• 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]

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.
 
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.
 
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 :lol:

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.
 
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.
 
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...



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...

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.



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...
 
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...

As usual, you have got most everything wrong. For one, I have proven that under the constitution, the unborn are not considered persons. For another, UVVA does not protect any rights of the unborn. It protects the mother



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...

Which is why you repeating your denial is laughable.


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.

The Fifth applies only to persons.

Repeating your denials over and over again...well, you get the point

Or do you?


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...

There is nothing more entertaining to me than watching the abortion banners trying to prove the moral superiority of their position with lies.

I hope you continue comparing abortion with slavery, just as other nutbaggers compare Planned Parenthood with the KKK. It will help maintain the GOP's reputation as "the party of stupid"
 
Meh. Man poisoned his girlfriend to take away her right to decide whether or not to have a baby. He may not be guilty of "murder" in my eyes, but I'll be damned if I feel sorry for him.

He was only exerciseing his own right to chose to be a parent.
 
He should have the right to choose not to be a parent. He doesn't have the right to kill someone else's baby.

It was his baby. If he didn't chose to not be a patent he would have financial obligation to the born child.
 
He should have the right to choose not to be a parent. He doesn't have the right to kill someone else's baby.



This didn't have to happen.

Generally I support a woman's right to choose within reason.

But anyone who doesn't want to be a father or mother has a lot of ways to avoid making babies, like contraception, not having sex, etc.

I don't know that a six-week old fetus can be considered a person, it is certainly not viable, but I also don't know if that is a real issue in this case.




"Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and got hit by a bus." ~ Bob Rubin
 
:confused: How did you get that from what I said? If anything it would say the opposite.

Because I assumed you believe in equal rights. Guess I was wrong. You've bought into the bull****, hook, line and sinker.
 
It was his baby. If he didn't chose to not be a patent he would have financial obligation to the born child.

It is not capable of being "his baby" while it is inside her womb.
 
Last edited:
also im curious why so many people assume that this is somehow hypocritical or inconsistent to the pro-choice stance like its ONE stance lol

seems like per the law this guy could get off but i still like that he is charged.

Florida Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193 (2005)Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
defines DUI manslaughter to include the death of an unborn quick child.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.071 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
defines vehicular homicide as the killing of a human being, or the killing of a viable fetus by any injury to the mother, caused by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
defines murder as the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother. The law also defines manslaughter.
 
It is completely outrageous. It is pretty baldly stating that a murder charge can be laid based solely on a woman's right to choose.

Pretty much.... Apparently a woman decides if her child is viable or not.

It's disgusting....
 
Pretty much.... Apparently a woman decides if her child is viable or not.

...

Not really.
I wanted all my pregnancies to become viable but I had two miscarriages.
 
Not really.
I wanted all my pregnancies to become viable but I had two miscarriages.

Well I was speaking of abortions. As in - a woman decides weather she wants the baby or not regardless of weather or not the child (as progressives call them fetus) is a living being.

Hell, a woman could be on her way to abort a baby, get shot in a random situation which results in her babies death and the person who shot her resulting in her babies death would be charged with murder based on HER agenda of keeping the baby or not.

Abortion is so gray both morally, ethically and legally that I don't even understand how it is even legal or how anyone could support such a questionable act.
 
Well I was speaking of abortions. As in - a woman decides weather she wants the baby or not regardless of weather or not the child (as progressives call them fetus) is a living being.

Hell, a woman could be on her way to abort a baby, get shot in a random situation which results in her babies death and the person who shot her resulting in her babies death would be charged with murder based on HER agenda of keeping the baby or not.

Abortion is so gray both morally, ethically and legally that I don't even understand how it is even legal or how anyone could support such a questionable act.

Abortion is legal because women and/or couples have a "right to privacy" regarding reproductivity.
She/they can decide when they want to try for to have a child/ children , how many children she/they would like to have and how far apart to space her/their children. That is basically what the " right to privacy" is about regarding reproductivity.
 
Abortion is legal because women and/or couples have a "right to privacy" regarding reproductivity.
She/they can decide when they want to try for to have a child/ children , how many children she/they would like to have and how far apart to space her/their children. That is basically what the " right to privacy" is about regarding reproductivity.

Murder is not a "private" matter.

If I off some random person in private should that be legal?
 
Meh. Man poisoned his girlfriend to take away her right to decide whether or not to have a baby. He may not be guilty of "murder" in my eyes, but I'll be damned if I feel sorry for him.

Sure, but that is the heart of the matter. I support the status quo on abortion, but I find the dissonance between legalized abortion and our infanticide laws to be extremely disconcerting. For something as important as life and death I think it is necessary for us to have a uniform standard. Either a fetus is not a life or it is one. Since abortion is legal I strongly oppose infanticide laws as they relate to fetuses.

This man should be charged with assault and reckless endangerment. But murder? That doesn't ring true and its important that we say as much.
 
?..

If I off some random person in private should that be legal?

If that random person was inside your body using your blood and organs without your permission ...than yes ,you can legally off the random person .
 
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?

Manslaughter at the most. I think that this is a bs charge as it stands, but maybe a charge of assault could be applicable due to unwarranted damage done to someone else's body. Beyond that, though, they have no real claim.
 
Sure, but that is the heart of the matter. I support the status quo on abortion, but I find the dissonance between legalized abortion and our infanticide laws to be extremely disconcerting. For something as important as life and death I think it is necessary for us to have a uniform standard. Either a fetus is not a life or it is one. Since abortion is legal I strongly oppose infanticide laws as they relate to fetuses.

This man should be charged with assault and reckless endangerment. But murder? That doesn't ring true and its important that we say as much.

I also support abortion.
It was pro life groups that pushed for feticide laws hoping to cause discourse ...but since they had to make provisions that keeps abortion legal within the parameters of Roe vs Wade the SC allowed the feticide laws to stand.
 
Abortion is legal because women and/or couples have a "right to privacy" regarding reproductivity.
She/they can decide when they want to try for to have a child/ children , how many children she/they would like to have and how far apart to space her/their children. That is basically what the " right to privacy" is about regarding reproductivity.

You're generally very logical in your discussions but to suggest that abortion law has anything to do with "couples" or has any involvement of the male in the equation is really laughable. It is what it is so let's not play games around it to make it appear to be a joint decision unless you believe a joint decision is when the man agrees with the woman's choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom