• 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]

The anti-choicers will claim that the founders didn't really own slaves, they just stored them.

All the founders? None of them were against slavery? Why then did they limit the power of the South with the 3/5s compromise, why did they impose a ban on the future importation of slaves that went into effect Jan 1, 1808, why were some number, like Franklin, against slavery, in a time when it was absolutely just the norm worldwide, maybe similar to a person owning a private plane today, if you could afford to own slaves to do just that, probably inherited and not much thought given...Yet in 1787 Ben Franklin began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery...

Seems a little sour, this attitude against those who risked all and have provided us with a framework of national governance that has brought much joy, much good transformation and prosperity.
 
Do you not understand what the word "poisoned" means? Even in your own summary of what happened you fail to use the term.

Are we seriously going to quibble over the semantic difference between the word "drugged" and the word "poisoned"? Is that what your argument consists of?

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.

Yes. Which is the entire purpose these anti-feticide laws were passed in the first place. They're intended as an end-run around Roe v Wade by establishing legal precedence of fetuses as people.

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.

That's a fair point. I suppose I might be less interested in seeing this guy get what he deserves and more interested in making sure women get to keep what they deserve, but I still refuse to get morally outraged over a man getting what he deserves regardless of how incorrect the process is which gives it to him.
 
The constitution only protects the lives of persons. The unborn are not persons

Go ahead, prove to us "again" that the Constitution says that the unborn... or... only the born, are persons....only the born can have rights...

Oh yeah, it doesn't say that, says nothing of the sort... or even close. As many times as you say that I will try to get in the true, the correct view so not as many that may not be informed as they should can be led in a wrong direction.

Oh, and what about the proof regarding your opinion about the Supreme Court and where the Constitution expressly states their powers on how to apply the Constitution in such cases. Like the non existent " only born persons" have rights in the Constitution per your tilted interpretation, the Constitution is silent also on how the Supreme Court is to to apply its power in this situation.
 
Are we seriously going to quibble over the semantic difference between the word "drugged" and the word "poisoned"? Is that what your argument consists of?

As they mean two different things, I suppose we might. Of course you could withdraw the term 'poisoned' and say he had given her drugs instead. Specific words have specific meanings.

Yes. Which is the entire purpose these anti-feticide laws were passed in the first place. They're intended as an end-run around Roe v Wade by establishing legal precedence of fetuses as people.

It seems that may be re-visited because the definition of a person seems to change from one law to the next.
 
?..
It seems that may be re-visited because the definition of a person seems to change from one law to the next.

And if it is revisited the feticide laws will most likely be struck down.
 
Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS

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




One can always pick out those who do not like their myths questioned... its almost as if its against their religion.

There is nothing mythical about SCOTUS decisions. They have the force of law because of the powers that the constitution grants them.
 
Re: Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330]

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".

There is no need to show you exactly where in the Constitution. That is just a dodge

The constitution doesn't mention immigration either. Do you deny that the govt has the power to regulate immigration?

And if you're going to insist on quotes from the constitution, then please quote exactly where the constitution says the unborn are "persons"
 
Go ahead, prove to us "again" that the Constitution says that the unborn... or... only the born, are persons....only the born can have rights...

Oh yeah, it doesn't say that, says nothing of the sort... or even close. As many times as you say that I will try to get in the true, the correct view so not as many that may not be informed as they should can be led in a wrong direction.

Oh, and what about the proof regarding your opinion about the Supreme Court and where the Constitution expressly states their powers on how to apply the Constitution in such cases. Like the non existent " only born persons" have rights in the Constitution per your tilted interpretation, the Constitution is silent also on how the Supreme Court is to to apply its power in this situation.

GO ahead, prove that the constitution says that the unborn are persons...that the unborn have rights...

Oh yeah, it doesn't say that, says nothing of the sort...or even close. As many times as you say that I will try to get in the true, the correct view so not as many that may not be informed as they should can be led in the wrong direction

Oh, and what about the proof regarding your opinion about the Supreme Court and where the Constitution expressly states their powers on how to apply the Constitution in such cases. Like the non existent " includes unborn persons" have rights in the Constitution per your tilted interpretation, the Constitution is silent also on how the Supreme Court is to to apply its power in this situation.
 
Notice how even the girls lawyer is not arguing that the fetus had any rights. Instead, he is arguing that the girl was deprived of her right to choose whether or not to have a child.

No matter how hard you try to twist the facts, the truth is that this case is supported by the pro-choice philosophy.

So the "pro-choice philosophy" states that it's only murder when the mother wants the baby? This is more or less your position, minus all the mental acrobatics.
 
I've seen enough... Murder is MURDER.
 
I've seen enough... Murder is MURDER.

theres legal murder than theres subjective murder

only one is factual murder :shrug:
 
im surprised this straw-man argument is still going on.
Im pro-choice and i like this law, while it seems he'll get off because in Florida it mentions viability in the law a couple times and i dont see how the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" would apply here unless im misunderstanding it.

regardless though i like that he was "charged" we'll see if he gets convicted and this impacts my stance/reasoning on being pro-choice ZERO. In fact Most of pro-choice people I know personally share my basic beliefs and this doesnt impact them either. Not sure why people assume it would. Maybe SOME people.
 
Meh. I do not oppose infanticide laws that apply to fetuses as long as they are not designated as murder. Assaulting a pregnant woman such that she loses her baby is clearly a greater offense than assaulting a man or a non-pregnant woman, especially when the assault was for the deliberate purpose of inducing a miscarriage. Murder? Not hardly, but still greater than aggravated assault.



And I am sorry to have to explain to you that when a person is occupying and modifying your body against your will, you have the right to use force in self-defense.



Funny you pro-lifers keep bringing up slavery when you're the ones trying to demand involuntary servitude from women. And what is with this festering plague of pro-life "Libertarians"? You'll argue all goddamned day against liberal "human rights" on the basis that you can't have any right to any good or service if it would require another person to be forced to provide it to you-- and then you say that women should be forced to gestate children because of their innate "right to life". Or do Libertarian theories about personal rights simply not apply to women?



That's really rich coming from a Libertarian. Isn't your argument that all human rights extend from property rights and the principle of self-ownership?

Ok neocon...

You don't want to know what is "rich" or "ripe" in your own party?
 
Ok neocon...

Didn't you just get done insulting me for my "illogical progressive partisan bubble"?

You don't want to know what is "rich" or "ripe" in your own party?

I don't have a party; I have a philosophy. You're welcome to try to tell me what's "ripe" about it.
 
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.

I believe in the 10 commandments.
Most moderen translations of the sixth commandment say:
"You shall not murder. "

There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for “murder” and “killing.” One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.”
The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word “murder.”
Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing killing during wartime.
That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.”

Read more: Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?

I am a Christian and I am pro choice as is the Church I belong too.
We feel women have a right to an early abortion if they feel that is the best choice at the time.
We do not believe that an early fetus is yet a person.



It is important to be aware that tens of millions of pro choice people are also Christians and / or Jewish people and that many Christians and/ or Jewish people and leaders were referring woman to safe ( for the woman) abortion services even before Roe vs Wade.

Many in the RCRC do NOT believe that life/ensoulment begins with conception.
They believe that life/ensoulment begins later in the pregnancy or at birth.


A little history of The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice which includes many religious groups including:

Conservative Judaism
Rabbinical Assembly
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Women’s League for Conservative Judaism

Episcopal Church


Ethical Culture
American Ethical Union National Service Conference

Humanist Judaism
Society for Humanistic Judaism

Presbyterian Church (USA)

Reconstructionist Judaism
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association

Reform Judaism
Central Conference of American Rabbis
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Union for Reform Judaism
Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
Women’s Rabbinic Network of Central Conference of American Rabbis

United Church of Christ


United Methodist Church
General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church
General Board of Global Ministries, Women’s Division, United Methodist Church

Unitarian Universalist
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation
Young Religious Unitarian Universalists
Continental Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network

Caucuses/Organizations
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League
Catholics for Choice
Christian Lesbians Out (CLOUT)
Church of the Brethren Womaen’s Caucus
Disciples for Choice
Episcopal Urban Caucus
Episcopal Women’s Caucus
Hadassah, WZOA
Jewish Women International
Lutheran Women’s Caucus
Methodist Federation for Social Action
NA’AMAT USA
National Council of Jewish Women
Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO)
Women’s American ORT
YWCA of the USA



RCRC was founded in 1973 to safeguard the newly won constitutional right to privacy in decisions about abortion.
The Coalition founders were clergy and lay leaders from mainstream religions, many of whom had provided women with referrals to safe abortion services before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade.
The founders believed that there would be at most a ten-year struggle to secure the right to choose. In fact the struggle is far from over. It has changed and intensified, and the stakes are growing.

Today, the Religious Coalition comprises national organizations from major faiths and traditions and religiously affiliated and independent religious organizations, affiliates throughout the country, the national Clergy for Choice network, Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, The National Black Church Initiative, La Iniciativa Latina and individuals who support reproductive choice and religious freedom. We have a strong presence on Capitol Hill, working for policies to ensure reproductive healthservices are available to all, regardless of income and to strengthen reproductive justice.

While our member organizations are religiously and theologically diverse, they are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive choice as a basic part of religious liberty.

Our rational, healing perspective looks beyond the bitter abortion debate to seek solutions to pressing problems such as unintended pregnancy, the spread of HIV/AIDS, inadequate health care and health insurance, and the severe reduction in reproductive health care services.

We support access to sex education, family planning and contraception, affordable child care and health care, and adoption services as well as safe, legal, abortion services, regardless of income. As an organization committed to reproductive justice, we work for public policies that ensure the medical, economic, and educational resources necessary for healthy families and communities that are equipped to nurture children in peace and love.

RCRC - Dedicated to Reproductive Justice
 
Though I am not religious, I find it odd that people would try and project a legal definition here.

The sixth commandment has been frequently mistranslated.
I was posting that the Hebrew text refers only to unlawful killing.
If "Thou shalt not kill" were the proper translation, no person who took the Ten Commandments seriously could kill in self defense, even if it meant loss of the threatened person’s life, or could kill in warfare, even if his or her country were attacked. There could be no capital punishment no matter how horrible a person’s crimes were. Clearly there are cases where the Torah permits the taking of a human life. And, if it is sometimes permissible to kill another person, most people would agree that there are circumstances when it is also permissible to kill an animal. Judaism does not consider that the sixth commandment refers to animals.

Since the sixth commandment has been so frequently mistranslated,

two prominent Jewish commentators, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Rabbi Joseph Bekhor-Shor,
explained at great length that the Hebrew text refers only to unlawful killing.
Both scholars stressed the differences between the Hebrew words for killing and murdering.

So the common Jewish belief is that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder."


Judaism and Vegetarianism: Schwartz Collection - Thou Shalt Not "Kill" or "Murder"?
 
The sixth commandment has been frequently mistranslated.[/url]

Yeah, and I am saying it's bizarre to base a moral and ethical positions on law, which tends to be subject to all manner of pressures and interests. Take for instance the nazi slaughter of the jews, or the iranian execution of homosexuals, etc

Also, you might want to look other places for authoritative citations on religious text, besides a mathematician
 
...

Also, you might want to look other places for authoritative citations on religious text, besides a mathematician

The translation is still the same:

The word "kill" in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 means "murder." The proper translation is THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
It is interesting that in Matthew 19:18 the KJV correctly translates the Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt do no murder."
The Hebrew word (ratsach) and the Greek Word (phonenō) which are used in the Sixth Commandment both clearly mean "murder."
The Hebrew language has a general word for killing (the verb muwth, meaning "to cause to die")
and the Greek language has a general word for killing (the verb apokteinō),
but these general terms for killing are not used in the Sixth Commandment.
Instead very specific words are used which forbid MURDER.

The 6th Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," Does This Command Forbid All Killing?
 
From Religious Tolerence website:
Exodus 20:13"You shall not murder." This verse is often mistranslated "Thou shalt not kill."
Murder is actually being referred to -- the killing of a human person.

Since the Jewish religion has traditionally interpreted the Torah as implying that a fetus as achieving full personhood only when it is half emerged from the birth canal,
this verse would not apply to abortion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm
 
Last edited:


My point was the use of "murder" as opposed to "killing" could carry various context in the translation that are not necessarily recognizable from a direct translation. Take for instance, what the mother text would view as "murder" or unlawful killing. Are we merely talking about current law of the state, the laws governing jews at the time, or "god's law"

All of these would carry distinct meanings that are simply not covered by going the text actually reads as "thou shall not murder". hence, why you shouldn't get authoritative accounts by people that are not actual authorities in such matters
 
Back
Top Bottom