Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

Dr. Chuckles said:

Though I am not religious, I find it odd that people would try and project a legal definition here.

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

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.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

The issue is using a legal term to speak about a moral or ethical position.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

That's the modern version of the sixth commandment which was used. It seems to have change from 'kill' to 'murder', and both are apparently moral positions.

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

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.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

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.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Outside the cute little quip you pose here, there is a good question still....And that is, who makes you, or anyone else to say what others beliefs are right or wrong?

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

You can believe what you want about the morality of abortion and what the legality of abortion should be, but if you believe that it is murder you are not expressing an opinion-- you are simply wrong. It is not the unlawful and deliberate killing of another person, because it is not unlawful and the entity killed is not legally a person. Not to mention, of course, that even when it was strictly prohibited, abortion was never considered to be murder; that is wholly a modern invention.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Laws of man have no providence in the face of God.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Laws of man have no providence in the face of God.

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

Not to mention, of course, that God never said abortion was murder and his Chosen People never viewed it as murder, and it has never been prosecuted as murder in any Judeochristian country.

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

But I am generally lost why we are even discussing this, as Jewish religious law has little bearing here

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

It is not the unlawful and deliberate killing of another person, because it is not unlawful and the entity killed is not legally a person. Not to mention, of course, that even when it was strictly prohibited, abortion was never considered to be murder; that is wholly a modern invention.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

It's simple for me - I believe that life begins at conception, this is why I'm pro-life.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Indeed, I am pro-choice

Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:

In Webster's New World College dictionary, one of the listed definitions for murder reads as follows "to kill inhumanely or barbarously, as in warfare"

Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:

That works, too, but defining abortion as "inhumane" when the vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus is physically, biologically capable of feeling pain is more than a little wonky.

Click to expand...

We could quibble over the definition of "barbarous" but it seems to me that killing something with surgical tools in a sanitized medical clinic doesn't fit the bill, either.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

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

Click to expand...

sangha said:

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.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

Imitation, it is often said, is the sincerest form of flattery, so I do appreciate the fact that you attempt to use my own argument against me.

Just that irksome little detail that we are not arguing anywhere near the same thing… so, as a method, my approach works decently well for my argument…but unfortunately [for you], it really does not bring the same result for yours. As you can clearly see going back through our exchanges, I made none of the provably false claims regarding what the Constitution provides that YOU did. It was just YOU who made such claims… declaring that the Constitution only allows for "born persons". My point was that the Constitution was/is silent, not that the Constitution specifically recognizes the unborn or not.

The Constitution indicates no particular position on the matter.

So, again…nice try.





Ditto on the flattery, ditto on the fact that my argument works for mine, not at all for your argument, ditto on the reason. I NEVER indicated that our Constitution said anything about the powers of the Supreme Court as you have incongruously stated that it did. Then I asked you to provide any, ANY, proof that the Constitution said anything like you said it said [ exactly reminiscent of the irreconcilable difficulties you had with your " born persons" assertion] and you then perversely misidentified this as a "dodge" on my part. The irony being that it was you who were dodging, failing to even make an attempt to prove your [now obvious to yourself and most the rest of us] infelicitous and yet unproven avowal that the Constitution does give powers particular to the way you said that it does... which it most assuredly does not.

Sooooo...

Ditto on the nice try.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

i wonder why no one ever addresses the millions of people that have had abortions and felt obligated by their morals and responsibilities to do so.
I wonder why their morals dont count and others some how are magically more important?

I wonder why people quote the bible but yet ignore other parts of it, i wonder why they quote the bible but wont accept "certain translations" or versions old vs new testament, king James etc etc based on just their opinion

this is why i would never use my personal morals/beliefs that are based on religion to try and make laws to force others to follow. Nor would i use it to judge others since thats completely backwards from what i was taught religion is for and is about.

The religion argument for abortion and marriage when we are talking legality will always be failures. This is why my religion never comes play for the vast majority of conversations about politics, rights, freedoms and liberties. Its because it has no business coming up. I wont force my Christianity on others.

Click to expand...

Jehovah's Witness' beliefs and teachings about blood transfusions:

Some conservative Christian denominations urge or require their members to abandon all medical treatment in favor of prayer.
This policy results in a very large number of infant and child deaths in these groups.

However, we are aware of only one Christian faith group -- the Jehovah's Witnesses --
that permits or encourages its members to accept medical treatments while
urging them to refuse to accept blood transfusions for themselves or their children.

The Witnesses' beliefs are mainly based on four passages in the Bible.

To our knowledge, all other Christian and Jewish faith groups
interpret these same passages as referring to dietary laws;
i.e. to the actual eating of meat containing blood.

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Unfortunately, nothing is working for your position which is probably the result of our taking the inane position that if the constitution doesn't explicitly mention something, it does not apply. Maybe that's why the abortion banners have been stymied over and over again, and have nothing to show for all the rendering of cloth and gnashing of teeth they have done over the years.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

Again, undeniably and provably wrong. You have asserted and been, repeatedly to the point of irritation, proven wrong about what the Constitution says and does not say. You know and I know that, as well as anybody that has followed our "conversation". I also did not take ANY inane position in our discussions on "if" anything, Constitution or otherwise. You made several statements about what the Constitution supposedly says, I just proved you inadequate to the task of proving your own assertions.

I can certainly appreciate your position in wanting to get this quickly behind you, but the fact of the matter is that you are attempting to spin what you were doing... and spin what I was doing. Not appreciated.

Now that we have wiped the slate clean of your previous preposterous suppositions about what the Constitution does or does not say, maybe we can further have a conversation about whether or not the government, as you have indicated in the past that it cannot, can make decisions regarding protecting our unborn fellow citizens.

I would posit that the government, WE THE PEOPLE, can and do make just these kinds of decisions and have since, even previous to, ratification. Does the federal government under enumerated, implied and amendments allow for this? That would be a good discussion. However, As provided in the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 & 10 [ also stated much earlier in our discussion ], should open up to critical discussion and thought, at very least to a reasonable "born person", that our government, WE THE PEOPLE, have those rights should WE desire them.

9th Amendment = The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

10th = The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


You have also previously stated that DNA is not established upon conception, which is ALSO provably incorrect...

So oh, thanks for making it so easy [well, except maybe for all the spinning... and the tremendous amount of lag time required for acceptance of just how provably incorrect you have repeatedly been].

Click to expand...

In between these extremes are two more promising alternatives.
The first alternative is offered by scholars who believe that conception
occurs when the haploid genomes contributed by the egg and sperm
combine to form the diploid embryonic genome, roughly twenty-four
hours after insemination.15

Click to expand...

In scientific terms, the human life cycle alternates between two
distinct stages: a diploid stage (human embryos, infants, and adults)
and a haploid gametic stage (human eggs and sperm). During the
diploid stage, all human cells have the full complement of nuclear
DNA — two copies of the twenty-three distinct human chromosomes
and, thus, a total of forty-six chromosomes. During the haploid stage,
the diploid cells that give rise to egg and sperm go through a process
called meiosis in which they shed half of their chromosomes, leaving
only twenty-three unpaired chromosomes. When the gametes fuse,
the process is reversed; two sets of twenty-three singleton
chromosomes are matched up and eventually begin to function as a
new diploid genome. With that transition, a new diploid organism
comes into existence

Click to expand...

Because the transition from the haploid genomes of the sperm and
egg to the functioning diploid genome of an early embryo is gradual
and extends over several days, the normative question is how far the
process must advance before the living cells which undergo it are
entitled to the protections and legal status assigned by laws triggered
at conception. Although only a few scholars have attempted to answer
this question, those who have done so have reached very different
conclusions. Several possibilities have been suggested, including (1)
penetration of the ovum by a sperm, (2) assembly of the new
embryonic genome, (3) successful activation of that genome, and (4)
implantation of the embryo in the uterus. Choosing among these
options obliges us to identify the attributes that make early embryos
morally different from sperm and egg and to identify the point in the
process of transformation when those attributes appear.
There is no formal legislative history to guide the courts on this
question. Indeed, most of the lawmakers who voted in favor of these
statutes probably assumed that the transition occurs as the sperm
penetrates the egg. Because that assumption is incorrect, the courts
must look elsewhere for guidance.
Under these circumstances, the search for a rationale reasonably
begins by examining the arguments made by the supporters of these
life-begins-at-conception laws. The four attributes of the early embryo
which are most commonly offered as a basis for recognizing life from
the moment of conception are (1) the fertilized egg’s potential to
become a child (and thus an undisputed moral agent), (2) its selfdirected
development, (3) its genetic completeness, and (4) its
individuality.68

Click to expand...

Proponents of elevated moral status from the time of conception
typically point out that early embryos combine genetic completeness
with self-direction. They are right to argue that the combination of
genetic completeness and internal propulsion has normative
significance. This combination of attributes distinguishes early
embryos from gametes (which are self-directed, but haploid) and from
ordinary body cells (which are diploid, but not propelled to become
an embryo).
A few experts believe that these two conditions are satisfied as soon
as a sperm enters the ovum.86 They base this conclusion on the fact
that penetration of the ovum by a single sperm activates the ovum and
begins a process of continuous development that, if successful, will
result in the birth of a child.87 Once the two cells have merged into
one, the inseminated ovum contains all of the genetic raw material
needed to build a new diploid genome and is internally propelled to
do so.88 At insemination, therefore, the future person’s unique genetic
code has been determined, even though it has not yet been assembled
into a single diploid genome.
84

Given this internal propulsion and the presence of all the needed
genetic materials within the walls of the fertilized egg, supporters of
this view do not see the embryo’s lack of an assembled and
functioning embryonic genome as critical. Instead, the eventual
assembly and activation of the embryonic genome are seen as
subsequent steps in a process commenced when a sperm enters the
ovum. At this point, a genetically distinct and complete organism has
“embarked upon its own distinctive development.”89
Yet the claims of genetic sameness and completeness vastly overstate
the sharpness of the distinction between the haploid and diploid stages
prior to assembly of the embryonic genome.90 In the hours following
insemination, the maternal and paternal chromosomes are segregated
into separate nuclei. At this stage, the fertilized egg really has two
haploid genomes, each in its own nucleus, not a diploid genome. In
fact, there is no “embryonic genome” at this time. Instead, the
embryo’s development is being directed by maternal proteins and
rDNA.
As a consequence, both conservative and liberal commentators have
concluded that the entry of a sperm into the ovum is not sufficient to
justify the conclusion that a new human life has been conceived.
Instead, most would wait until the genome has been assembled. In
effect, they acknowledge that the emerging embryo lacks sufficient
self-direction and genetic completeness to deserve privileged moral
and legal status before it has a diploid genome. Most probably also
assume that the diploid genome will thereafter direct the embryo’s
development. Yet, scientists have learned that the newly formed
diploid genome does not assume immediate control of the embryo’s
development. Instead, it remains dormant for two more cell divisions.
Thus, the embryo does not become a diploid organism (i.e., one
governed by a diploid genome) until it reaches at least the eight-cell
stage.

Click to expand...

Three key points:

A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that
the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice.

Since 1891, the U.S. has recognized a right to privacy in some "zones" of activity, which means that individuals can make decisions and act upon them without informing other people and without state interference. (Example: Your discussions with your lawyer are private and confidential.) The court has previously recognized that adult women have a privacy right when it comes to contraception and reproduction.



Conclusion: Because fetuses are not legally protected and abortion is a safe medical procedure protected by privacy rights, adult women have the right to receive an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, and states can only interfere where the interference is appropriate to the woman's health.

Click to expand...