• 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]


Gee, it sure took you a lot of words to say "The constitution doesn't say anything about the govt protecting the rights of the unborn"
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I was just asking a question, but thank you for identifying those against the murder of the innocent and those who are for life as being the morally superior... another Freudian slip, eh?
Click to expand...

When will those with most perverted perception of morality stop trying to enslave women by banning abortion?

Just askin'
 

I, too, remembered reading with sadness of the Thalidomide babies... but that was about 10,000 babies, not anywhere near the 50 million since Roe that have been deprived of life...and at the same time most of these children would probably rather have been born than just have that right, even a potentially diminished form of that right, just absolutely and forever taken from them. There are apparently around 6000 so afflicted still alive today, over 50 years later... the majority did not take their own lives... and so must be assumed to have gotten at least some pleasure out of their life.

And here is a small list of notables from Wikipedia who were afflicted with this...and so they went on to overcome...


Mat Fraser, musician, actor and performance artist born with phocomelia of both arms

Alvin Law, radio broadcaster, born without arms

Louise Medus Mansell, daughter of David Mason, campaigner for increased compensation for thalidomide children, born with no arms or legs

Tony Meléndez, award-winning singer and guitarist who plays with his feet and recognized by Pope John Paul II and U.S. President Ronald Reagan

Thomas Quasthoff, an internationally acclaimed bass-baritone, who describes himself: "1.34 meters tall, short arms, seven fingers — four right, three left — large, relatively well-formed head, brown eyes, distinctive lips; profession: singer"

Niko von Glasow produced a documentary called Nobody's Perfect, based on the lives of 12 people affected by the drug, which was released in 2008

Terry Wiles, born with phocomelia of both arms and legs, has become known internationally through the television drama On Giant's Shoulders and the best-selling book of the same name

Why not let individuals make their own decisions about whether their life is worth living?
 
sangha said:
Gee, it sure took you a lot of words to say "The constitution doesn't say anything about the govt protecting the rights of the unborn"
Click to expand...

Still nothing you can factually cite and of course, except for something coarse, nothing new from you... work completed from this side, thanks. Let me know if you stumble on something new or provable.
 
They have to be present in this world to speak for themselves.
 
sangha said:
When will those with most perverted perception of morality stop trying to enslave women by banning abortion?

Just askin'
Click to expand...

I'd say those in favor of killing children, even after birth, labeling it "post birth" abortion, have absolutely NO standing to judge anything moral, or not.

Just sayin'
 
Strucker said:
It is completely outrageous. It is pretty baldly stating that a murder charge can be laid based solely on a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...
It's murder only if mom says it is.
 
He is definately not guilty of Murder, but he should be charged with something. I have always been a proponent of a man having more a saying in the fate of his child. Perhaps, if a man does not want the child, the woman should be forced to parent and support the child herself if she wants to have it.
 

This is exactly why the pro-choice argument is bull**** and our laws are bull****...

It seems it's only OK to abort a child if the mother doesn't want the child, and if she does then it is murder.

Abortion should be considered murder and this man is guilty of first degree murder. That is not an opinion either - it is truth.

If you can charge someone with murder for murdering a 6 week old fetus then you can charge a woman with aborting her 6 week fetus - both cases meet first degree murder criteria in every state.

It's either that or we can have abortion and have people not held responsible for killing unborn children...
 

This is my view as well in that the law appears to be inconsistent based on gender which would seem to make it against the bill of rights which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

As I've said before, since this guy used the very same drugs that a doctor would administer to end a pregnancy within the first 9 weeks, it appears to sanction "murder" based on the whim of the female - no law should be so based.
 
CanadaJohn said:
....

As I've said before, since this guy used the very same drugs that a doctor would administer to end a pregnancy within the first 9 weeks, it appears to sanction "murder" based on the whim of the female - no law should be so based.
Click to expand...

Actually he did not use the very same drugs a doctor would use.

Usually an antibiotic and two chemical abortion type drugs are used. The first stops the progesterone production. Progeterone is needed to continue a pregnancy.
By stopping the progesterone ( in lay mans terms ) the placenta starts to pull away from the wall. The second drug ...
The one the boyfriend gave her is taken a day later and it causes the cramping and with the loosened placenta the abortion is more like a heavy period with mild cramping.

Without the first medication the woman went into full premature labor which is not only very painful but since she was not given antibiotics could have caused a life threatening infection.
 

I don't doubt your explanation.

That says to me that he should have been charged with medical malpractice or practicing medicine without a license. To have the man charged with murder gives the female the ability to determine that the "invasive clump of cells" is human while another woman may think otherwise.

I'm curious - if in this case the man had secured the drug and the woman had taken it, would you have charged them both with first degree murder because the "proper" drug administration protocol wasn't followed?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't doubt your explanation.

That says to me that he should have been charged with medical malpractice or practicing medicine without a license. ...
Click to expand...

Personally I feel the prosecutor should not have sought a first degree murder charge.
However , as far as the law reads the UVVA and legal abortions are not in conflict legally with other.

He was also charged with product tampering and I fully agree with that charge.
 

Let's be above board here and acknowledge that when you say they are "not in conflict legally" it's because the UVVA makes an exception, excluding abortions, so as not to conflict with Supreme Court rulings on access to abortion. That does not mean that they are not in conflict as a matter of legal principle, it just means that they found a way to skirt logic in order to have the UVVA exist.
 
It is important to understand that the UVVA and Roe vs Wade are not two different laws,

In fact Roe vs Wade is not a law.
It is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.
 

We should not expect the "pro-lifers" to know the facts about these things, or be honest about them

CJ's description of the drugs used was just as inaccurate as his claim that the charge was based on "the whim of the female". The truth is, the murder charge is not affected by the mother's desires or choices.
 

Is Scott Peterson innocent then?
 
j-mac said:
Is Scott Peterson innocent then?
Click to expand...

The state prosecutor brought charges against Scott Peterson.
The state prosecutor also brought charges against the Florida man.

These are/were criminal cases not civil cases.

These charges had nothing to do with the expectant mothers wishes or desires.
 

That's true enough, but the tact of the argument seems to be taking the path that there is no such thing as 'murder' of an infant in the womb, and that is clearly false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…