Page 46 of 73 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 722

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

  1. #451
    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
    Gosh…

    Not able to point to anything you have said that is not factual…with the multiplicity of targets so readily available, one may feel the uncertainty faced by a single mosquito hovering over a nudist camp…

    Where to start, where to start…..???


    It’s not like I have time to go over them all, but… let’s us just go back through some of those factual inaccuracies you have undeniably stated, since you keep challenging me to do so and they keep proliferating like mutating germs.

    In this thread, and again, just picking the main ones as who has time to go back through and flag EVERY SINGLE ONE of your erroneous “facts”… here is a hurried smattering.

    Another thing, one who makes such statements should not go unchallenged just due to laziness, so…

    Post #151

    You said: “Actually, most of the Africans who were enslaved died before they ever got to America”

    This is factually wrong as the estimates are 12.5 -15% were lost in the Middle Passage and about 4.5% lost on the Western African Atlantic side prior to departure. You even “liked” this statement of the proof of your own off-the-cuff inaccuracy being wrong.
    PS--- you even "liked" this yourself.


    Post #188

    You said: “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”

    Factually untrue, proven by the fact that you cannot to this day point out anywhere the Constitution says anything of the sort. The Constitution is silent on the issue.

    Post 212

    You said: “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"

    As already proven, the Constitution does provide notice that We, the People, who are the ACTUAL government, have rights not enumerated, expressed or implied, at our sole discretion. Should we decide to do so, so shall it be done.

    Post #219

    You said: “The DOI is not a legal document”

    While illegal, as a form of teason under an English government, this was a formal document expressing the breach of the Social Contract by King George III that was iniated under our Second Contenental Congress…how is that not a legal document*? In the most eloquent of language, overseen by many an American attorney, witnessed and signed in a very legal manner. How is the Declaration of Independence not a “legal document” that is in continuous use to this day? You never proved that statement either.
    *By raising armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and making formal treaties, the [Second Continental ] Congress acted as the de facto national government of what became the United States [Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815, 113.].


    Post 231

    You said: “UVVA does not protect any rights of the unborn. It protects the mother”

    Does the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA), protecting fetal rights, threaten abortion rights? - ACLU - ProCon.org

    You will note that the text of the law makes reference to the unborn child starting with this language:

    Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
    (a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

    Concluding with this language:

    (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

    If you actually read the the law, it only mentions the mother in reference to a comparison to a crime that had been committed on the mother [ it makes no mention of this being a crime against the mother]. I again challenge you to point out the language therein where it does so in this act…



    Post 303

    You said: “Because the UVVA specifies that people who attack a mother and cause a fetus to die should be charged with murder.

    Once again, I challenge you to point out the language in the law that says anything about an attack to the mother except as a comparison to the penalty if there is an attack on an unborn child…this bill is all about the unborn child, its title is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act for gosh sakes.

    And in regards to our current iteration wherein you will not even deign to give definition to the terms you use…yet saying that separate DNA is not in evidence upon conception….let me do the work for us.

    Conception by Merriam Webster definition: 1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) : embryo, fetus

    Conception by Yourdictionary.com The formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.

    As fertilization might be put under question…

    by Merriam Webster definition: Fertilization (2) : the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.

    Yourdictionary.com Fertilization science definition: The process by which two gametes (reproductive cells having a single, haploid set of chromosomes) fuse to become a zygote, which develops into a new organism. The resultant zygote is diploid (it has two sets of chromosomes).

    Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of Fertilization noun: 1the action or process of fertilizing an egg or a female animal or plant, involving the fusion of male and female gametes to form a zygote.

    And finally should your definition of Zygote not up to date…

    by Merriam Webster definition: Zygote=a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

    Yourdictionary.com science definition: Zygote : The cell formed by the union of the nuclei of two reproductive cells (gametes), especially a fertilized egg cell.

    If you are unable or unwilling to actually debate, just let me know. I will keep this list of inaccuracies handy to remind you…should you desire to keep uttering this undeniable equivocation regarding only stating the factual.
    All of these points have been addressed and you have been shown to be wrong. All you can do is repeat your mistakes and hope that will make it sound as if you're right

    But I have proven, with quotes from SCOTUS' decision in Roe v Wade, that under the constitution a ZEF is not a person, and has no rights. Your inability to understand how our justice system determines the meaning of the constitution is not my failing; it is yours.

    All of the points you raised have been addressed, and so all you're doing is repeating your mistakes, as if repeating them will make them true

    The fact is that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights. I have po
    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. #452
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Yeah, this is one of those cases that makes our justice system so laughable to the rest of the world. Abortion is legal, while killing a fetus at the same stage of pregnancy is murder. That makes no sense whatsoever.

  3. #453
    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
    All of these points have been addressed and you have been shown to be wrong. All you can do is repeat your mistakes and hope that will make it sound as if you're right

    But I have proven, with quotes from SCOTUS' decision in Roe v Wade, that under the constitution a ZEF is not a person, and has no rights. Your inability to understand how our justice system determines the meaning of the constitution is not my failing; it is yours.

    All of the points you raised have been addressed, and so all you're doing is repeating your mistakes, as if repeating them will make them true

    The fact is that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights. I have po
    Yawn.

    You already attempted the "raised and addressed" ploy previously...did not work then and the ploy certainly has not improved any with age. My suggestion? Stop challenging me to identify that target rich environment of your inadequacy in proving positively the assertions you keep making. Hey, unless one has masochistic tendencies, then to each his own, eh?

    What you have proven, under RvW, is that a previous Supreme Court made a decision [ wonder of wonders, about the status of an unborn child---how could they do that, didn't they listen to you?] which, like the decision of Plessy v Ferguson, was a poor decision eventually to be rectified, and most assuredly will be overturned.

    As regards a ZEF [ callous identifier that the rest of us call an innocent child in utero ] under the Constitution, as stated many times, the Constitution is mute on the issue. If WE want to make a law regarding an unborn child, WE MOST CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A LAW and WE MOST CERTAINLY WILL. Been done already, ironically, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. So that this is impossible to do, I guess, would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

  4. #454
    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 chromium View Post
    Yeah, this is one of those cases that makes our justice system so laughable to the rest of the world. Abortion is legal, while killing a fetus at the same stage of pregnancy is murder. That makes no sense whatsoever.
    Amen to that brother.

  5. #455
    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 Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Good thing the current makeup of the USSC will not rule abortions illegal, idn't it?
    Where is your assurance of that? I think most Supreme Courts like to clean up messes left by previous Supreme Courts if they can, for example the poor decision of Plessy v Ferguson replaced with the much improved version, Brown v Board.

  6. #456
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,941

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

    The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
    The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

    The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

    The right to privacy is here to stay.
    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.

  7. #457
    Professor
    vendur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-05-13 @ 08:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,250

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

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
    The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

    The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

    The right to privacy is here to stay.
    There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution.


    sorry to rain on your and the lefty d-bags who came up with the roe versus wade decision.

    As if you could kidnap someone, tortue them, and shoot them to death in your home and be free to do so as long as they don't catch you before you do the deed, as your "right to privacy" somehow trumps anything else.

    What tripe.

  8. #458
    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
    Yawn.

    You already attempted the "raised and addressed" ploy previously...did not work then and the ploy certainly has not improved any with age. My suggestion? Stop challenging me to identify that target rich environment of your inadequacy in proving positively the assertions you keep making. Hey, unless one has masochistic tendencies, then to each his own, eh?

    What you have proven, under RvW, is that a previous Supreme Court made a decision [ wonder of wonders, about the status of an unborn child---how could they do that, didn't they listen to you?] which, like the decision of Plessy v Ferguson, was a poor decision eventually to be rectified, and most assuredly will be overturned.

    As regards a ZEF [ callous identifier that the rest of us call an innocent child in utero ] under the Constitution, as stated many times, the Constitution is mute on the issue. If WE want to make a law regarding an unborn child, WE MOST CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A LAW and WE MOST CERTAINLY WILL. Been done already, ironically, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. So that this is impossible to do, I guess, would depend on what your definition of "is" is.
    Until SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade (unlikely given that they have only affirmed it later cases) it is the law of the land. Until that day, it is 100% accurate for me to say that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights.

    And as the RvW decision made clear, the constitution is not mute on this issue. SCOTUS noted that the constitution refers to persons in a number of places (as my quote from RvW shows) and in none of them does the word apply to the unborn. Only the ideologically blinded would insist that the constitution does not refer to "persons" or that any of those references refer to the unborn.

    And you can make as many abortion banning laws as you like. They will always be struck down, just as they have always been struck down.

    The UVVA explicitly states that it does not apply to abortion. It takes a special kind of delusion to believe that a law which explicitly does not apply to abortion will somehow affect abortion.
    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. #459
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,941

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vendur View Post
    There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution.


    sorry to rain on your and the lefty d-bags who came up with the roe versus wade decision.

    As if you could kidnap someone, tortue them, and shoot them to death in your home and be free to do so as long as they don't catch you before you do the deed, as your "right to privacy" somehow trumps anything else.

    What tripe.
    In case you forgot most of the judges who decided Roe vs, WAde were apponted by republicans.

    [B]Blackmun, [B]who penned the Supreme Court’s final Majority opinion, was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon.
    Also appointed by Nixon were Burgher and Powell.
    So far, three of the seven Justices in the Majority were appointed by a Republican President.
    But do not forget that Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.
    This means that five of the seven Majority Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (Douglas and Marshall were appointed by Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively). What’s more, take the two Democratic-appointed judges out of the Majority, and you are still left with all-Republican majority of the Court that legalizes abortion.

    Only White (appointed by Democratic President John F. Kennedy) and Renquist (appointed by Nixon) opposed the Court’s decision to legalize abortion in the United States.
    Are liberal judges to blame for Roe v. Wade? | Vox Nova

    The right to privacy regarding reproductive rights was decided in 1965 a full 8 years before Roe vs Wade.

    A little history:

    Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

    In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.
    The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender."
    <SNIP>

    The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion."
    In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed.
    <SNIP>

    the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive."
    <SNIP>

    In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract.
    Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade [1973]).
    The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) | PBS
    Last edited by minnie616; 05-25-13 at 02:28 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.

  10. #460
    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 minnie616 View Post
    The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
    The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

    The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

    The right to privacy is here to stay.
    Minnie, that is just not true, you have no way of knowing if that law would have passed or not with the woman's right to abortion/privacy conflict included ... there are all sorts of "trigger" laws even now already passed, also old state laws statutes on the books that have never been repealed, regarding making abortion illegal... so a law can be passed about nearly anything, later it may be adjudicated as to whether the law was actually Constitutional, or at least within the parameters that the current Supreme Court deems Constitutional.

    Secondly, UVVA does seem to go quite far regarding whether or not a child in utero should be considered a fellow citizen, a person as you put it, when they indicate in no uncertain terms that,

    “(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

    While slightly ambiguous, I do not see how one can interpret that to mean anything less than a fellow member in the race…to me that indicates personhood…

    Merriam Webster is not much help in resolving the nebulous aspect of homo sapiens as it defines it as : Humankind
    Humankind is defined as : : the human race

    As regards the right to privacy and its link to abortion being permanent... I am sure many, at the time, thought slavery was here to stay as well... I wouldn't bet my life on it, if I were you.
    .

Page 46 of 73 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... 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
  •