If a man has a right to procreate then why can't a man force his seed upon a woman?
    I provided an actual question for the poster to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Even when married a man does not have a right to tell his wife to stop taking contraceptives.
    I gave an example of why a man does not have a right to procreate.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #225
    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 Kal'Stang View Post
    .........



    I asked a sarcastic rhetorical question.



    I provided an actual question for the poster to answer.



    I gave an example of why a man does not have a right to procreate.
    That helped a lot.
    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..

  6. #226
    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 in Roe v Wade.

    Google Scholar
    Yeah, I didn't think so, as you are fully aware, R v W is not the constitution, our Constitution says nothing like what you said it said... and this feeble dependence upon Roe v Wade, to this day an extremely controversial call by the Supreme Court that is just aching to be tossed, it being a terrible decision without real foundation in legislated law. This was a bad decision legislated from the bench, crafted from a patchwork of thin reasoning laid down in heavy fertilizer. Stinks then and it stinks now.

    And as one has just proven none to particularly precise in how they "told the story" regarding the constitution and what it actually says, how about you provide this "proof" that abortion " 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". As they just may say in Texas, sure sounds like a whole load of hooey.

    Besides which, that very same amendment gave attention to another group of forgotten "persons" that up till about 1863 had not many rights at all... either. So these sentiments you propose for us all to just accept, yet still unproven, also ring just a little bit hollow.

    Would just love to see that documentation. In R v W, the link you provided indicates that since 1854 Texas had a criminal statute prohibiting abortion... seems to inform as to another perspective than that to which you allude. Did Texas just pass that law because they did not want doctors to make money on a whole set of medical procedures and abortion, being amongst the alphabetically ordered located in the As, just happened to be selected, to be made illegal for no rational reason ... or maybe those old southern politicians just didn't cotten to the sound of a word such as abortion [ maybe sounded too much like abolition and you know those ol Texans can be, huh? ].... or was it because they were protecting these unborn children that you assert had absolutely no status...maybe the unborn were given a little more regard than you are crediting? I would place my wagers on the latter.

    But I will await your sources.

  7. #227
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    No.
    This argument is a fat stupid sack of fail. Contracts do not work that way. You cannot make contracts work that way. Contracts are by their very nature explicit and deliberate and mutual. You cannot accidentally enter into a contract and you cannot enter into a contract without knowing the terms. A contract involves very specifically agreeing, with full informed consent, that you are going to do a specific thing in exchange for specific remuneration. You are trying to argue that the woman is entering into a contract with a being before it exists, without its consent, which is not now and not ever expected to provide compensation, on the basis of performing an act with a third party that does not in every case or even the majority of cases result in that being existing. There is no possible way under any system of contract law as it is understood by any civilization, regardless of its laws concerning abortion, that having sex can be construed as agreeing to any kind of contract with the unborn child to provide gestation.
    I fully agree. It will be a lot of hard work for him to convince all women to FEEL that way about consensual sex. Frankly, it will never happen.

  8. #228
    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
    Yeah, I didn't think so, as you are fully aware, R v W is not the constitution, our Constitution says nothing like what you said it said... and this feeble dependence upon Roe v Wade, to this day an extremely controversial call by the Supreme Court that is just aching to be tossed, it being a terrible decision without real foundation in legislated law. This was a bad decision legislated from the bench, crafted from a patchwork of thin reasoning laid down in heavy fertilizer. Stinks then and it stinks now.
    I just love it when the whiners complain about a SCOTUS decision and complain about how it doesn't follow the constitution. It seems that these malcontents are just so so insistent about following the constitution. Well, at least until you get to the part where the constitution gives SCOTUS the power to determine how to apply the constitution.

    Then, the constitution is to be ignored, just as the constitution should be ignored when it doesn't give the govt the power that the abortion banners want it to have - to ban abortion

    And as one has just proven none to particularly precise in how they "told the story" regarding the constitution and what it actually says, how about you provide this "proof" that abortion " 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". As they just may say in Texas, sure sounds like a whole load of hooey.
    If you're going to argue that SCOTUS lied about that, then it's your burden to prove your despicable slander.

    Besides which, that very same amendment gave attention to another group of forgotten "persons" that up till about 1863 had not many rights at all... either. So these sentiments you propose for us all to just accept, yet still unproven, also ring just a little bit hollow.
    I have no idea what you're blathering on about here.


    Would just love to see that documentation. In R v W, the link you provided indicates that since 1854 Texas had a criminal statute prohibiting abortion... seems to inform as to another perspective than that to which you allude. Did Texas just pass that law because they did not want doctors to make money on a whole set of medical procedures and abortion, being amongst the alphabetically ordered located in the As, just happened to be selected, to be made illegal for no rational reason ... or maybe those old southern politicians just didn't cotten to the sound of a word such as abortion [ maybe sounded too much like abolition and you know those ol Texans can be, huh? ].... or was it because they were protecting these unborn children that you assert had absolutely no status...maybe the unborn were given a little more regard than you are crediting? I would place my wagers on the latter.

    But I will await your sources.
    Don't hold your breath. If you want to make an argument, backed by facts, then by all means do so. But if you're going to post fictions about how someone didn't like how the word abortion sounded, I'll just leave you to your confabulations.
    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..

  9. #229
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

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

    So a woman having an abortion is a breech of contract. What's the punishment for that?

    It would make zero sense to pursue a charge like that if abortion were illegal. I can't even picture it.

  10. #230
    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
    The only gymnastics involved in this issue are the ones used by the abortion banners. The right of free people to make the important decisions in their life free from govt control is the foundation of liberty. Allow the govt to make your decisions (ie choices) for you, and that is tyranny. The govts role in such matters is mainly limited to preventing people from infringing on the rights of other persons.
    I think when it comes to life and death, the state should and often does take a valid interest in such outcomes, whether you particularly like it or not, fellow citizen. And again we get back to this "persons" problem you have. You have yet to provide proof of your assertions regarding this term, yet yourself have given proof that in the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act, that the child in utero, in the womb, is considered to have legal rights. Correct? it is not the mother that has rights under this law, it is the child if harmed that is given legal status. Add to that the separate DNA, the non permanence which makes ludicrous the idea of this baby being solely an appendage of the mother, the fact that the baby is constantly alive from conception, that it is also incontrovertibly human...I mean, what cards are you holding in this bluff poker being played, remind me...



    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Since the unborn are not persons, the unborn have no rights to protect and the govt has no power to protect rights that do not exist.
    Again you assert this without proving it... just because you say something over and over and over and over... well, you get the point, you get the point, you get the point, you get the point...

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The bottom line is the twists, turns, and spins that the right has to go through in order to rationalize how their belief in a govt of power limited by the constitution can be squared with their desire to have the govt assume a power that was not granted to it by the constitution, and how their belief in liberty and freedom is consistent with the disdain they show for freedom when they trivialize people's right to self-determination (ie "choice") are the real "verbal gymnastics"
    I am pretty sure that we, as delineated for all to see in our Fifth Amendment rights, cannot, under the Constitution, be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and this most certainly is, undeniably is, depriving a living human of their rightful life, this heinous excuse instead inserted, a right not to have to take proper responsibility for what has been done, what they have created, this "right" to choose to supersede life itself. I think not, plus it is incumbent upon government to involve itself when the parties involved are so barbarous... 52 million abortions... since Roe...that is approaching Moaist death levels.



    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    And here is a fine example of the verbal gymnastics that you spoke of. You argue as if the fetus has rights and is being exploited in a manner similar to the way slaves are. The truth is, the mother's decision to abort has nothing to do with any form of exploitation of the fetus. The mother is also placed at risk when she consents to a medical procedure. Misrepresenting this situation in order to equate it with slavery is intellectually dishonest. It fails the "sniff test"
    Simple fact is, this unwanted "property" is given shorter shrift than were slaves even, considered no more than a wart to be excised, to these women who practice, and men who preach, this atrocious ritual with death. Truthfully, regarding the "sniff test"...one has difficulty imagining the other being much able to distinguish one bad smell from all that must be lingering in such constant and close proximity... must be one super talented nose...

Page 23 of 73 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •