This is just sad

[bill]

http://wcco.com/local/local_story_122141131.html


Charges: 2 Men Beat Pregnant Woman, Killed Child

(WCCO) Minneapolis Two St. Louis Park, Minn. men have been charged with second-degree murder in the death of a newborn child.

According to charges filed by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Paul Petersen and Dameon Gatson are accused of beating a pregnant woman in the stomach to induce labor.

The criminal complaint said that Peterson said Gatson offered him $200 to assault Gatson's girlfriend and cause a miscarriage.

Authorities alleged Gatson, the father of the child, drove Petersen to the woman's apartment where he assaulted the expectant mother by punching her "two or three times" in the abdomen before fleeing.

In the criminal complaint, Peterson said Gatson paid him $40 after the attack.

The woman, who had been pregnant for only six months, gave birth to an baby girl who weighed 1 pound 9 ounces and was on life support for 10 days before dying Tuesday.

[citizenralph]

Thanks to Roe v Wade I don't see the harm. Just another dead baby, uh, I mean fetus.

[bill]

Thanks to Roe v Wade I don't see the harm. Just another dead baby, uh, I mean fetus.

Your kidding right?

[Grant Sharkey]

Thanks to Roe v Wade I don't see the harm. Just another dead baby, uh, I mean fetus.

For $40 you could get it done cheaper in Portugal.

Seriously Ralph - when did you turn this story into a pro-life issue in your head? That's a messed up way to think.

The issue is about the boyfriend being an absolute cunt to his girlfriend. Maybe she was a stupid skank for being pregnant out of wedlock - silly whore - but that doesn't give the bf the right to do that right?

Yeah the baby died - but God has his time for all of us and Peterson was just doing his work...for $40 bucks. God moves in mysterious ways, eh?

[Jugghaid]

For $40 you could get it done cheaper in Portugal.

Seriously Ralph - when did you turn this story into a pro-life issue in your head? That's a messed up way to think.

The issue is about the boyfriend being an absolute cunt to his girlfriend. Maybe she was a stupid skank for being pregnant out of wedlock - silly whore - but that doesn't give the bf the right to do that right?

Yeah the baby died - but God has his time for all of us and Peterson was just doing his work...for $40 bucks. God moves in mysterious ways, eh?

I agree. It's a horrible person doing a horrible thing.

It does, however, beg the question that if it's not a human being until it's born for the purposes of abortion, how an you be charged with murder?

It's a double standard.

Either way, this story is very sad and this kind of scumbag is exactly why I support the death penalty.

[citizenralph]

For $40 you could get it done cheaper in Portugal.

Seriously Ralph - when did you turn this story into a pro-life issue in your head? That's a messed up way to think.

The issue is about the boyfriend being an absolute to his friend. Maybe she was a stupid skank for being pregnant out of wedlock - silly - but that doesn't give the bf the right to do that right?

Yeah the baby died - but God has his time for all of us and Peterson was just doing his work...for $40 bucks. God moves in mysterious ways, eh?
Holy smokes Grant, you're all over me with this one. Pro-life, skank, God.

This story is a pro life issue. Had they given the $40 to a doctor it's no big deal. I can't get past that. Yes, it's a horrible assault on this woman and these guys should be puished for that. And yes! Charge them with for the baby. Because that's what it was. . Homicide. The taking of a human life.

[Grant Sharkey]

Holy smokes Grant, you're all over me with this one. Pro-life, skank, God.

This story is a pro life issue. Had they given the $40 to a doctor it's no big deal. I can't get past that. Yes, it's a horrible assault on this woman and these guys should be puished for that. And yes! Charge them with for the baby. Because that's what it was. . Homicide. The taking of a human life.

I am all over you on this one because you've totally ruled the woman's CHOICE out of the equation and seen both the act of beating a pregnant woman up against her will and her having an abortion as the same thing.

And the fact that you have shown no compassion towards the woman in your initial post angered me enough to think only babies matter to you. We have to stop all this baby worshipping crap. When does a grown adult stop being protected and has less right to life than an infant?

[King Kashue]

When does a grown adult stop being protected and has less right to life than an infant?

This seems like a textbook strawman, since no law in the US (even when abortion was illegal) prohibited abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and no current political position (from the mainstream to the fringe) suggests that such abortions be prohibited...


It's not a matter of infringing on a mother's right to life, and it never has been.

[dogman]

I am not a typically violent person, but reading shit like this infuriates me to the point that I want to do physical harm to a sick muthafucka like these to pieces of shit... :mad: feeding them slowly feedfirst into a woodchipper up to the waist and then slowly submerging the remaining torso on up into an acid vat is too merciful for a fucking shit stain like these 2 pricks!!!!!
Odds are these 'pillars of society' will only serve a minimum sentence(pleebargained down no doubt) for causing so much harm.:mad:

PLEASE allow me to be executioner for a week!!! Ill save the state money,help with the overpopulation in the jails and by example show the other bottomfeeders out there that there are repercussions for doing crimes!!:2c:

[Grant Sharkey]

This seems like a textbook strawman, since no law in the US (even when abortion was illegal) prohibited abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and no current political position (from the mainstream to the fringe) suggests that such abortions be prohibited...


It's not a matter of infringing on a mother's right to life, and it never has been.

Interesting isn't it? She probably paid tax and had a vote up until then as well. :)

[King Kashue]

Interesting isn't it? She probably paid tax and had a vote up until then as well. :)

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here...Who is "She" in reference to my post?

[Jugghaid]

I am all over you on this one because you've totally ruled the woman's CHOICE out of the equation

What about the boyfriend's (fathers) choice? Shouldn't he have the right to choose too? ;)

[Grant Sharkey]

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here...Who is "She" in reference to my post?

I mean the mother. If the law has never protected the mother - but was happy to use her up until then by the people who set the law to finance them and give them power. What's the baby ever done for the legislators? That's what i was geting at. Sorry for being confusing.

[Les Izzmor]

The child was born alive. Then died.

So. How did abortion get into this?

[Grant Sharkey]

What about the boyfriend's (fathers) choice? Shouldn't he have the right to choose too? ;)

yeah - but not in a bar bet to beat up the girlfriend. It should be with the girlfriend/wife if he's still around. He still has the option to leave without ever seeing the baby, and the responsibilty of supporting her emotionally for as long as possible if they do choose. If she doesn't want to and he wants to stick with her, then he has to get a grip and deal with it and stop being such a cry baby.

[Grant Sharkey]

The child was born alive. Then died.

So. How did abortion get into this?

*cough* ralph *cough*

[bill]

This has nothing to do with abortion rights or non rights. It is as simple as one person pushed their will on another. I don't care what will it is, its wrong.

The dude is not a man at all, gets his lady preggers and pays his buddy to beat her up???? He is a little coward who does not deserve a lady, let alone a child. I wish major harm on him.

[Jugghaid]

yeah - but not in a bar bet to beat up the girlfriend. It should be with the girlfriend/wife if he's still around. He still has the option to leave without ever seeing the baby, and the responsibilty of supporting her emotionally for as long as possible if they do choose. If she doesn't want to and he wants to stick with her, then he has to get a grip and deal with it and stop being such a cry baby.

Point is, he doesn't get to choose at all. And he's legally responsible for that kid whether he wants it or not. Financially too.

Don't get me wrong, this guy should be taken out and shot. And the fact that this kid actually lived on life support for 10 days really doesn't enter into the equation. There have been many people charged with murder when the child dies in utero from an attack, beating, or gunshot or whatever. The central question is, how can it be legal for the mother to kill the child, or a doctor, but illegal for anyone else to kill the child?

It's a double standard. That's why I don't like the way the law reads.

[Jugghaid]

This has nothing to do with abortion rights or non rights. It is as simple as one person pushed their will on another. I don't care what will it is, its wrong.

The dude is not a man at all, gets his lady preggers and pays his buddy to beat her up???? He is a little coward who does not deserve a lady, let alone a child. I wish major harm on him.

I agree about him. But isn't an abortion the mother pushing her will to not have a child on the child and ending the childs life?

Just playing devils adocate here..................:)

[Les Izzmor]

What about the boyfriend's (fathers) choice? Shouldn't he have the right to choose too? ;)

I think he should. I think all prospective mothers, if they want child support, should contact the father and inform him of the pregnancy. And. He should be able to sign a waiver stating he wants the mother to have an abortion and if she still wants to go through with the pregnancy then she should support the baby herself.

[bill]

I agree about him. But isn't an abortion the mother pushing her will to not have a child on the child and ending the childs life?

Just playing devils adocate here..................:)

What does this have to do with abortion?

As for a lady forcing her will onto a man, yep, it sure does force her will on him. But I think a lady kinda gets that right when she is the one who has to be pregnant and give birth :2c:

[GrooveMonkey]

This has nothing to do with abortion rights or non rights. It is as simple as one person pushed their will on another. I don't care what will it is, its wrong.

The dude is not a man at all, gets his lady preggers and pays his buddy to beat her up???? He is a little coward who does not deserve a lady, let alone a child. I wish major harm on him.

Big +1 :mad:

[King Kashue]

I mean the mother. If the law has never protected the mother - but was happy to use her up until then by the people who set the law to finance them and give them power. What's the baby ever done for the legislators? That's what i was geting at. Sorry for being confusing.

I didn't say the law didn't protect her, I actually said the exact opposite, that the law has never threatened the mother's right to life...The law most certainly protects the mother's right to life (and always has). That was my point.

You asked:

"When does a grown adult stop being protected and has less right to life than an infant?"

And the answer is "never"...

The child's right to life has never been placed over the mothers, so making that claim (as you did through rhetorical question) is a strawman. It's not reflective of the legal status at any point (either before or after Roe), and therefore it's not relevant.

[Jugghaid]

What does this have to do with abortion?

As for a lady forcing her will onto a man, yep, it sure does force her will on him. But I think a lady kinda gets that right when she is the one who has to be pregnant and give birth :2c:

It's about the death of a child, and who decides if that child dies and how. The way laws are currently written, it's okay for some people to end the childs life, but not others. Some people have the RIGHT to end that child's life and others will go to jail for a long time for it.

It's about an argument of convenience. People will say it's not a human life until it is born. And that is why abortion is legal. It's only a fetus, not a himan being. So if I stab a woman who is 5 months pregnant in the abdomen with a sword and kill the "fetus", how can I then be charged with murder? How can a woman who is 5 months pregnant and smoking crack be charged with child abuse when it's technically not a child yet? But yet, that's the law.And just so you know, I'm not against abortion from a legal standpoint, only a moral one. It shouldn't be used for birth control. But I also realize that the last thing this world needs is more unwanted kids with worthless parent that don't raise them properly.

[Les Izzmor]

The way laws are currently written, it's okay for some people to end the childs life, but not others. Some people have the RIGHT to end that child's life and others will go to jail for a long time for it.




Well. The law also says I can't sell oxycodone, but my pharmacist can. Isn't that the same thing? Saying one person can do something legally, while others can't.

There are plenty of laws that stipulate that some people have the legal right to do something while others don't.

[bill]

It's about the death of a child, and who decides if that child dies and how. The way laws are currently written, it's okay for some people to end the childs life, but not others. Some people have the RIGHT to end that child's life and others will go to jail for a long time for it.

It's about an argument of convenience. People will say it's not a human life until it is born. And that is why abortion is legal. It's only a fetus, not a himan being. So if I stab a woman who is 5 months pregnant in the abdomen with a sword and kill the "fetus", how can I then be charged with murder? How can a woman who is 5 months pregnant and smoking crack be charged with child abuse when it's technically not a child yet? But yet, that's the law.And just so you know, I'm not against abortion from a legal standpoint, only a moral one. It shouldn't be used for birth control. But I also realize that the last thing this world needs is more unwanted kids with worthless parent that don't raise them properly.
Point well taken, I think you read more into my post and the story than I did.:wave::P

[King Kashue]

What does this have to do with abortion?

As for a lady forcing her will onto a man, yep, it sure does force her will on him. But I think a lady kinda gets that right when she is the one who has to be pregnant and give birth :2c:

What Juggs' question is why does:

Man pays friend to end pregnancy = murder
but
Woman pays man (doctor) to end pregnancy = medical procedure.


Obviously, the legal reasoning currently put forth is clear, but Juggs is questioning the idea behind the legal position. A woman's right to abortion is not based on the idea "It's the mother's body", despite what people think. In fact, that idea doesn't actually work when you examine it, since the fetus is a genetically distinct organism.

Roe is based on the 14th amendment right to privacy, which is why so many legal experts have issues with it, since the 9 supremes stretched that amendment like a rubber band with the decision. Rather than changing the law through legislation, they cobbled together a shaky basis for changing it through decision.


It's similar to the "Intact dilation and extraction" debate (aka partial-birth). Where is the logic in allowing a procedure in which if you deliver the fetus an inch or two too far, the doctor is committing homicide, not a medical procedure...That inch is somehow magical? It's logically unsound, however you want to construct the moral, legal, and medical arguments...



Edit: Juggs is faster on the draw...:D

[Grant Sharkey]

I didn't say the law didn't protect her, I actually said the exact opposite, that the law has never threatened the mother's right to life...The law most certainly protects the mother's right to life (and always has). That was my point.

You asked:

"When does a grown adult stop being protected and has less right to life than an infant?"

And the answer is "never"...

The child's right to life has never been placed over the mothers, so making that claim (as you did through rhetorical question) is a strawman. It's not reflective of the legal status at any point (either before or after Roe), and therefore it's not relevant.

In that case i misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

What i was driving at is more the popular misconception that a murder is 'worse' if it's a child dying. Sorry you didn't understand me. I deal with people and not the law all the time.

[Les Izzmor]

What Juggs' question is why does:

Man pays friend to end pregnancy = murder
but
Woman pays man (doctor) to end pregnancy = medical procedure.


Obviously, the legal reasoning currently put forth is clear, but Juggs is questioning the idea behind the legal position. A woman's right to abortion is not based on the idea "It's the mother's body", despite what people think. In fact, that idea doesn't actually work when you examine it, since the fetus is a genetically distinct organism.

Roe is based on the 14th amendment right to privacy, which is why so many legal experts have issues with it, since the 9 supremes stretched that amendment like a rubber band with the decision. Rather than changing the law through legislation, they cobbled together a shaky basis for changing it through decision.


It's similar to the "Intact dilation and extraction" debate (aka partial-birth). Where is the logic in allowing a procedure in which if you deliver the fetus an inch or two too far, the doctor is committing homicide, not a medical procedure...That inch is somehow magical? It's logically unsound, however you want to construct the moral, legal, and medical arguments...



Edit: Juggs is faster on the draw...:D

But. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[Grant Sharkey]

Well. The law also says I can't sell oxycodone, but my pharmacist can. Isn't that the same thing? Saying one person can do something legally, while others can't.

There are plenty of laws that stipulate that some people have the legal right to do something while others don't.

+1

The law also means the execution that dogman wants to be isn't tried for murder the net day.

[Weirdocat]

aw, that is sad :(

[Jugghaid]

Well. The law also says I can't sell oxycodone, but my pharmacist can. Isn't that the same thing? Saying one person can do something legally, while others can't.

There are plenty of laws that stipulate that some people have the legal right to do something while others don't.

The difference is, they change the terms for abortion. It's not a child when the mother or doctor ends the life, it's a fetus. But when this guy does it (and make no mistake, he's a murderer in my book) all of a sudden it's a child and not a fetus and therefore murder.

Oxycodone is oxycodone, no matter WHO sells it. ;)

It's hypocricy, plain and simple.

[King Kashue]

But. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

The line of "no killing viable fetuses unless the mother's life is in danger" seems an entirely logical line to me ;)


Honestly, I'm for the legal right of abortion (though not with the current legal basis, since as I said, it's flawed), but I'm also morally opposed to it in every possible way.

Also, as someone born and adopted in 1979, I wouldn't be here if my biological mother hadn't decided to see me to term rather than abort me. Yeah, it has to have been a hard decision for a 15 year old girl to make, but generally the important decisions are the hard ones...

[Jugghaid]

The line of "no killing viable fetuses unless the mother's life is in danger" seems an entirely logical line to me ;)


Honestly, I'm for the legal right of abortion (though not with the current legal basis, since as I said, it's flawed), but I'm also morally opposed to it in every possible way.


I couldn't agree more.

[Les Izzmor]

The difference is, they change the terms for abortion. It's not a child when the mother or doctor ends the life, it's a fetus. But when this guy does it (and make no mistake, he's a murderer in my book) all of a sudden it's a child and not a fetus.

Oxycodone is oxycodone, no matter WHO sells it. ;)

It's hypocricy, plain and simple.

I don't know enough about the law to refute what you say. And. I agree it's a line that's so blurred it's hard to tell what's what sometimes.

[King Kashue]

In that case i misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

What i was driving at is more the popular misconception that a murder is 'worse' if it's a child dying. Sorry you didn't understand me. I deal with people and not the law all the time.

You mentioned the "right to life", which is why I thought about the legal matter.

Though yeah, perception is an odd thing. A good deal of it is likely because children are helpless in a lot of ways, and as such violence directed against them is seen as even more heinous (and in some ways it most certainly is)...

[citizenralph]

I am all over you on this one because you've totally ruled the woman's CHOICE out of the equation and seen both the act of beating a pregnant woman up against her will and her having an abortion as the same thing.

And the fact that you have shown no compassion towards the woman in your initial post angered me enough to think only babies matter to you. We have to stop all this baby worshipping crap. When does a grown adult stop being protected and has less right to life than an infant?
I understand you're getting flared up by initial post and my not showing compassion for the woman. That was intentional. i think you know that now. I have much compassion for a woman so brutally attacked. Also for her emotional well being for the rest of her life. But I see no distinction between the value of her life or that of the infant. And yes it was me that introduced the abortion part of the discussion but how could it not be addressed here? This is a perfect example of a cockeyed law. It's either ok to kill children or it's not. The law is not clear at all. Should it be written more clearly it should also include an age at which time it is no longer legal to kill children. Perhaps that age will be whilst the baby is still in the womb or maybe at some time after birth. In fact it almost seems logical to allow a mother to give birth and maybe live with the infant for a few weeks or months berfore she makes her choice on wether to keep or kill her baby.

[Les Izzmor]

I understand you're getting flared up by initial post and my not showing compassion for the woman. That was intentional. i think you know that now. I have much compassion for a woman so brutally attacked. Also for her emotional well being for the rest of her life. But I see no distinction between the value of her life or that of the infant. And yes it was me that introduced the abortion part of the discussion but how could it not be addressed here? This is a perfect example of a cockeyed law. It's either ok to kill children or it's not. The law is not clear at all. Should it be written more clearly it should also include an age at which time it is no longer legal to kill children. Perhaps that age will be whilst the baby is still in the womb or maybe at some time after birth. In fact it almost seems logical to allow a mother to give birth and maybe live with the infant for a few weeks or months berfore she makes her choice on wether to keep or kill her baby.

I know this will sound harsh. And. I'm just trying to make a point.

I own a brand new Bongo bass. If I decided to hit it with a hammer 1000 times and completely destroy it, I can do that. But. If somebody else did it, and I didn't want them to, then I could have them arrested. And. If I wanted to, I could give my brother permission to it, and he wouldn't be arrested, even though it isn't his bass. Hell. Even if I stated I wanted to destroy it, and somebody else did it, they could still be arrested.

We're all doing exactly the same thing. Destroying the bass. But. Since it is mine, the law gives me the right to decide if it's kept in perfect working order, or destroyed, and who gets to destroy it.

Isn't that what the law says now? The woman has the right to decide if she wants to end the pregnancy or not. I understand the law says it's not a person if the mother wants an abortion, but then charges you with murder if you destroy a pregnancy without the mother's permission. The law is crap. But. It's still the law.

I think making marijuana illegal is stupid. But. If I get caught smoking I'll take the punishment. I won't stand around and bitch that the law is crap. Is the abortion statute the only law that's a mess? No. There are plenty.

So. Accept it for what it is now. And. Do you damndest to get it changed if you don't like it.

Hell. I guess stating your views on a public forum works towards the goal of changing it. But. Instead of throwing out extreme points of view, why not offer logical answers and engage in civil conversation. Maybe you could convince others of your cause and then you're on your way to changing law.

[spezzy]

I don't think this is an abortion issue.

You can't just force someone to go into labor because "he paid me to do it"

Give me a break.

It's cruel.

[citizenralph]

I know this will sound harsh. And. I'm just trying to make a point.

I own a brand new Bongo bass. If I decided to hit it with a hammer 1000 times and completely destroy it, I can do that. But. If somebody else did it, and I didn't want them to, then I could have them arrested. And. If I wanted to, I could give my brother permission to it, and he wouldn't be arrested, even though it isn't his bass. Hell. Even if I stated I wanted to destroy it, and somebody else did it, they could still be arrested.

We're all doing exactly the same thing. Destroying the bass. But. Since it is mine, the law gives me the right to decide if it's kept in perfect working order, or destroyed, and who gets to destroy it.

Isn't that what the law says now? The woman has the right to decide if she wants to end the pregnancy or not. I understand the law says it's not a person if the mother wants an abortion, but then charges you with murder if you destroy a pregnancy without the mother's permission. The law is crap. But. It's still the law.

I think making marijuana illegal is stupid. But. If I get caught smoking I'll take the punishment. I won't stand around and bitch that the law is crap. Is the abortion statute the only law that's a mess? No. There are plenty.

So. Accept it for what it is now. And. Do you damndest to get it changed if you don't like it.

Hell. I guess stating your views on a public forum works towards the goal of changing it. But. Instead of throwing out extreme points of view, why not offer logical answers and engage in civil conversation. Maybe you could convince others of your cause and then you're on your way to changing law.
There is a bit of a difference here. The law will never recognize your Bongo as a human being. No matter how much you love it and sleep with it etc. The law is ambiguous when it come to an unborn child. Sometimes it's a person with rights all its own and sometimes it's an unwanted growth that a woman has removed.

[Jugghaid]

I know this will sound harsh. And. I'm just trying to make a point.

I own a brand new Bongo bass. If I decided to hit it with a hammer 1000 times and completely destroy it, I can do that. But. If somebody else did it, and I didn't want them to, then I could have them arrested. And. If I wanted to, I could give my brother permission to it, and he wouldn't be arrested, even though it isn't his bass. Hell. Even if I stated I wanted to destroy it, and somebody else did it, they could still be arrested.

We're all doing exactly the same thing. Destroying the bass. But. Since it is mine, the law gives me the right to decide if it's kept in perfect working order, or destroyed, and who gets to destroy it.


One big difference. A human life is not personal property. At least not since the emancipation proclomation. ;)

Isn't that what the law says now? The woman has the right to decide if she wants to end the pregnancy or not. I understand the law says it's not a person if the mother wants an abortion, but then charges you with murder if you destroy a pregnancy without the mother's permission. The law is crap. But. It's still the law.

And it needs to be changed. The way it is written and the restrictions on it etc etc etc. You're right, it's a crap law.


I think making marijuana illegal is stupid. But. If I get caught smoking I'll take the punishment. I won't stand around and bitch that the law is crap. Is the abortion statute the only law that's a mess? No. There are plenty.


I agree that pot should be legal. But there's a big difference here. Smoking pot doesn't result in the ending of a life. Abortion does. There are a loot of laws that are crap, but very very few of them result in the loss of human life.


So. Accept it for what it is now. And. Do you damndest to get it changed if you don't like it.

Hell. I guess stating your views on a public forum works towards the goal of changing it. But. Instead of throwing out extreme points of view, why not offer logical answers and engage in civil conversation. Maybe you could convince others of your cause and then you're on your way to changing law.

Very true.

[Les Izzmor]

There is a bit of a difference here. The law will never recognize your Bongo as a human being. No matter how much you love it and sleep with it etc. The law is ambiguous when it come to an unborn child. Sometimes it's a person with rights all its own and sometimes it's an unwanted growth that a woman has removed.

I know. As I said. The law is crap.

But. It's still the law.

And. Instead of spouting off extreme points of view, why not offer up your views in a logical manner? You're in a public forum. And. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[citizenralph]

I know. As I said. The law is crap.

But. It's still the law.

And. Instead of spouting off extreme points of view, why not offer up your views in a logical manner? You're in a public forum. And. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Extreme point of veiw!?!?! Since when is the sanctity of life so extreme? How do you sweeten the murder of an infant? And tell me what i said that was so illogical?

[cdb]

I know. As I said. The law is crap.

But. It's still the law.

And. Instead of spouting off extreme points of view, why not offer up your views in a logical manner? You're in a public forum. And. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Who wants flies??:confused:

[Les Izzmor]

I understand you're getting flared up by initial post and my not showing compassion for the woman. That was intentional.

Extreme point of veiw!?!?! Since when is the sanctity of life so extreme? How do you sweeten the murder of an infant? And tell me what i said that was so illogical?

Whoops. I shouldn't have said point of view. My mistake. Your point of view is perfectly reasonable.

I should have said "extreme examples". Look at your first post here. You want people to get flared up.

[King Kashue]

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Have you ever heard the saying "Only a hillbilly sits around thinking of the best way to catch flies"? - Bill McNeil, WNYX Radio...

[citizenralph]

Whoops. I shouldn't have said point of view. My mistake. Your point of view is perfectly reasonable.

I should have said "extreme examples". Look at your first post here. You want people to get flared up.
I did want people to take notice, yes. Extreme? Really?

[niomosy]

What about the boyfriend's (fathers) choice? Shouldn't he have the right to choose too? ;)

He had the right to chose other options than having (probably) unprotected sex. :P

Does he have a say in the abortion? IMHO, no, he gave that away by choosing to have sex in the first place (protected or now, as even protected sex is not a 100% guarantee).

[niomosy]

There is a bit of a difference here. The law will never recognize your Bongo as a human being. No matter how much you love it and sleep with it etc. The law is ambiguous when it come to an unborn child. Sometimes it's a person with rights all its own and sometimes it's an unwanted growth that a woman has removed.

The law doesn't seem ambiguous. If a woman wants the baby, it gets the rights, etc. If the woman doesn't want the baby, the mother is giving up those rights of the baby. Is that the correct thing to do? Well, that's where the debate is. However, the law seems relatively clear; a mother grants and removes those rights of her unborn child.

[King Kashue]

He had the right to chose other options than having (probably) unprotected sex. :P

Does he have a say in the abortion? IMHO, no, he gave that away by choosing to have sex in the first place (protected or now, as even protected sex is not a 100% guarantee).

So, the guy gives up the right because he choose to have sex. But the woman, making the exact same choice, doesn't?

How does that work? :dunno:

Is her getting pregnant a result solely of his actions? I know I've got little actual practice in sex, but I'm decent on the theory ;) I'm not seeing how it's "his choice" to have unprotected sex, but not also hers...


As a slight tangent, that's always been my position on a moral and philosophical level. A fetus is not a choice to be made, it is the consequence of a choice already made...If you don't want a kid, don't have sex. But once you create a genetically distinct life-form, it's your responsibility (you = both parents)...

[niomosy]

So, the guy gives up the right because he choose to have sex. But the woman, making the exact same choice, doesn't?

How does that work? :dunno:

Is her getting pregnant a result solely of his actions? I know I've got little actual practice in sex, but I'm decent on the theory ;) I'm not seeing how it's "his choice" to have unprotected sex, but not also hers...


As a slight tangent, that's always been my position on a moral and philosophical level. A fetus is not a choice to be made, it is the consequence of a choice already made...If you don't want a kid, don't have sex. But once you create a genetically distinct life-form, it's your responsibility (you = both parents)...

I've always taken the point of view that I get less say in what happens to an unborn fetus than the woman that gets to carry it for 9 months. As the woman is carrying the baby, the woman can pretty much do whatever she wants regardless of what the man wants. They may sit down and discuss what they want to do but, he's basically at her mercy. There's not much he can do if she decides to do the opposite of what he wants. Thus, a man needs to realize all of this before... err.. jumping into things ;)

So, if a guy gets a girl pregnant, he's pretty much at her mercy as far as I'm concerned. The guy should have realized this ahead of time and acted accordingly. Basically, regarding kids, the guy has two rights. Those of a father if the woman decides to keep the baby and those of a man that can chose whether or not to have sex. The decision of what to do with the baby, once she's pregnant, falls on the woman.

I do agree that you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't willing to accept the potential consequences. Perhaps they need warning labels on all contraceptives indicating that side-effects of protection failure may include pregnancy? ;)

[King Kashue]

I've always taken the point of view that I get less say in what happens to an unborn fetus than the woman that gets to carry it for 9 months. As the woman is carrying the baby, the woman can pretty much do whatever she wants regardless of what the man wants.

Legally, yes...


As I said, my statement is moral and philosophical. Both parents made their choice. The fetus is not itself a choice. It is the consequence of their choices.

[Bogster]

Awwww....how horrible! :(:(:(

Human life means absolutely nothing anymore. It's depressing.

[Jugghaid]

Awwww....how horrible! :(:(:(

Human life means absolutely nothing anymore. It's depressing.

yup. $40. Not even a decent bar tab.

Truly pathetic.

[Jugghaid]

The law doesn't seem ambiguous. If a woman wants the baby, it gets the rights, etc. If the woman doesn't want the baby, the mother is giving up those rights of the baby. Is that the correct thing to do? Well, that's where the debate is. However, the law seems relatively clear; a mother grants and removes those rights of her unborn child.

Then why can she be charged with child abuse if she decides to smoke crack or do meth while she is pregnant?

Because the unborn is deemed a "child" and not a "fetus" in that case. Yet if she chooses to abort it, it is a "fetus" and not a "child".

There is no such thing as "Fetus Abuse".

The law is VERY ambiguous.

[ironfist]

Man, there's been a lot of screwed up things happening in the cities lately. Just last week a 17-year-old kid shot a 16-year-old kid on a city bus. The kid died and it's obvious the 17-year-old did it (it's on camera, for pete's sake), but the trash family of the 17-year-old are protesting his incarceration saying he didn't do it (yeah right). Friends of the shooter showed up at the dead kid's visitation and started fights with the friends and family of the deceased.

We need more incidents like this one (happened on Monday) to happen to stupid POS criminals:


Minneapolis officer foils bar robbery; suspect wounded

Minneapolis police department crime scene investigators examine blood drops in the parking lot of Legends Bar & Grill in Minneapolis, where one man was shot after taking aim at an on-duty plain-clothed Minneapolis police officer inside the bar on Monday April 30, 2007. (Richard Marshall, Pioneer Press)

A Minneapolis plainclothes police officer foiled an attempted robbery at a Hennepin Avenue bar and grill in northeast Minneapolis this afternoon by literally shooting a gun out of a robber's hand, authorities said.

Just after 3 p.m., an on-duty officer was having lunch at the Legends Bar and Grill at 825 E. Hennepin Avenue when two men entered and disappeared into the bathroom, authorities said. Also in the restaurant were roughly a dozen customers and employees.

The men stepped out of the bathroom with guns drawn. One of the men was armed with a pistol.

The officer, identified only as an investigative sergeant assigned, drew his service weapon and told the men to drop their weapons.

The men didn't answer, so the officer fired two to three shots and hit at least one of the men, according to Deputy Chief R.D. Allen.

One of the men dropped his pistol, and the two fled out the front door and ran away. Police recovered the weapon, and found that it had apparently been hit by one of the officer's bullets.

The officer checked to see if everyone was all right, then went outside. Police said the officer did not see which way the men ran.

Within the hour, authorities received a 911 call from nearby. The caller reported that there was a man with a gunshot wound in needed of an ambulance.

The man was transported to North Memorial Hospital, where officers took him into custody. His identity was not released Monday evening.

Police are still search for suspects, including the second robber , on Monday.

The customers of the restaurant, which bills itself as providing "big city excitement with a small town atmosphere," were taken to the police station for further questioning.

As per police department policy for any officer related shooting, the officer was placed on administrative leave for several days while the shooting is reviewed. The incident remains under investigation.

What that article doesn't say is that the would-be robber that went to the hospital had been shot in the mouth. The cops found at least one tooth left behind at the scene of the crime. The off duty cop shot the gun out of his hand then blasted him in the face. The local NBC news affiliate totally deadpanned the delivery of "the suspect is hospitalized but currently not in a talking mood" on TV.

[niomosy]

Then why can she be charged with child abuse if she decides to smoke crack or do meth while she is pregnant?

Because the unborn is deemed a "child" and not a "fetus" in that case. Yet if she chooses to abort it, it is a "fetus" and not a "child".

There is no such thing as "Fetus Abuse".

The law is VERY ambiguous.

So, really, abortion is the only time the rights change? Seems more like a rewording of the definition, but I still don't see as much ambiguity as you seem to. :confused:

[Jugghaid]

So, really, abortion is the only time the rights change? Seems more like a rewording of the definition, but I still don't see as much ambiguity as you seem to. :confused:

Look at it this way.

Dad terminated pregnancy with a beating = Murder

Mom terminates pregnancy by smoking meth = child abuse resulting in death.

Mom intentionally terminates pregnancy with abortion = no big deal.


the only time it's okay is if 2 things happen:

1. It's the mom who decides to do it.

2. She does it intentionally.


:crazy:

[niomosy]

Look at it this way.

Dad terminated pregnancy with a beating = Murder

Mom terminates pregnancy by smoking meth = child abuse resulting in death.

Mom intentionally terminates pregnancy with abortion = no big deal.


the only time it's okay is if 2 things happen:

1. It's the mom who decides to do it.

2. She does it intentionally.


:crazy:

I'm not arguing the logic of it. Just that the law is at least semi-clear on it (at least, as far as law is concerned... which, we probably all agree, isn't really saying much).

The one other note on #2, though, would be that she's gotta have it done via the legally approved method to keep it okay. But, yeah, you're right.

[citizenralph]

I'm not arguing the logic of it. Just that the law is at least semi-clear on it (at least, as far as law is concerned... which, we probably all agree, isn't really saying much).

The one other note on #2, though, would be that she's gotta have it done via the legally approved method to keep it okay. But, yeah, you're right.
Well, at least you've worked your way to semi-clear. So maybe we're semi-in agreement?

[niomosy]

Well, at least you've worked your way to semi-clear. So maybe we're semi-in agreement?

:rofl:

Nope. Good try, though :thumbsup:

[Jugghaid]

I'm not arguing the logic of it. Just that the law is at least semi-clear on it (at least, as far as law is concerned... which, we probably all agree, isn't really saying much).

The one other note on #2, though, would be that she's gotta have it done via the legally approved method to keep it okay. But, yeah, you're right.

Actually, I looked and can't find any record of a woman being prosecuted for giving herself a home abortion either, so I don't think that the "legally approved method" part of it really applies.

[niomosy]

Actually, I looked and can't find any record of a woman being prosecuted for giving herself a home abortion either, so I don't think that the "legally approved method" part of it really applies.

Looks like you're right on this one. In fact, I found this little "gem" http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=104124&ran=195201

Judge dismissed charges for a woman trying to cause an abortion by shooting herself.

[citizenralph]

Looks like you're right on this one. In fact, I found this little "gem" http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=104124&ran=195201

Judge dismissed charges for a woman trying to cause an abortion by shooting herself.
And she was in the 9th month! If she waited a day or two and gave birth and then shot her baby it's murder. I just can't see the difference.

[niomosy]

And she was in the 9th month! If she waited a day or two and gave birth and then shot her baby it's murder. I just can't see the difference.

At 9 months, I'm not arguing with you.

[Jugghaid]

At 9 months, I'm not arguing with you.

And that's part of the ambiguity as well. At what point is it a child? Conception? Birth? 3 months? 6 months? When does it stop being a fetus and start being a child? When is that magical moment when all of a sudden it's a person? If we agree on .... say.... 90 days (end of the first trimester) then great. So it's a child on day 91. But it was not 2 days before?

That's where I have a lot of probelms with this law.

And if you ask any expectant mother at 2 months what she's going to name the fetus, you'll probably get punched in the gonads. ;)

I think everyone is very well aware of when life begins. It's only a matter of convenience to deny it.

[citizenralph]

At 9 months, I'm not arguing with you.
Excellent! We agree here. Now, how about 8 1/2 months?

[citizenralph]

And that's part of the ambiguity as well. At what point is it a child? Conception? Birth? 3 months? 6 months? When does it stop being a fetus and start being a child? When is that magical moment when all of a sudden it's a person? If we agree on .... say.... 90 days (end of the first trimester) then great. So it's a child on day 91. But it was not 2 days before?

That's where I have a lot of probelms with this law.

And if you ask any expectant mother at 2 months what she's going to name the fetus, you'll probably get punched in the gonads. ;)

I think everyone is very well aware of when life begins. It's only a matter of convenience to deny it.
Spot on!

[niomosy]

Excellent! We agree here. Now, how about 8 1/2 months?

Call me solid for the 3rd trimester and pretty solid for the 2nd.

[citizenralph]

Call me solid for the 3rd trimester and pretty solid for the 2nd.
Ok, you're solid! :thumbsup:

[niomosy]

Ok, you're solid! :thumbsup:

Well, I was earlier :P


















Wait, you were talking about my earlier comment, weren't you? :smack:

[Low Tone]

I'm not even going to bother reading the other 70 replies in this thread.

I'm just going to say that both of those guys should have their nuts shoved into a blender and then hung by their necks until they choke or bleed to death. Whichever happens first.