Missed This Place...

Watermark said:
Then make it a crime to intentionally make a mother miscarry. Then the purpose would be clear.
Click to expand...

The law addresses this as well, but that would not address the point of the double murder in itself.

Also, the law is written so that no mother could ever be charged if, for instance, she were to attempt suicide and kill the child, and no physician could be charged for obvious reasons.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
The law addresses this as well, but that would not address the point of the double murder in itself.

Also, the law is written so that no mother could ever be charged if, for instance, she were to attempt suicide and kill the child, and no physician could be charged for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

It should be forceful miscarriage. Not murder. The problem is that you've violated her right to have the baby, not that you've killed a human being.
 
I just want the law to make it clear that the mother was the victim here. Not the "unborn". The title, frankly, gives the ultimate purpose of the bill away. It doesn't say "The pregnant victims of violence act", it says "The unborn victims of violence act".
 
Watermark said:
It should be forceful miscarriage. Not murder. The problem is that you've violated her right to have the baby, not that you've killed a human being.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you've struck on where the two camps may be at an irreconcilable impasse. Most people would say it is a murder because of the intent of the crime and that it is a human being, albeit an unborn one.

This would, legally, differentiate from an abortion, which is protected under current law. Even though both are terminations of pregnancies, the intention and methods do factor into how we legally treat certain acts.
 
Watermark said:
I just want the law to make it clear that the mother was the victim here. Not the "unborn". The title, frankly, gives the ultimate purpose of the bill away. It doesn't say "The pregnant victims of violence act", it says "The unborn victims of violence act".
Click to expand...

very astute!
 
I guess "astute" is highly subjective.

He's crying about a technicality that any other whiner would see loud and clear.
 
Hey Adam, whaddup? I still have my minor's driver's licence because it hasn't expired and because its fun to throw people off. Watermark is also happy to have someone to mess with I see...
 
Adam - all this can be cleared up easily. The legislature only has to legislate that a foetus is a "human being", thus the newly declared human being is capable of being murdered of itself. But I have to say that the ramifications would be interesting, to say the least.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
.......

I'm coming to the end of the job in these next two weeks. I ran a State Representative's office in the North Carolina House for the summer legislative session. My boss leads the Republican Caucus for the House and the Senate. ........

...What's up with everyone else?
Click to expand...

Wow. You've officially gone to the darkside.

But welcome back nonetheless!
 
LadyT said:
Wow. You've officially gone to the darkside.

But welcome back nonetheless!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was gonna say something to him regarding that too Tiana, especially when mentioning he will be president someday....

like: thank goodness you will have another 20 years to change your political affiliation!

Adam has gone from Democratic, to libertarian, and now THIS! :eek: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! so, 20 years or so is time enough for him to change a few more times i figure!
 
Watermark said:
A technicality like making it a matter of law that a fetus is a person? Only morons like you can't get the distinction, Beefy.
Click to expand...

YOU SAID that a foetus is not HUMAN, which is an outright lie and absolutely idiotic and lacking in any kind of biological understanding....Watermark and argue the WRONG issue imho.

What someone on your side of the fence should be arguing is whether a foetus has achieved personhood, before they are born and take their first breath....with personhood giving them full rights of any human....

But NOOOOOOOOO, YOU can't do that....accept that there are different stages in life that get us to the "born" stage and ALL of them my dear ARE stages in the human life....including stages after birth such as newborn, infant, toddler......pubescent, teen, adult, midlife, senior, blue haired :)....

What you should do imo, is review all of the stages in the life cycle of the zygote, embryo, fetus and make a rational decision on when terminating the baby to be's life should be cut off, other than health or life issues of the mother...where it logically makes sense to you and others like you...for example some believe that when the fetus stage begins, about 10-12 weeks, abortion should be cut off, because once to the fetus stage the baby to be, has all of his arms and legs and head and organs in the proper position and just need to sit back, be fed, and grow....some people think that when the baby to be becomes sentient, where they can feel pain...., some at quickening....

"quickening" was what was in Common Law...abortion was allowed up to quickening, after quickening and with an evangelical movement, it eventually became a felony for the mother to be and performer of the abortion to have one AFTER quickening, still legal before such....

anyway, sounding a little stupid there watermark, when you say a foetus is not human...imo.

Care
 
What someone on your side of the fence should be arguing is whether a foetus has achieved personhood, before they are born and take their first breath....with personhood giving them full rights of any human....
//

Those on the right do not want to touch that Care.
That opens up a big can of worms.
Once opened the worms will crawl out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top