• 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!

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

Viktyr Gehrig said:
You're a misogynist because you believe women should be forced to birth babies while men do all the "real" work.
Click to expand...

You mean their (man and woman)?

Woman just don't make babies.

Maybe progressive men are like that but not me or my circle....
 
shrubnose said:
Fixed that for you.

What's a good name for people who claim that everyone in a group has certain characteristics?

Any ideas?
Click to expand...

I don't judge, but apparently you do?

So you tell me.
 
shrubnose said:
One good word is bigot. Look it up.
Click to expand...

One good circumvention of an attempt to derail a report is to demonize individuals in an attempt to change the topic - the real issue which the coward is ashamed.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Gentlemen, this is getting rather heated, and a number of posts are riding the border of baiting/trolling. Sit back, take a breath, take your hands off the keyboard for a minute, and remember it isn't the end of the world if you don't get the last "gotcha!" on Teh Interwebz. Okay? Okay.... let's be topical, and civil, and discuss the topic and not each other, pls.
 
Mr.Nick said:
One good circumvention of an attempt to derail a report is to demonize individuals in an attempt to change the topic - the real issue which the coward is ashamed.
Click to expand...




This comment doesn't make sense.
 
Mr.Nick said:
So a "fetus" (using your language) isn't a person until that individual is birthed???

I suppose I'm just a fetus because I was born 3 weeks early???

Or am I a person because I was birthed?

If you shot me/mother in August of 1980 would you have just been killing a fetus? or me?
Click to expand...

Yes, no, yes and I don't know when your birthday is
 
Mr.Nick said:
Generally human emotions... We don't have words like empathy in our language for ourselves.

I think one of the first rules of humanity is that humans do not kill other humans....

"Why" is philosophical.....
Click to expand...

No, humans kill humans all the time. There is no such rule of humanity
 
Mr.Nick said:
That is irrelevant considering the "born" came from somewhere and are in fact viable beings who will grow and become adults and hopefully productive members of society.

You don't have the right to determine what is a human life and what is not - neither do a bunch of lawyers.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's completely relevant.

You don't have to care about it, but it is relevant because it is the law

And I don't care how you determine what a human life is. I care about the constitution

Abortion is legal. Deal with it
 
Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS

sangha said:
You are making a straw man argument here. No one has claimed that the constitution says that the word person, as used in the constitution, does not include the unborn. What was actually said, and what you have offered nothing to refute, is that under the constitution the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn
Click to expand...



Have actually offered plenty, but, alas, one often cannot expect those blind to just immediately be able to see, the deaf to hear, not so high wattage bulbs in the pack just suddenly to become bright. Guess you missed the 9th and 10th Amendment rights points, eh? Might consider a visit to an optometrist, check for sufficient diopter strength, then you may see how these 9th and 10th previously mentioned points show the Constitution provides for and allows the people, and the states' governments, rights that I hazard would not be long neglected, would quickly move to provide prudent legislation restricting humans from being allowed to freely, premeditatedly, butcher their innocent fellows.

One would hope we are all for maintaining our civilization, no need to head heedlessly down that path of chaos.

Straw man, huh... you audaciously assert that the Constitution only allows for born persons... let me, again, cut and paste what you said as you are doing your very best to boogie upwind from the fact that you said it, " "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." You have yet nothing to back that up within our Constitution...and now you are saying I am using a straw man because I called you on it.

Nice... try.

Then, you keep asserting this folly as if you had actually provided evidence that proved it... kinda cheeky, does this tactic generally work for you, does it?



sangha said:
The DOI is not a legal document and there's no evidence to suggest that they considered "creation" to be synonymous with "conception"
Click to expand...

Not a legal document? I would say, with all their bold signatures, this was initially an illegal document, one for which they could hang. But legal in that it was, in writing, identifying a breach of contract between King and colonists. Plus it outlined what was intended of a new nation with a new government... so how do you figure it not to be legal?




sangha said:
For one thing, the ZEF has no right to life. Also, it is a demonstration of verbal gymnastics you deplore to claim that when a woman has sex, she is consenting to birth a baby if she gets pregnant. In addition, at the moment of conception, the ZEF does not have "separate DNA"
Click to expand...

Here again, about a ZEF [ a child in utero to the caring], you assert the innocent and living unborn no right, but never deign to prove that... or even make much effort to state anything persuasive, apparently we are just to take your dictates on the matter...sorry, that is not how debate goes...this is a debate website isn't it, not an imperial assert-your-unsubstantiated-opinions site, right?
 
Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS

Gaugingcatenate said:
Have actually offered plenty, but, alas, one often cannot expect those blind to just immediately be able to see, the deaf to hear, not so high wattage bulbs in the pack just suddenly to become bright. Guess you missed the 9th and 10th Amendment rights points, eh? Might consider a visit to an optometrist, check for sufficient diopter strength, then you may see how these 9th and 10th previously mentioned points show the Constitution provides for and allows the people, and the states' governments, rights that I hazard would not be long neglected, would quickly move to provide prudent legislation restricting humans from being allowed to freely, premeditatedly, butcher their innocent fellows.

One would hope we are all for maintaining our civilization, no need to head heedlessly down that path of chaos.

Straw man, huh... you audaciously assert that the Constitution only allows for born persons... let me, again, cut and paste what you said as you are doing your very best to boogie upwind from the fact that you said it, " "Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born." You have yet nothing to back that up within our Constitution...and now you are saying I am using a straw man because I called you on it.

Nice... try.

Then, you keep asserting this folly as if you had actually provided evidence that proved it... kinda cheeky, does this tactic generally work for you, does it?





Not a legal document? I would say, with all their bold signatures, this was initially an illegal document, one for which they could hang. But legal in that it was, in writing, identifying a breach of contract between King and colonists. Plus it outlined what was intended of a new nation with a new government... so how do you figure it not to be legal?






Here again, about a ZEF [ a child in utero to the caring], you assert the innocent and living unborn no right, but never deign to prove that... or even make much effort to state anything persuasive, apparently we are just to take your dictates on the matter...sorry, that is not how debate goes...this is a debate website isn't it, not an imperial assert-your-unsubstantiated-opinions site, right?
Click to expand...

The constitution applies to persons, which do not include the unborn

I have proven that this is true with quotes from the constitution and SCOTUS

But I realize that the right has no use for facts or the constitution
 
sangha said:
No, humans kill humans all the time. There is no such rule of humanity
Click to expand...




I think it might be one of the Ten Commandments, but that only applies to the Christians and the Jews.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Gentlemen, I reiterate one last time: cease the personal slurs and insinuations against others' intellect or competence and discuss the TOPIC, not each other. Failure to follow this directive will result in consequences. Thank you.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News

Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.

Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".

He is now charged with first-degree murder.

Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?

Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?
Click to expand...

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
shrubnose said:
I think it might be one of the Ten Commandments, but that only applies to the Christians and the Jews.
Click to expand...

You think it might be one of the Ten Commandments? It's actually Number 6 on the list.

And you are probably right that it only applies to Christians and Jews. With a little research it's my guess that those who support abortion tend to be agnostics or atheists, and have little regard for anyone's life apart from their own. Even their own lives are probably quite shallow.
 
Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS

.
.
Well bless your misguided little heart....


sangha said:
The constitution applies to persons, which do not include the unborn

Simply asserted, that just cannot be considered debate, being only a firmly held yet very shaky opinion, at best.

I have proven that this is true with quotes from the constitution and SCOTUS

Not only never proven, explicitly called out/proven wrong regarding such "creative" assertions about our Constitution that only exist as a figment of a liberal imagination...turned out to be at minimum a vast overreach if not a flat out prevarication. But clearly communicated were very good powers of avoidance, a voluntary blindness to facts and logic...personally I do not consider those to be virtues to be cultivated nor encouraged here.

But I realize that the right has no use for facts or the constitution

We realize you have opinions that you want, would absolutely love, to call facts, facts that are fictions to anyone that takes the time to verify...

I don't mind folks being obstinate, though it can be frustrating at times, no doubt, but I do expect honest brokers of information, so those of you who are simply unable, please just ignore my comments to your posts, we will be wasting each other's time if you respond and are not actually looking for an honest approach to a dialogue predicated at getting closer to the truth, or at least a better, civil, while of course at times adversarial, but an actual attempt at understanding of a differing point of view.
Click to expand...

One can always pick out those who do not like their myths questioned... its almost as if its against their religion.
 
Grant said:
You think it might be one of the Ten Commandments? It's actually Number 6 on the list.

And you are probably right that it only applies to Christians and Jews. With a little research it's my guess that those who support abortion tend to be agnostics or atheists, and have little regard for anyone's life apart from their own. Even their own lives are probably quite shallow.
Click to expand...




Most Americans support a woman's right to choose and the vast majority of Americans are Christians.
 
Grant said:
No. Nowhere did anyone make the claim that he attacked her.

Please supply some information to support your claim that he attacked her.
Click to expand...

Maybe he's misunderstanding "battery."
 
Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330]

sangha said:
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 :lol:
Click to expand...

Well...there you go again...going to that very same dry well you could not get " only a born person" out of... pesky document, for some anyhow, our Constitution. Why don't you show all of us exactly where in the Constitution , "... the part where the constitution gives SCOTUS the power to determine how to apply the constitution." Just quote to us where it says anything of the sort in Article III. My quick impression is that you do not seem to have studied the Constitution in any particular detail from all these loose, at best, assertions you make about it and what this framework for our governance "says".
 
Grant said:
he poisoner her? You mean he's being charged with her murder?

Can you provide a link to that?
Click to expand...

Did you fail to read the linked article or are you just playing stupid for your own pathetic amusement? He tricked her into taking drugs that she did not want to take, that harmed her; that is legally defined as assault in this country. Therefore he assaulted her, which is what led to the loss of her unborn child. He is being-- incorrectly, in my opinion-- charged with the murder of the unborn child that was killed during the commission of a violent felony, in this case the assault upon the mother.
 
nota bene said:
Maybe he's misunderstanding "battery."
Click to expand...

There seems to be many words here which have lost their original meaning.

Too often they are trying to cloak their beliefs and feelings into legal terms, and it comes out garbled.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Did you fail to read the linked article or are you just playing stupid for your own pathetic amusement? He tricked her into taking drugs that she did not want to take, that harmed her; that is legally defined as assault in this country. Therefore he assaulted her, which is what led to the loss of her unborn child. He is being-- incorrectly, in my opinion-- charged with the murder of the unborn child that was killed during the commission of a violent felony, in this case the assault upon the mother.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand what the word "poisoned" means? Even in your own summary of what happened you fail to use the term.

I agree that an assault took place, which is the crime he should be charged with. The problem for the abortionists is that using the term "murder" implies that this baby was a 'person', a term groups such as Planned Parenthood want to avoid.

If this goes to court it could change abortion laws dramatically and could again visit the Supreme Court. Perhaps that's what all this is really about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom