• 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!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Henrin said:
I don't know the rules of the decency reservation. :cool: They're constantly changing and I stopped checking the notices a long time ago.



I'm not attacking his family.
Click to expand...

Good to know -- it would certainly be out of character for you.

BTW, I apologize for my earlier "don't be an asshole" post.
 
Andalublue said:
The Euro-leftie gets the cigar.

She might have been a terrible novelist and knee-jerk contrarian, but she was at least consistent enough to know that you can't claim to be in favour of liberty and then ditch it to accord with your own quasi-religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

How dare you call Ayn Rand a "bad novelist"!

I don't like the cult of personality that has grown up around her, but I did enjoy her books. Her writing is certainly not Danielle Steele-level bad.
 
Pinkie said:
You are wrong. If that woman was infected with a deadly STI as a result of the rape and died, the rapist will be charged with murder. If her death is foreseeable but will take time, he might be charged with attempted murder.

Pregnancy and the complications thereof are not "unforeseeable" or "indirect" consequences of rape when the rapist is the father.
Click to expand...

Infecting someone with a deadly STD via the rape process is not the same thing as the woman dying from an unforseen medical complication during pregnancy. Listen, I get it, you would want the person charged with murder, but the justice system doesn't work on how you feel they should be tried. Murder has to be intentional. Everything else is unintentional and will be classified as something lower, ie: manslaughter. Perhaps you could provide an example case as precedent for your theory?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Infecting someone with a deadly STD via the rape process is not the same thing as the woman dying from an unforseen medical complication during pregnancy. Listen, I get it, you would want the person charged with murder, but the justice system doesn't work on how you feel they should be tried. Murder has to be intentional. Everything else is unintentional and will be classified as something lower, ie: manslaughter. Perhaps you could provide an example case as precedent for your theory?
Click to expand...

Not a specific example, as abortion is legal here.

Intent is a complex legal concept. The act must be intentional, although intent can be deliberate, gross negligence or just negligence. The criminal will face charges for all the consequences to his victim of the intentional act of rape.

So, let's say I burgle your home whilst you are on vacation, and on my way out, I knock over an oil lamp and a loose wire starts a fire that burns the house down. Now, I obviously did not intend to commit arson BUT when I intentionally burgled, I am regarded, as a matter of criminal law, as "intending" all the direct consequences of my crime, even if they are ones I could not have predicted.

Of course, IRL, crimes and criminals are more complex than a law school exam question, but that's the theory, anyway.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
1.)I don't think anyone here is scared of you. lol.



2.)While I believe that rape should have a very, very serious punishment, I don't think that murder could be charged in this scenario. It was an unforseen consequence. Manslaughter, perhaps. Murder, no. Murder has to have the killing itself be intentional.
Click to expand...

1.) good thing i didnt suggest that then huh? lol
2.) uhm isnt man slaughter a murder charge even-though murder isnt in the title? thats what i mentioned "involuntary" but i could be wrong but i definitely meant to included it.
until im told otherwise im ust going with my assumption, theres something called the "egg-shell" clause


if i strike you with only the intent to harm you but you have some weird hair line fracture and you die, i definitely get charged with a type of murder (im including involuntary manslaughter)

so in this case where the rapist clearly meant to cause the woman harm its illogical to me to not charge the rapist with murder
 
Andalublue said:
The Euro-leftie gets the cigar.

She might have been a terrible novelist and knee-jerk contrarian, but she was at least consistent enough to know that you can't claim to be in favour of liberty and then ditch it to accord with your own quasi-religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for the information.
 
Henrin said:
1.)There was obviously a her. Your daughters gender by the time you found out was already decided.



2.)If that is what you believe.



3.)No, the point of that was not about how good a parent you are.



4.)The only way you can deny my premise here is if you think she wasn't alive to begin with. Is that so?




5.)So you didn't want her aborted? That is not what you keep saying.



Ok, so those were your concerns. The fact still remains that none of that changes that you wanted your daughter killed. Reasons for wanting an act done doesn't make the nature of the act change.
Click to expand...

1.) sigh, there was no her nor did I wish her death thats a fact all your crying will never change lmao, repeat it agin 15 more times it will be as wronf as the first time you said it lol
2.) my beliefs play no role here only facts
3.) what???? you are just taling in circles now you definitely tried to tell me how i feel and you failed lol
4.) of course the ZEF was alive but facts deny your false premise and assumptions lol
5.) i wanted my GF to abort the zygote
6.) LMAO :laughat: wow talk about a back pedal, once you were proved wrong you tried to redirect, FAIL and again, i never wanted my daughter killed LMAO. Thats only how you view it and nothing more.

I knew you told lies and were dishonest before but this is just ridiculous lol
 
Pinkie said:
Henrin, if you are accusing someone of wanting their own child or grandchild aborted IRL, that is WAY beyond the line no decent person should cross in a debate on abortion rights.

Why do you anti-abortion types never notice when you wander off the decency reservation? Yet another reason your shrill cries of having staked out the moral high ground ring hollow.

Meanwhile, reel it back in, brotherman. Attacking someone's family is a serious TOS violation.
Click to expand...

what in his post history makes you think decency, logic, honesty and facts are a strong suit with him lol
 
Henrin said:
Possible death of the mother? That would call for immediate danger of her life for that to work. That isn't usually the case.
Click to expand...

But it is possible, and common. And there is no way to tell which pregnancy will cause death.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But it is possible, and common. And there is no way to tell which pregnancy will cause death.
Click to expand...

some how forcing another person to risk their life is somehow ok with some people, its laughable
 
Kal'Stang said:
But it is possible, and common. And there is no way to tell which pregnancy will cause death.
Click to expand...

Sure you can't say which women will die.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
1.) sigh, there was no her nor did I wish her death thats a fact all your crying will never change lmao, repeat it agin 15 more times it will be as wronf as the first time you said it lol
Click to expand...

There is no reason to repeat it. Deny all you want. Its really a simply matter to understand.

2.) my beliefs play no role here only facts
Click to expand...

Well what I said is factual so...

3.) what???? you are just taling in circles now you definitely tried to tell me how i feel and you failed lol
Click to expand...

But I didn't base this on you being a good parent like you said I did. I commented on your parenting as a minor point only. In fact, I have no way to know if you are a good parent.

4.) of course the ZEF was alive but facts deny your false premise and assumptions lol
Click to expand...

So you wanted to have it killed. Are you denying it?


5.) i wanted my GF to abort the zygote
Click to expand...

She was quick to inform you then.

6.) LMAO :laughat: wow talk about a back pedal, once you were proved wrong you tried to redirect, FAIL and again, i never wanted my daughter killed LMAO. Thats only how you view it and nothing more.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly admitted it and then denied it. The only problem here lies with you.
 
It is funny to see the GOP candidates in damage control mode and condemning this guy... all but Romney of course who still supports him....
 
Pinkie said:
Not a specific example, as abortion is legal here.

Intent is a complex legal concept. The act must be intentional, although intent can be deliberate, gross negligence or just negligence. The criminal will face charges for all the consequences to his victim of the intentional act of rape.

So, let's say I burgle your home whilst you are on vacation, and on my way out, I knock over an oil lamp and a loose wire starts a fire that burns the house down. Now, I obviously did not intend to commit arson BUT when I intentionally burgled, I am regarded, as a matter of criminal law, as "intending" all the direct consequences of my crime, even if they are ones I could not have predicted.

Of course, IRL, crimes and criminals are more complex than a law school exam question, but that's the theory, anyway.
Click to expand...
Objective-J said:
1.) good thing i didnt suggest that then huh? lol
2.) uhm isnt man slaughter a murder charge even-though murder isnt in the title? thats what i mentioned "involuntary" but i could be wrong but i definitely meant to included it.
until im told otherwise im ust going with my assumption, theres something called the "egg-shell" clause


if i strike you with only the intent to harm you but you have some weird hair line fracture and you die, i definitely get charged with a type of murder (im including involuntary manslaughter)

so in this case where the rapist clearly meant to cause the woman harm its illogical to me to not charge the rapist with murder
Click to expand...
The wiki on US law for murder has a pretty good breakdown. Although manslaughter is technically a special case of murder, it's not called murder because it's distinct from the fact that in manslaughter the perpetrator did not intend to kill the person. When I read the theoretical problem Objective J offered, I assume we're talking about a rape where the rapist does not physically injure the victim at the time. Let's say rufied.

The rapist's intent was not to kill, but to rape. He had every intention of walking out of the room that night and both of them living out their lives. If the victim became pregnant, and as a result died from a complication from the pregnancy, it could most certainly be charged as manslaughter, but not murder, because the intent of the rapist was not to kill.

Murder (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pinkie seems to keep droning on about how people are responsible for all harm caused to others. Of course you are. When you harm someone in any way you are responsible for that harm, but classifying it as something it isn't doesn't change that. In our legal system we have distinctions between intentional killings and unintentional ones. That's just the way it is.
 
Henrin said:
1.)There is no reason to repeat it. Deny all you want. Its really a simply matter to understand.



2.)Well what I said is factual so...



3.)But I didn't base this on you being a good parent like you said I did. I commented on your parenting as a minor point only. In fact, I have no way to know if you are a good parent.



4.)So you wanted to have it killed. Are you denying it?




She was quick to inform you then.



You have repeatedly admitted it and then denied it. The only problem here lies with you.
Click to expand...

1.) i agree it is simply to understand yet you simiply dont lol
2.) nope wrong again lmao
3.) parenting has nothing to do with you trying to tell me what I think, thats what i accused you off and you said you didnt, you are wrong yet again
4.) yes i wanted the ZEF aborted
5.) sorry i meant ZEF but to be specific it was a embryo at the time
6.) wrong again now you are simply lying or to uneducated on the subject to realize what you are saying

fact i never wanted to kill "her" or my "daughter" nor did i wish her or my daughter death lol
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
The wiki on US law for murder has a pretty good breakdown. Although manslaughter is technically a special case of murder, it's not called murder because it's distinct from the fact that in manslaughter the perpetrator did not intend to kill the person. When I read the theoretical problem Objective J offered, I assume we're talking about a rape where the rapist does not physically injure the victim at the time. Let's say rufied.

The rapist's intent was not to kill, but to rape. He had every intention of walking out of the room that night and both of them living out their lives. If the victim became pregnant, and as a result died from a complication from the pregnancy, it could most certainly be charged as manslaughter, but not murder, because the intent of the rapist was not to kill.

Murder (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pinkie seems to keep droning on about how people are responsible for all harm caused to others. Of course you are. When you harm someone in any way you are responsible for that harm, but classifying it as something it isn't doesn't change that. In our legal system we have distinctions between intentional killings and unintentional ones. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

i agree but like it said man slaughter is a type of murder and in that case these two definitely apply:

What is an Eggshell Skull? | What is an Eggshell Plaintiff?
Felony murder rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so it seems to me since the intent was to harm or be negligent yes its murder/manslaughter
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The wiki on US law for murder has a pretty good breakdown. Although manslaughter is technically a special case of murder, it's not called murder because it's distinct from the fact that in manslaughter the perpetrator did not intend to kill the person. When I read the theoretical problem Objective J offered, I assume we're talking about a rape where the rapist does not physically injure the victim at the time. Let's say rufied.

The rapist's intent was not to kill, but to rape. He had every intention of walking out of the room that night and both of them living out their lives. If the victim became pregnant, and as a result died from a complication from the pregnancy, it could most certainly be charged as manslaughter, but not murder, because the intent of the rapist was not to kill.

Murder (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pinkie seems to keep droning on about how people are responsible for all harm caused to others. Of course you are. When you harm someone in any way you are responsible for that harm, but classifying it as something it isn't doesn't change that. In our legal system we have distinctions between intentional killings and unintentional ones. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

There is no crime of "unintentional murder". If the killer caused the death through negligence, it is STILL intentional, as negligence is a level of intent.

Murder One might still be possible on the hypothetical you gave, as the rape was intentional and premeditated; ergo, all the consequences of the rape are also intentional and premeditated. IRL, I don't think any DA would charge that heavily, but it would be legally correct.

 
Henrin said:
There is no reason to repeat it. Deny all you want. Its really a simply matter to understand.



Well what I said is factual so...



But I didn't base this on you being a good parent like you said I did. I commented on your parenting as a minor point only. In fact, I have no way to know if you are a good parent.



So you wanted to have it killed. Are you denying it?




She was quick to inform you then.



You have repeatedly admitted it and then denied it. The only problem here lies with you.
Click to expand...

Henrin, attacking Objective J's RL family is ABSOLUTELY WRONG and IMO, violates the TOS.
 
Pinkie said:
There is no crime of "unintentional murder". If the killer caused the death through negligence, it is STILL intentional, as negligence is a level of intent.

Murder One might still be possible on the hypothetical you gave, as the rape was intentional and premeditated; ergo, all the consequences of the rape are also intentional and premeditated. IRL, I don't think any DA would charge that heavily, but it would be legally correct.
Click to expand...
You're right, there is no crime of unintentional murder, that's why they call it manslaughter, as I've been trying to beat through your head for the past several pages.

Now you're trying to jump on Objective J's bandwagon that manslaughter and murder are the same thing, when all along we were arguing between which of the two it would be classified as.

Objective-J said:
i agree but like it said man slaughter is a type of murder and in that case these two definitely apply:

What is an Eggshell Skull? | What is an Eggshell Plaintiff?
Felony murder rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so it seems to me since the intent was to harm or be negligent yes its murder/manslaughter
Click to expand...

An eggshell skull case refers to a case where the attacker is punished for the unintended consquences of his actions. You don't think being charged with manslaughter is being punished for that?
 
Objective-J said:
1.) i agree it is simply to understand yet you simiply dont lol
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly, thanks.

2.) nope wrong again lmao
Click to expand...

Nope.

3.) parenting has nothing to do with you trying to tell me what I think, thats what i accused you off and you said you didnt, you are wrong yet again
Click to expand...

Stop moving the damn goalposts. If you don't know what I was saying, just ask.

4.) yes i wanted the ZEF aborted
Click to expand...

Ok.

5.) sorry i meant ZEF but to be specific it was a embryo at the time
Click to expand...

So its was an embryo? Well ok then.

6.) wrong again now you are simply lying or to uneducated on the subject to realize what you are saying
Click to expand...

I think I have followed you along well enough to know you wanted it aborted, you know it was alive and STILL you deny you wanted it killed. Now you have even moved into embryo stage making your point even weaker.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're right, there is no crime of unintentional murder, that's why they call it manslaughter, as I've been trying to beat through your head for the past several pages.

Now you're trying to jump on Objective J's bandwagon that manslaughter and murder are the same thing, when all along we were arguing between which of the two it would be classified as.



An eggshell skull case refers to a case where the attacker is punished for the unintended consquences of his actions. You don't think being charged with manslaughter is being punished for that?
Click to expand...

You are struggling with the nuances of the legal concept of "intent" and the degrees of homicide charges, and while I can appreciate that this is complex, you are wrong.

W-R-O-N-G.

The man who causes a pregnancy that cannot be aborted and ends up killing the woman via raping that woman is guilty, guilty, guilty of her death, and what level of homicide charge he would face would be decided by the DA, but even Murder One would be legally correct.

There is no such thing as an unintentional murder. NONE.
 
Henrin said:
I understand it perfectly, thanks.



Nope.



Stop moving the damn goalposts. If you don't know what I was saying, just ask.



Ok.



So its was an embryo? Well ok then.



I think I have followed you along well enough to know you wanted it aborted, you know it was alive and STILL you deny you wanted it killed. Now you have even moved into embryo stage making your point even weaker.
Click to expand...

Henrin, what is "libertarian" about this hyper-authoritarian POV you espouse as to the reproductive rights of women?
 
Pinkie said:
Henrin, attacking Objective J's RL family is ABSOLUTELY WRONG and IMO, violates the TOS.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how I'm attacking anyone in his family. I only mentioned his daughter and the mother of his child and neither of which I attacked in any way.
 
Moderator's Warning:
People... this is getting far too personal for my tastes. Get back to the topic and stop addressing personal issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom