• 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]

CanadaJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
minnie616 said:
Thanks for having me look up a religious source for the translation.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be religious to understand murder is wrong.

I love how you progressives treat morality as a symptom of religion.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
CanadaJohn said:
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".
Click to expand...

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...
 
Mr.Nick said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Quik said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the way I view the case and I'm pro-life.

The man cannot be charged with murder because the "fetus" is not a person, hence the statute for murder is not applicable.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

BINGO! A summary of my viewpoint on any given issue. I'm personally against abortion but I've come to the realization that government should never legislate morality.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you - until society changes its view, however, our position is not sufficiently supported to rule the day. Until then, all we can do is live our lives to that standard.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes abortion is like murdering a 33-year-old man.

In what universe is murdering a "fetus" (using your language) any different than murdering me?

Why? because a bunch of lawyers said so?

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.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

1.) theres no logic or facts to support that
2.) its not factually murder and being that the ZEF resides insides another that factually makes the situation different. One would have to be seriouslyu illogical and dishonest to not see the difference is huge and they are not the same.

a 33yr old man is not inside the woman and his presence alone is not a risk to life. :shrug:

now with that said you are free to still think abortion is wrong but when you say things that are factually untrue it doesnt help your cause. Its fine you are against aboriton but when you say aboriton is equal to murdering a 33 yr old man nobody objective and honest will take that seriously because its nonsensical.

3.) dont know what you are asking. why what?
why is abortion not factually murder? well facts make it that way. One is free to have that OPINION though.
or
why is abortion not like murdering a 33 yr old man? see above this is just a plain fact

4.) you are free to feel this way but i think its a pretty good law. I would have done it a little different but at least its in the midlle.

I personally would never ban all abortions or allow them to be unlimited. Either way is too extreme.
 
Grant said:
those who support abortion tend to be agnostics or atheists, and have little regard for anyone's life apart from their own.
Click to expand...

So your contention is somewhere around 40 to 50% of the country is agnostic or athiest?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
minnie616 said:
Yes, I am a religious person.
Click to expand...

How do then ignore these passages from the Holy Bible?

Psalm 139:13-16

13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

......
Proverbs 6:16-17

The Lord hates… hands that shed innocent blood.

.......
Acts 17:25

And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.

.......
Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

.......
Job 31:15

“Did not He who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashion us in the womb?”

.......
Isaiah 49:5

“And now says the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be His servant…”


And we also have the Didache, which is the first catechism of Christianity, written around 100-150 AD. It states clearly: “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born.”

Clearly God hates the killing of innocent life and considers babies in the womb just that.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/01...hated-bible-passages-of-the-religious-left/2/


So, do you only pick and choose the parts of the Bible to follow, and those you can disregard?
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

What if someone believes it is murder?
 
j-mac said:
What if someone believes it is murder?
Click to expand...

Moses supposes his toeses are roses, but Moses supposes erroneously, for Moses he knowses his toeses aren't roses, as Moses supposes his toeses to be.
 
minnie616 said:
I believe in the 10 commandments.
Most moderen translations of the sixth commandment say:
"You shall not murder. "
Click to expand...

Well the difference is slight and making the Bible more 'modern' does not give it any more legitimacy.

Killed or murdered, either way there are many millions of dead babies who have been robbed of their chance for life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom