Page 43 of 73 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 722

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

  1. #421
    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
    Imitation, it is often said, is the sincerest form of flattery, so I do appreciate the fact that you attempt to use my own argument against me.

    Just that irksome little detail that we are not arguing anywhere near the same thing… so, as a method, my approach works decently well for my argument…but unfortunately [for you], it really does not bring the same result for yours. As you can clearly see going back through our exchanges, I made none of the provably false claims regarding what the Constitution provides that YOU did. It was just YOU who made such claims… declaring that the Constitution only allows for "born persons". My point was that the Constitution was/is silent, not that the Constitution specifically recognizes the unborn or not.

    The Constitution indicates no particular position on the matter.

    So, again…nice try.





    Ditto on the flattery, ditto on the fact that my argument works for mine, not at all for your argument, ditto on the reason. I NEVER indicated that our Constitution said anything about the powers of the Supreme Court as you have incongruously stated that it did. Then I asked you to provide any, ANY, proof that the Constitution said anything like you said it said [ exactly reminiscent of the irreconcilable difficulties you had with your " born persons" assertion] and you then perversely misidentified this as a "dodge" on my part. The irony being that it was you who were dodging, failing to even make an attempt to prove your [now obvious to yourself and most the rest of us] infelicitous and yet unproven avowal that the Constitution does give powers particular to the way you said that it does... which it most assuredly does not.

    Sooooo...

    Ditto on the nice try.
    Unfortunately, nothing is working for your position which is probably the result of our taking the inane position that if the constitution doesn't explicitly mention something, it does not apply. Maybe that's why the abortion banners have been stymied over and over again, and have nothing to show for all the rendering of cloth and gnashing of teeth they have done over the years.
    Last edited by sangha; 05-21-13 at 10:18 PM.
    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. #422
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    i wonder why no one ever addresses the millions of people that have had abortions and felt obligated by their morals and responsibilities to do so.
    I wonder why their morals dont count and others some how are magically more important?

    I wonder why people quote the bible but yet ignore other parts of it, i wonder why they quote the bible but wont accept "certain translations" or versions old vs new testament, king James etc etc based on just their opinion

    this is why i would never use my personal morals/beliefs that are based on religion to try and make laws to force others to follow. Nor would i use it to judge others since thats completely backwards from what i was taught religion is for and is about.

    The religion argument for abortion and marriage when we are talking legality will always be failures. This is why my religion never comes play for the vast majority of conversations about politics, rights, freedoms and liberties. Its because it has no business coming up. I wont force my Christianity on others.
    I agree.
    Some religions are pro life and some are pro choice.

    There is a diversity of views that exist within the U.S. and Canada concerning abortion access.

    Different religions view translations of Bible verses differently.

    For example the Jehovah's Witness are urged to refuse blood transfusions based on four passages of the Bible.
    But other Christian and Jewish faith groups interpet the same Bible passages as refering to dietary laws.

    Jehovah's Witness' beliefs and teachings about blood transfusions:

    Some conservative Christian denominations urge or require their members to abandon all medical treatment in favor of prayer.
    This policy results in a very large number of infant and child deaths in these groups.


    However, we are aware of only one Christian faith group -- the Jehovah's Witnesses --
    that permits or encourages its members to accept medical treatments while
    urging them to refuse to accept blood transfusions for themselves or their children.

    The Witnesses' beliefs are mainly based on four passages in the Bible.

    To our knowledge, all other Christian and Jewish faith groups
    interpret these same passages as referring to dietary laws;

    i.e. to the actual eating of meat containing blood.
    Jehovah's Witnesses: Teachings on blood transfusions

    The USA is supposed to keep Church and State seperate.
    The USA should not base laws on a certain religion.
    Last edited by minnie616; 05-21-13 at 11:07 PM.
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  3. #423
    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
    Unfortunately, nothing is working for your position which is probably the result of our taking the inane position that if the constitution doesn't explicitly mention something, it does not apply. Maybe that's why the abortion banners have been stymied over and over again, and have nothing to show for all the rendering of cloth and gnashing of teeth they have done over the years.
    Again, undeniably and provably wrong. You have asserted and been, repeatedly to the point of irritation, proven wrong about what the Constitution says and does not say. You know and I know that, as well as anybody that has followed our "conversation". I also did not take ANY inane position in our discussions on "if" anything, Constitution or otherwise. You made several statements about what the Constitution supposedly says, I just proved you inadequate to the task of proving your own assertions.

    I can certainly appreciate your position in wanting to get this quickly behind you, but the fact of the matter is that you are attempting to spin what you were doing... and spin what I was doing. Not appreciated.

    Now that we have wiped the slate clean of your previous preposterous suppositions about what the Constitution does or does not say, maybe we can further have a conversation about whether or not the government, as you have indicated in the past that it cannot, can make decisions regarding protecting our unborn fellow citizens.

    I would posit that the government, WE THE PEOPLE, can and do make just these kinds of decisions and have since, even previous to, ratification. Does the federal government under enumerated, implied and amendments allow for this? That would be a good discussion. However, As provided in the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 & 10 [ also stated much earlier in our discussion ], should open up to critical discussion and thought, at very least to a reasonable "born person", that our government, WE THE PEOPLE, have those rights should WE desire them.

    9th Amendment = The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

    10th = The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


    You have also previously stated that DNA is not established upon conception, which is ALSO provably incorrect...

    So oh, thanks for making it so easy [well, except maybe for all the spinning... and the tremendous amount of lag time required for acceptance of just how provably incorrect you have repeatedly been].
    Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 05-21-13 at 11:40 PM.

  4. #424
    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
    Again, undeniably and provably wrong. You have asserted and been, repeatedly to the point of irritation, proven wrong about what the Constitution says and does not say. You know and I know that, as well as anybody that has followed our "conversation". I also did not take ANY inane position in our discussions on "if" anything, Constitution or otherwise. You made several statements about what the Constitution supposedly says, I just proved you inadequate to the task of proving your own assertions.

    I can certainly appreciate your position in wanting to get this quickly behind you, but the fact of the matter is that you are attempting to spin what you were doing... and spin what I was doing. Not appreciated.

    Now that we have wiped the slate clean of your previous preposterous suppositions about what the Constitution does or does not say, maybe we can further have a conversation about whether or not the government, as you have indicated in the past that it cannot, can make decisions regarding protecting our unborn fellow citizens.

    I would posit that the government, WE THE PEOPLE, can and do make just these kinds of decisions and have since, even previous to, ratification. Does the federal government under enumerated, implied and amendments allow for this? That would be a good discussion. However, As provided in the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 & 10 [ also stated much earlier in our discussion ], should open up to critical discussion and thought, at very least to a reasonable "born person", that our government, WE THE PEOPLE, have those rights should WE desire them.

    9th Amendment = The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

    10th = The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


    You have also previously stated that DNA is not established upon conception, which is ALSO provably incorrect...

    So oh, thanks for making it so easy [well, except maybe for all the spinning... and the tremendous amount of lag time required for acceptance of just how provably incorrect you have repeatedly been].
    Your knowledge of reproduction is as faulty as your claims about the law

    http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/iss...no1_peters.pdf
    In between these extremes are two more promising alternatives.
    The first alternative is offered by scholars who believe that conception
    occurs when the haploid genomes contributed by the egg and sperm
    combine to form the diploid embryonic genome, roughly twenty-four
    hours after insemination.15
    In scientific terms, the human life cycle alternates between two
    distinct stages: a diploid stage (human embryos, infants, and adults)
    and a haploid gametic stage (human eggs and sperm). During the
    diploid stage, all human cells have the full complement of nuclear
    DNA — two copies of the twenty-three distinct human chromosomes
    and, thus, a total of forty-six chromosomes. During the haploid stage,
    the diploid cells that give rise to egg and sperm go through a process
    called meiosis in which they shed half of their chromosomes, leaving
    only twenty-three unpaired chromosomes. When the gametes fuse,
    the process is reversed; two sets of twenty-three singleton
    chromosomes are matched up and eventually begin to function as a
    new diploid genome. With that transition, a new diploid organism
    comes into existence
    Because the transition from the haploid genomes of the sperm and
    egg to the functioning diploid genome of an early embryo is gradual
    and extends over several days, the normative question is how far the
    process must advance before the living cells which undergo it are
    entitled to the protections and legal status assigned by laws triggered
    at conception. Although only a few scholars have attempted to answer
    this question, those who have done so have reached very different
    conclusions. Several possibilities have been suggested, including (1)
    penetration of the ovum by a sperm, (2) assembly of the new
    embryonic genome, (3) successful activation of that genome, and (4)
    implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Choosing among these
    options obliges us to identify the attributes that make early embryos
    morally different from sperm and egg and to identify the point in the
    process of transformation when those attributes appear.
    There is no formal legislative history to guide the courts on this
    question. Indeed, most of the lawmakers who voted in favor of these
    statutes probably assumed that the transition occurs as the sperm
    penetrates the egg. Because that assumption is incorrect, the courts
    must look elsewhere for guidance.
    Under these circumstances, the search for a rationale reasonably
    begins by examining the arguments made by the supporters of these
    life-begins-at-conception laws. The four attributes of the early embryo
    which are most commonly offered as a basis for recognizing life from
    the moment of conception are (1) the fertilized egg’s potential to
    become a child (and thus an undisputed moral agent), (2) its selfdirected
    development, (3) its genetic completeness, and (4) its
    individuality.68
    Proponents of elevated moral status from the time of conception
    typically point out that early embryos combine genetic completeness
    with self-direction. They are right to argue that the combination of
    genetic completeness and internal propulsion has normative
    significance. This combination of attributes distinguishes early
    embryos from gametes (which are self-directed, but haploid) and from
    ordinary body cells (which are diploid, but not propelled to become
    an embryo).
    A few experts believe that these two conditions are satisfied as soon
    as a sperm enters the ovum.86 They base this conclusion on the fact
    that penetration of the ovum by a single sperm activates the ovum and
    begins a process of continuous development that, if successful, will
    result in the birth of a child.87 Once the two cells have merged into
    one, the inseminated ovum contains all of the genetic raw material
    needed to build a new diploid genome and is internally propelled to
    do so.88 At insemination, therefore, the future person’s unique genetic
    code has been determined, even though it has not yet been assembled
    into a single diploid genome.
    84

    Given this internal propulsion and the presence of all the needed
    genetic materials within the walls of the fertilized egg, supporters of
    this view do not see the embryo’s lack of an assembled and
    functioning embryonic genome as critical. Instead, the eventual
    assembly and activation of the embryonic genome are seen as
    subsequent steps in a process commenced when a sperm enters the
    ovum. At this point, a genetically distinct and complete organism has
    “embarked upon its own distinctive development.”89
    Yet the claims of genetic sameness and completeness vastly overstate
    the sharpness of the distinction between the haploid and diploid stages
    prior to assembly of the embryonic genome.90 In the hours following
    insemination, the maternal and paternal chromosomes are segregated
    into separate nuclei. At this stage, the fertilized egg really has two
    haploid genomes, each in its own nucleus, not a diploid genome. In
    fact, there is no “embryonic genome” at this time. Instead, the
    embryo’s development is being directed by maternal proteins and
    rDNA.
    As a consequence, both conservative and liberal commentators have
    concluded that the entry of a sperm into the ovum is not sufficient to
    justify the conclusion that a new human life has been conceived.
    Instead, most would wait until the genome has been assembled. In
    effect, they acknowledge that the emerging embryo lacks sufficient
    self-direction and genetic completeness to deserve privileged moral
    and legal status before it has a diploid genome. Most probably also
    assume that the diploid genome will thereafter direct the embryo’s
    development. Yet, scientists have learned that the newly formed
    diploid genome does not assume immediate control of the embryo’s
    development. Instead, it remains dormant for two more cell divisions.
    Thus, the embryo does not become a diploid organism (i.e., one
    governed by a diploid genome) until it reaches at least the eight-cell
    stage.
    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..

  5. #425
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,947

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

    A fetus is not a PERSON under U.S. law.
    here are three key points that were decided in the Roe vs Wade case.
    Three key points:

    A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
    Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that
    the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
    In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.

    States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice.

    Since 1891, the U.S. has recognized a right to privacy in some "zones" of activity, which means that individuals can make decisions and act upon them without informing other people and without state interference. (Example: Your discussions with your lawyer are private and confidential.) The court has previously recognized that adult women have a privacy right when it comes to contraception and reproduction.



    Conclusion: Because fetuses are not legally protected and abortion is a safe medical procedure protected by privacy rights, adult women have the right to receive an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, and states can only interfere where the interference is appropriate to the woman's health.
    Roe v Wade - edited text
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  6. #426
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    A fetus is not a PERSON under U.S. law.
    Then the boyfriend should not be charged with murder because no person died. However the court could decide that it was a person, just as PP fears.

    The door has been opened to more legal debate.

  7. #427
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Yeah, but if your moral position is based on nothing more than current law, it's rather weak and transient.
    I agree.

  8. #428
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Outside the cute little quip you pose here, there is a good question still....And that is, who makes you, or anyone else to say what others beliefs are right or wrong?
    It's actually from "Singing In The Rain", a great musical.

  9. #429
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,947

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Then the boyfriend should not be charged with murder because no person died. However the court could decide that it was a person, just as PP fears.

    The door has been opened to more legal debate.
    Not really because the boyfriend can be charged under the Federal feticide law , where the fetus does not have to be a person.
    It is according to feticide laws "a child in utero"...not a person.
    He is also facing charges of interfering with interstate commerce.(because he intentionaly swapped medicatuion.)
    is now facing first-degree murder and interfering with interstate commerce charges.

    According to a federal arrest affidavit, Welden swapped out his girlfriend's antibiotics with abortion pills, specifically Cytotec.
    Read more: FBI charged man with murder after, they say, he tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pill
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  10. #430
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Complex human beings puzzle you? Or is it the concept of not being able to control other's thoughts and views that troubles you?

    I appreciate that the left likes to co-opt words and phrases for their own mangled meanings, however, I believe in the purity of the English language. Too bad you believe the term pro-choice is solely code for pro-abortion whereas I actually believe pro-choice is code for believing that people should be free to make their own choice about almost anything, including abortion.
    "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.

Page 43 of 73 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... 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
  •