- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
From Religious Tolerence website:this verse would not apply to abortion.
Oh, minnie of the one track mind.
From Religious Tolerence website:this verse would not apply to abortion.
Oh, minnie of the one track mind.
Thanks for having me look up a religious source for the translation.
Are you a religious person Minnie?
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?
Thanks for having me look up a religious source for the translation.
Outraged?
I'm perturbed.
Apparently in our society only woman dictate what is a viable life. If they want to keep the "human tissue" "it" is called a "baby" and if they don't want the "tissue" "it's" called a "fetus" and progressives are content with that double standard.
Given our present law - the man shouldn't be charged.
I don't disagree, but actually the man should have been charged based on the federal law that exists. The fact is, the federal law is contradictory in the face of the Supreme Court's rulings on abortion. The reason I suggested the pro-choice crowd should be outraged by this charge is because unless the charge is dropped there's a good chance this case will get to the Supreme Court if the man is convicted of first degree murder at which point it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if the federal law is unconstitutional or if Roe v Wade and rulings after need to be narrowed opening the way for states to further restrict access to abortion. This is particularly the case since the man used medication that doctors normally use to end a pregnancy within the first 9 weeks.
It's either murder or it's not - you can't have it both ways nor can you have laws based on the gender of the "murderer".
You can't charge him with murder....
Do you have any idea how much precedence you're giving the pro-life crowed to overturn Roe vs Wade?
I'll bet anything after Gosnell (sp) and this present nonsense abortion will be illegal in 5 years...
Under the federal statue used, he can be charged with murder. Whether or not he can be convicted of such is another story. There is a subtle yet perceivable shift in American public opinion in favor of more limited access to abortion as borne out by the actions of many state legislatures. It is why I think those who are pro-abortion should be concerned by this action although I, personally, am not concerned since I am both pro-choice and pro-life.
This case is pretty simple if you ask me. If the fetus is a person it's murder, if the fetus is not a person then it's not murder. There has been a lot of mental acrobatics in this thread in order to get around this simple fact, particularly by Sangha, but his arguments are unconvincing and illogical.
If you charge somebody with murder then you are saying they killed somebody, as in a person. Period.
How can one be pro-choice and pro-life??
In a perfect world this guy should be charged with murder, however progressives like to have their cake and eat it. Using their opinionated dictated form of law this man cannot be charged with murder considering a "fetus" is NOT a "person."
It's simple for me - I believe that life begins at conception, this is why I'm pro-life.
I also believe that individuals have the right and responsibility to make their own choices in life and to live with the consequences of those choices. I can abhor the choices you make while still supporting your right to make them. I don't believe in government being too actively involved in the life choices of citizens.
It's a similar attitude toward free speech - just because I believe in your right to believe and say whatever you like doesn't mean I have to agree with or like what you believe or say.
It's simple for me - I believe that life begins at conception, this is why I'm pro-life.
I also believe that individuals have the right and responsibility to make their own choices in life and to live with the consequences of those choices. I can abhor the choices you make while still supporting your right to make them. I don't believe in government being too actively involved in the life choices of citizens.
It's a similar attitude toward free speech - just because I believe in your right to believe and say whatever you like doesn't mean I have to agree with or like what you believe or say.
But murder is wrong....
I agree with facing consequences for ones actions, however I only agree with that idea when it comes to victimless crimes - here we have a dead human. In this scenario a human life was impeded (as in all abortions).
As a libertarian - My life is NOT more valuable than the fetus - we both have the same rights, and murdering a "fetus" is the same as murdering a 33-year-old man.
But murder is wrong....
I agree with facing consequences for ones actions, however I only agree with that idea when it comes to victimless crimes - here we have a dead human. In this scenario a human life was impeded (as in all abortions).
As a libertarian - My life is NOT more valuable than the fetus - we both have the same rights, and murdering a "fetus" is the same as murdering a 33-year-old man.
1.) its impossible for both the ZEF and woman to have the same(equal) rights, this fact wont change.
2.) abortion is logically not like murdering a 33yr old man. Say otherwise is simply broken logic, dishonest and disingenuous. There nothing to make that analogy rational, sound, honest or logic based.
1.)Yes abortion is like murdering a 33-year-old man.
2.)In what universe is murdering a "fetus" (using your language) any different than murdering me?
3.)Why? because a bunch of lawyers said so?
4.) Funny how most politicians are lawyers who write law - even on ideas that are beyond their pay grade. Roe vs Wade would be like a lawyer performing brain surgery and the people approving it.
those who support abortion tend to be agnostics or atheists, and have little regard for anyone's life apart from their own.
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
Yes, I am a religious person.
The issue is using a legal term to speak about a moral or ethical position.
If you're speaking about moral or ethics, then "Killing" or perhaps "Slaying" would be more appropriate. Murder is a term, by it's very definition, steeped in the discussion of LAW not morals and ethics, as it is UNLAWFUL killing. What's bizzare is people clinging to the notion that they need to call abortion murder, seemingly for purely political purposes of wanting to use it as an emotional tool to bludgeon opposition with, rather than calling it something more accurate to their position such as immoral/unjust/wrongful killing or slaying.
What if someone believes it is murder?
I believe in the 10 commandments.
Most moderen translations of the sixth commandment say:
"You shall not murder. "