• 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]

Just because a murder charge is sought, doesn't mean there's been a murder.

Y'all seem to be arguing as if a verdict has been handed down.

Just because "they're" seeking a murder charge in no way means they'll get it.
 
sangha said:
I've both cited the law *and* explained why the pro-choice philosophy supports criminal penalties for someone who causes harm to the fetus (ie it takes the mothers choice away)

Not sure what more you're looking for
Click to expand...
That's another one of the big issues with pro-choice. They believe only the woman should have any say whatsoever in the life of the child. The man can just go **** himself, his opinion doesn't matter.

He kills the baby: "It's MURDER!"
She kills the baby: "It's her FREEDOM, it's not a human being!!"

I know what the law you posted says, but that doesn't make it intellectually consistent. Either the fetus is a human being or it isn't, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Kal'Stang said:
This is where you are getting confused, the law isn't based on gender. If a man could bear a baby do you think that this law would not apply? The law is based on circumstances. If the woman wanted to abort and had the boyfriend give her that pill would this guy still be charged with murder? Nope he wouldn't. He might be charged with something else like practicing medicine without a license but not murder.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct

These laws don't discriminate. Under these laws, a man has just as much right to end any pregnancies he may have by getting an abortion, just as a woman has just as much right to wear a condom when having sex.
 
sangha said:
I've both cited the law *and* explained why the pro-choice philosophy supports criminal penalties for someone who causes harm to the fetus (ie it takes the mothers choice away)

Not sure what more you're looking for
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that the guy in this case needs to be charged for the actions he took - the dispute is as it relates to the charge of first-degree murder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe the charge is reasonable and within the parameters of the law - my view, while I support the murder charge because I believe life begins at conception, is that the first-degree murder charge is inconsistent with both abortion law in the US as well as the terms of the legislation you cite.
 
sangha said:
You are absolutely correct

These laws don't discriminate. Under these laws, a man has just as much right to end any pregnancies he may have by getting an abortion, just as a woman has just as much right to wear a condom when having sex.
Click to expand...

Let's take this a step further - do you believe a woman would be charged with murder if she purposely caused herself to miscarry as punishment against her spouse or lover?
 
CanadaJohn said:
No one is disputing that the guy in this case needs to be charged for the actions he took - the dispute is as it relates to the charge of first-degree murder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe the charge is reasonable and within the parameters of the law - my view, while I support the murder charge because I believe life begins at conception, is that the first-degree murder charge is inconsistent with both abortion law in the US as well as the terms of the legislation you cite.
Click to expand...

If you kill a person (ie someone who has been born) you are charged under 18 USC § 1111 of the criminal code

If you kill a "child in utero", then you are charged under 18 USC § 1841 of the criminal code

No matter how many times you claim it's the same thing, it is different.

If you commit fraud using the Internet, you are charged with "wire fraud", even if you were on a wireless network.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Let's take this a step further - do you believe a woman would be charged with murder if she purposely caused herself to miscarry as punishment against her spouse or lover?
Click to expand...

Again, she has the right to choose if she will try to carry her pregnancy to term. The only charges that might apply, as far as I can see, are charges relating to harming herself or performing a medical procedure without a license. I doubt she would be charged for those.
 
sangha said:
You are absolutely correct

These laws don't discriminate. Under these laws, a man has just as much right to end any pregnancies he may have by getting an abortion, just as a woman has just as much right to wear a condom when having sex.
Click to expand...

There have been female condoms for decades now and your argument sounds very much like the one you oppose where it comes to gay marriage.
 
sangha said:
Again, she has the right to choose if she will try to carry her pregnancy to term. The only charges that might apply, as far as I can see, are charges relating to harming herself or performing a medical procedure without a license. I doubt she would be charged for those.
Click to expand...

Suppose she chose to carry her pregnancy to term, but in a fit of rage decided to punish the father of her child by purposely miscarrying?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That's another one of the big issues with pro-choice. They believe only the woman should have any say whatsoever in the life of the child. The man can just go **** himself, his opinion doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Kinda goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the fetus is growing inside her ****ing body. People don't seem to grasp this point, even when they're telling pro-choicers to study biology more.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Kinda goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the fetus is growing inside her ****ing body. People don't seem to grasp this point, even when they're telling pro-choicers to study biology more.
Click to expand...

Here's a picture demonstration:

19156.jpg


They are two separate entities. Both are alive, both have a right to live. A woman should not be able to kill a man's baby just because she feels like it.

At a minimum stop calling abortion murder when a man does it while still calling it 'freedom' when a woman does it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
They are two separate entities.
Click to expand...

Never said they were the same thing. Said one was growing inside the other, which gives her the sole authority on decisions made about it.

RabidAlpaca said:
Both are alive, both have a right to live.
Click to expand...

Both are alive. Only the woman has a right to be-- the fetus' life is conditional upon her good graces.

RabidAlpaca said:
A woman should not be able to kill a man's baby just because she feels like it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, she should-- because it's not his baby until he's capable of raising it himself.

RabidAlpaca said:
At a minimum stop calling abortion murder when a man does it while still calling it 'freedom' when a woman does it.
Click to expand...

Hey, it was pro-lifers who passed the UVVA in the first place. I haven't once called what he did murder; I just said I had no problem killing him for it.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Never said they were the same thing. Said one was growing inside the other, which gives her the sole authority on decisions made about it.



Both are alive. Only the woman has a right to be-- the fetus' life is conditional upon her good graces.



Yeah, she should-- because it's not his baby until he's capable of raising it himself.



Hey, it was pro-lifers who passed the UVVA in the first place. I haven't once called what he did murder; I just said I had no problem killing him for it.
Click to expand...

Then the only way to remain intellectually consistent on that topic is to agree that men should never, under any circumstances, be financially liable for their children. If they don't get a say in the life of the child, they don't have to pay. Women shouldn't be able to just pick and choose whatever benefits them the most.

It takes two to make a baby.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Then the only way to remain intellectually consistent on that topic is to agree that men should never, under any circumstances, be financially liable for their children.
Click to expand...

A man should be financially liable for his children only when they become his children-- with his consent.

RabidAlpaca said:
It takes two to make a baby.
Click to expand...

It does. But there's a massive imbalance between the role and responsibility each plays in the process.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
A man should be financially liable for his children only when they become his children-- with his consent.



It does. But there's a massive imbalance between the role and responsibility each plays in the process.
Click to expand...

A woman doesn't have to be responsible for her child, especially if the man wants to keep it and she doesn't. I just think it's horribly wrong to kill someone else's kid without their consent.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A woman doesn't have to be responsible for her child, especially if the man wants to keep it and she doesn't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. She has a choice. (She actually has several.) He should, too, as long as his choice doesn't involve taking hers away.

RabidAlpaca said:
I just think it's horribly wrong to kill someone else's kid without their consent.
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to keep calling it "his kid" when the only thing he contributed to it was his DNA.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Then the only way to remain intellectually consistent on that topic is to agree that men should never, under any circumstances, be financially liable for their children. If they don't get a say in the life of the child, they don't have to pay. Women shouldn't be able to just pick and choose whatever benefits them the most.

It takes two to make a baby.
Click to expand...

We are intellectually and legally consistent - *ALL* men are financially liable for contributing to the support of their children. And so are women
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Exactly. She has a choice. (She actually has several.) He should, too, as long as his choice doesn't involve taking hers away.



I think it's a mistake to keep calling it "his kid" when the only thing he contributed to it was his DNA.
Click to expand...

Men have a choice too

They can have a medical procedure which will prevent pregnancy. It's called a vasectomy
 
sangha said:
We are intellectually and legally consistent - *ALL* men are financially liable for contributing to the support of their children
Click to expand...

Sure, the women get all the money while the men get ZERO part of the decision. That sounds super equal.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Sure, the women get all the money while the men get ZERO part of the decision. That sounds super equal.
Click to expand...

Men have as much choice as women do when it comes to pregnancies. They can have a medical procedure that will prevent them from impregnating a woman.

And women don't get the money; The children do
 
sangha said:
Men have as much choice as women do when it comes to pregnancies. They can have a medical procedure that will prevent them from impregnating a woman.

And women don't get the money; The children do
Click to expand...

1) If that's the case, we should ban all abortions, because women could've gotten a hysterectomy. Because they didn't it's their choice to become pregnant. I like that idea, good job.

2) The children don't get checks written to them, the woman does. She can use it for diapers or beer, it's her choice.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
1) If that's the case, we should ban all abortions, because women could've gotten a hysterectomy. Because they didn't it's their choice to become pregnant. I like that idea, good job.

2) The children don't get checks written to them, the woman does. She can use it for diapers or beer, it's her choice.
Click to expand...

Your arguments have no grounding in reality.

1) Rights can not be denied because a person did not exercise them at some point in the past

2) A woman who has custody of her children is required to properly care for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom