Abortionists Chant "Hail Satan", Have Child Carry Sick Sign

[Mr.B]

"If a pregnant woman's boyfriend stomps her in the abdomen and kills her fetus, but she decides not to press charges,
can the DA still accuse him of homocide?"

link

Scott Peterson is in jail for two counts of murder, one for Lacy Peterson and the other for their unborn child.

According to National Right to Life, Ohio is one of 36 states with laws that recognize the intentional killing of an unborn child as homicide.
Under Ohio law, anyone who intentionally kills an unborn child at any stage of pre-natal development can be charged with aggravated murder,
murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide,
depending on the circumstances. (re: "Cleveland captor could face murder charges for killing unborn babies.." )

"Sorry that I seem "uninformed" to you, but I don't judge evil just by what the law books say."

Neither does God......

[O Really]

"Sorry that I seem "uninformed" to you, but I don't judge evil just by what the law books say."

Neither does God......

For the record, that was UnLurker's statement. I have no problem separating what is legal from what is not, and what is owed Caesar from what is owed God.

[Mr.B]

Abortion Rights states abortion is the "lawful taking of unborn life".

Y'all have popped this question before, so I'll put the same question to you.......WWJD?

The liberal argument is that "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality"; well..... he didn't mention abortion either.

Still doesn't make either of them "right".

[Wneglia]

Hypothetical legal question for O Really: If a pregnant woman's boyfriend stomps her in the abdomen and kills her fetus, but she decides not to press charges, can the DA still accuse him of homocide?

Keeping in mind most of what I know about criminal law I learned on TV, I'd say yes. And can still charge him with aggravated assault or assault with intent. The fact that she might not want to press charges would be ignored on such a serious matter. Like two people fighting in the street - cop comes up, both would like to just walk away. Cop decides one or both should be arrested and hauls them away.

But it's a state law matter. Here's a summary of the applicable state laws:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/hea ... -laws.aspx

Let me muddy the water further. What if the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when she was attacked? Would it still be homocide, even though she intended to get rid of the fetus?

I guess they could charge him with doing an abortion without a license.

[UnLurker]

The "logic" is in the woman deciding when the time is right to bring a life into the world, not you old men deciding for her. And, the fact remains that every American born, thanks to our gluttony, means that several more children will die elsewhere. Where's the "right to life" logic in that?

Why, that's discriminatory! Under the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, that woman has a license to kill that's not afforded to all other citizens!

Just kidding. Glad Vrede at least acknowledges that that unborn child is a life.

[UnLurker]

Hypothetical legal question for O Really: If a pregnant woman's boyfriend stomps her in the abdomen and kills her fetus, but she decides not to press charges, can the DA still accuse him of homocide?

Keeping in mind most of what I know about criminal law I learned on TV, I'd say yes. And can still charge him with aggravated assault or assault with intent. The fact that she might not want to press charges would be ignored on such a serious matter. Like two people fighting in the street - cop comes up, both would like to just walk away. Cop decides one or both should be arrested and hauls them away.

But it's a state law matter. Here's a summary of the applicable state laws:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/hea ... -laws.aspx

Let me muddy the water further. What if the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when she was attacked? Would it still be homocide, even though she intended to get rid of the fetus?

I guess they could charge him with doing an abortion without a license.

Beautifully laid out moral conundrum of the kind that make the heads of leftists start spinning and smoking. In either case, they have no regard for life; all they care about is punishing another man while cheering another woman who kills her own child.

[O Really]

Let me muddy the water further. What if the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when she was attacked? Would it still be homocide, even though she intended to get rid of the fetus?

I guess they could charge him with doing an abortion without a license.

That's not muddy at all. If she gets robbed on her way to giving her money to a charity, she's still robbed. Her intent would have been to get an abortion, not get attacked. If he used a coat hanger, as was common before abortions were legal, he'd get charged with abortion without license, or maybe practicing medicine without license. If he beat her up or shot her and the fetus miscarried, that's still a crime in a lot of states.

[O Really]

So if all "killing" is murder, then that includes executions, defense of self and others, war, and vehicular homicide, right? Or is it just abortion we want to make up our own definitions of?

[neoplacebo]

Hypothetical legal question for O Really: If a pregnant woman's boyfriend stomps her in the abdomen and kills her fetus, but she decides not to press charges, can the DA still accuse him of homocide?

Keeping in mind most of what I know about criminal law I learned on TV, I'd say yes. And can still charge him with aggravated assault or assault with intent. The fact that she might not want to press charges would be ignored on such a serious matter. Like two people fighting in the street - cop comes up, both would like to just walk away. Cop decides one or both should be arrested and hauls them away.

But it's a state law matter. Here's a summary of the applicable state laws:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/hea ... -laws.aspx

Let me muddy the water further. What if the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when she was attacked? Would it still be homocide, even though she intended to get rid of the fetus?

I guess they could charge him with doing an abortion without a license.

That doesn't muddy the water at all. The fact remains that if you attack and kill a pregnant woman (whether she's on her way to the abortion clinic or whether she's on her way to offer her unborn fetus as human sacrifice at some pseudo religious ceremony) you will be charged with the murder of two people. That's what the law (at least in some states) is. The law is also (currently) that a woman has the right to choose an abortion. I consider myself left of center on most matters, but am not a "supporter" of abortion. I'm a supporter of a woman having the right to choose to have one. As for being labeled a child killer, I could be nothing further from that; one of the most beautiful things in the world, to me, is the smile of a child. What about these religious fanatics who allow their children to die because the parents "don't believe" in medical science? The way I see it, those kids were murdered by default.

[O Really]

...
Y'all have popped this question before, so I'll put the same question to you.......WWJD?

....

I'd think he'd have choices - he could run for office so as to be able to have a direct effect on the law; he could rant about what he thought the law should be; he could form a non-profit working to offer alternatives to pregnant women; or, being who he is, he could just perform a miracle. But in any case I can't see him advocating bombing abortion clinics or intimidating practitioners out of business.

[Bungalow Bill]

So that's what a resurrected child looks like, sorta like a regular child.
I'm a bit disappointed.

[neoplacebo]

I think what gets overlooked in all this is that no woman gets pregnant with the intention of getting an abortion; there's several ways to fuck successfully without the result being pregnancy. The decision to have an abortion is likely based on factors that exist or will exist in her own life should she become a mother. Making abortion harder to get, or outright banning it, would only serve to instill a sense of panic in a pregnant woman who didn't intend to become pregnant or became pregnant for any number of other reasons, and thus forcing her into a more dangerous situation should she be set on not having a child. Abortion should be done in a medical setting; not a criminal one.

[UnLurker]

The "logic" is in the woman deciding when the time is right to bring a life into the world, not you old men deciding for her. And, the fact remains that every American born, thanks to our gluttony, means that several more children will die elsewhere. Where's the "right to life" logic in that?

Why, that's discriminatory! Under the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, that woman has a license to kill that's not afforded to all other citizens!

Just kidding. Glad Vrede at least acknowledges that that unborn child is a life.

The fact is that several con men here are insisting that Big Brother take away the rights of women to decide what to do with their own bodies and don't care at all that in each American case several more brown, black or yellow children will die elsewhere. Maybe we should charge them with multiple murders if they get their way, that's the logical extension of their calling women and their doctors "murderers". We should also charge them with assault since pregnancy is riskier health-wise for women than abortion is.

Yeah, I know both sound goofy, but that's the result when goofy people re-write definitions, ignore that there are competing rights that we are discussing, and have chosen to eliminate the human ones in favor of the theoretical human ones. UnLurker and others become guilty of assault and multiple homicide by their own "reasoning".

So....according to this shrew....abortion actually saves lives in other countries? Of all of the nutty garbage that is used to justify the killing of children, this one has to make even the most despicable leftist cringe. I have searched and not found anything to corroborate this stupidity on the Web, so please provide sources for this nutjob theory.

Government already prohibits and prosecutes for murder; we all (I hope) agree that this is a legitimate role of government and not "Big Brother".
And I think that we all consider the murder of a child to be particularly heinous; again, not a "Big Brother" intrusion when local authorities pursue justice for such evil. From conception to 18 yrs, my definition of a child is consistent. The only twisted definition comes from the pro-death crowd, who want to arbitrarily shave off part of the humanity of this precious human being solely for the selfish convenience of the selfish mother. In Orwell's "1984", Big Brother used government to dehumanize the proles; in 2013, the left uses government to dehumanize unborn children. The "definitions" nonsense from Vrede is much more like Newspeak and the lies of the Ministry of Truth than anything from the pro-life folks.

[UnLurker]

Wow, UnLurker actually doesn't know that Americans consume far more than their share of planetary resources, that kids die elsewhere for lack of those resources, things just about everyone else knows, and is too incompetent to find out such easily learned things. Figures.

Or, Partisan62 is just lying, we've seen that before.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... ame#p25881

From birth to 18 yrs his definition of a child is accurate, from conception to birth it's just emotional and ignorant.

In Orwell's "1984", Big Brother would have been in women's wombs along with everywhere else, just like Partisan62 wants him to be now. Big Brother also redefined words with Newspeak, just like overwrought Partisan62 does contrary to all medicine, biology, law and dictionaries.

Just as I thought, she can't produce anything to back up her claim that preventing abortions somehow kill kids in other countries. Nor can she back up her lies in defense of killing unborn children. A child does not stop being a child at birth minus one minute any more than it stops being a child at birth minus a month, or six months or nine months. Neither medicine, nor biology can contradict that. As far as the law, we all know that law can be wrong and evil and is the basis of "morality" for only the most stupid among us (see Vrede).

[JTA]

The "logic" is in the woman deciding when the time is right to bring a life into the world, not you old men deciding for her. And, the fact remains that every American born, thanks to our gluttony, means that several more children will die elsewhere. Where's the "right to life" logic in that?

Why, that's discriminatory! Under the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, that woman has a license to kill that's not afforded to all other citizens!

Just kidding. Glad Vrede at least acknowledges that that unborn child is a life.

The fact is that several con men here are insisting that Big Brother take away the rights of women to decide what to do with their own bodies and don't care at all that in each American case several more brown, black or yellow children will die elsewhere. Maybe we should charge them with multiple murders if they get their way, that's the logical extension of their calling women and their doctors "murderers". We should also charge them with assault since pregnancy is riskier health-wise for women than abortion is.

Yeah, I know both sound goofy, but that's the result when goofy people re-write definitions, ignore that there are competing rights that we are discussing, and have chosen to eliminate the human ones in favor of the theoretical human ones. UnLurker and others become guilty of assault and multiple homicide by their own "reasoning".

So....according to this shrew....abortion actually saves lives in other countries?

Every time you eat a big-mac, an Ethiopian kid dies at that very instant.

[UnLurker]

Just as I thought,

You've never produced anything to back up the claim that you think.

she can't produce anything to back up her claim that preventing abortions somehow kill kids in other countries.

>>> <<<

Wow, UnLurker actually doesn't know that Americans consume far more than their share of planetary resources, that kids die elsewhere for lack of those resources, things just about everyone else knows, and is too incompetent to find out such easily learned things. Figures...

Nor can she back up her lies in defense of killing unborn children.

Still doesn't know the definition of "children", just an illogical, emotional, wingnut.

A child does not stop being a child at birth minus one minute any more than it stops being a child at birth minus a month,

After viability a woman can only obtain an abortion for health reasons.

or six months

Partisan62 diapers fetuses.

or nine months.

Partisan62 names zygotes.

Neither medicine, nor biology can contradict that.

They do, so of course the can. Logic and English much?

As far as the law, we all know that law can be wrong and evil and is the basis of "morality" for only the most stupid among us (see Vrede).

Yes, law can be evil and you are entitled to make that case. But, only the most stupid among us use that as a whiny excuse to invent their own emotionally overwrought definitions.

Yep, the skank still can't produce anything to back up her lies. Run, baby killer, run away! Dehumanizing unborn children so that they can be killed is as despicable as any atrocity ever perpetrated and this skank defends it.

Fetus is Latin for offspring, i.e. in humans, a CHILD. Zygote still describes a human offspring in an earlier stage of development. These terms are the lying abortionists way of diverting attention from the truth.

If you are proud of what you stand for, why hide behind these kind of words that are meant to dehumanize? Aren't you proud when potentially healthy human beings are destroyed through abortion (which is what a zygote or fetus as you call them will become as long as they aren't given the Gosnell treatment)?

[UnLurker]

The "logic" is in the woman deciding when the time is right to bring a life into the world, not you old men deciding for her. And, the fact remains that every American born, thanks to our gluttony, means that several more children will die elsewhere. Where's the "right to life" logic in that?

Every time you eat a big-mac, an Ethiopian kid dies at that very instant.

Oh my God, that means I wipe out half the tribe during every visit to Mickey Dees! Just kidding.....I usually go for the Quarter Pounder with cheese...what does it do? Indian? Mexican? Eskimo? Rapper?

[UnLurker]

Yep, the skank

...But, that's easier for me to say than Partisan62 since, though I make mistakes which I rapidly correct, I'm not so dishonest as to intentionally lie here like Partisan62, the skank, did...

still can't produce anything

>>> <<<

Wow, UnLurker actually doesn't know that Americans consume far more than their share of planetary resources, that kids die elsewhere for lack of those resources, things just about everyone else knows, and is too incompetent to find out such easily learned things. Figures...

to back up her lies.

Or, Partisan62 is just lying, we've seen that before.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... ame#p25881

Run, baby

Still doesn't know the definition of "baby", just an illogical, emotional, wingnut.

killer, run away!

You're the expert at that.

Dehumanizing unborn children

Still doesn't know the definition of "children", just an illogical, emotional, wingnut.

so that they can be killed is as despicable as any atrocity ever perpetrated and this skank defends it.

I defend women's rights to be free of you being in their wombs.

Fetus is Latin

Medicine, biology, law and dictionaries use English.

for offspring, i.e. in humans, a CHILD.

Still doesn't know the definition of "CHILD", just an illogical, emotional, wingnut.

Zygote still describes a human offspring in an earlier stage of development. These terms are the lying abortionists

And medicine, biology, law and dictionaries. But, if you want to smear them play the "guilt by association" game - Eric Rudolph.

way of diverting attention from the truth.

"truth" = Partisan62's invented emotionally overwrought definitions.

If you are proud of what you stand for, why hide behind these kind of words that are meant to dehumanize?

No hiding, merely accuracy according to medicine, biology, law and dictionaries. If you are proud of what you stand for, why invent emotionally overwrought definitions?

Aren't you proud when potentially healthy human beings are destroyed through abortion

I'm proud to stand for women's choices, whatever they are, against your creepy desires to place GOP Senators in their wombs.

(which is what a zygote or fetus as you call them will become as long as they aren't given the Gosnell treatment)?

Gosnell is the tragic yet predictable result of limiting women's access to healthcare services. You are arguing for far more Gosnells.

Still running from my challenge, skank? Where are the links to the stories detailing how third world kids are dying every time an American child is born? Are you too much of a coward to deal with such an easy question?

You lied again, didn't you; you can't posta link because YOU LIED. You are just too easy. Skank Vrede has nothing in her sleazy arsenal other than the same uninformed leftist crap about "definitions" as if that has anything to do with reality. It's still an unborn child no matter what lie you try to use to relabel it.

[neoplacebo]

Those third world kids in question will die anyway; the estimates of raising a child in America to age 18 is over 100K last I heard. That represents an economic impact that could be applied elsewhere,(possibly third world countries, AIDS efforts in Africa, etc, etc.) especially if the mother and child are dependent on the state for assistance. Does that explain it to you?

[UnLurker]

Strike three. I'm out.