NationStates Jolt Archive

Sounds like a dumb Lifetime movie, but this is true. A woman, 9 months pregnant, shoots herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby and the Judge finds her not guilty of any crime. Apparently this type of "abortion" is legal according to the Judge's interpretation of the law. The law in the state of Virginia states that "any" person performing the abortion is performing a legal act. The problem is this wording was meant to protect doctors from prosecution, not a mother shooting herself to kill a 9 month old fetus. Virginia does not perform abortions in such a late term.

In my opinion this is a clear case of murder. The judge however focused on a loophole in the wording of the law.


http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=104124&ran=195201



Abortion charge dismissed against pregnant woman who shot herself
By LINDA MCNATT, The Virginian-Pilot
© May 9, 2006
Last updated: 6:58 PM


Tammy Skinner

Background: Woman charged with shooting self to cause abortion


SUFFOLK — If an assailant had shot Tammy Skinner in the stomach on the day she was to give birth, killing her baby, he could have been prosecuted.

Because she shot herself earlier this year, however, General District Court Judge James A. Moore decided Monday that she can’t be tried for producing a miscarriage or abortion, and he dismissed the felony charge.

Skinner’s attorney argued at a preliminary hearing that the charge is meant to be used against a third party and that the same offense with similar wording has been tested in courts in both Florida and Georgia and failed. It simply does not govern an expectant mother doing something to herself, Kevin E. Martingayle said.

“We can feel all of the moral outrage in the world for what this woman did,” he said in court, “ but the facts in this particular situation are that this statute does not apply.”

Prosecutors could ask a grand jury for a direct indictment in the landmark case, but right now they are still trying to decide what to do, Commonwealth’s Attorney Phil Ferguson said .

“We are dealing with a woman who, by her own hands, killed her child on the day of its birth,” he said. “This was a nine-month fetus, clearly in the realm of viability. Whether it meets legal tests to constitute criminal conduct – we’re reviewing and exploring our options.”

Prosecutors have said since the beginning that Skinner’s case could be a first in the state. Virginia’s fetal homicide law doesn’t direct guilt to the mother either. That law, adopted in 2004, refers to killing “the fetus of another.”

Skinner, 22, also was charged with using a firearm in commission of a felony. That charge was not prosecuted because it must apply to a certain list of felonies, not including the miscarriage statute.

Skinner was found guilty Monday of filing a false police report, a misdemeanor for which the judge sentenced her to 30 days in jail, all suspended. Prosecutor Marie Walls requested that Skinner repay the cost of the police investigation. A hearing July 10 will decide whether she’ll have to pay the estimated $750 to $1,500 .

Skinner, Walls said in court, called police from a car dealership before dawn Feb. 23 and told them a man had shot her in the stomach and pushed her out of the car. She later changed her story to say that the baby’s father shot her.

Police found blood in Skinner’s red compact car, and a gun, according to a search warrant.

On Monday, Martingayle said he was happy with the judge’s decision.

“It was clear to me, and clear to the judge, that you cannot convict when an expectant mother does this,” he said.

Martingayle said his client was emotionally distraught at the end of her pregnancy. Family members said the single mother of two had been battling depression for a while.

“Ask yourself what kind of place somebody would have to be in for this to happen?” Martingayle said. “She’ll be paying the price the rest of her life.”

She should certainly be charged with murder, as well as stupidity.

More fucktards hurting the cause of freedom of choice.

you know what I find funny? How conservatives will latch on calling for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".

It's the job of the judge to interpret the law, not create the law. The legislature, not the judge, created the loophole, and the judge enforced it AS WRITTEN, that is his job.

He did nothing wrong, it was the legislature's fault for allowing the loophole.

you know what I find funny? How conservatives will latch on calling for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".

It's the job of the judge to interpret the law, not create the law. The legislature, not the judge, created the loophole, and the judge enforced it AS WRITTEN, that is his job.

He did nothing wrong, it was the legislature's fault for allowing the loophole.

That's why everyone hates politicians and likes judges. :p

you know what I find funny? How conservatives will latch on calling for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".

It's the job of the judge to interpret the law, not create the law. The legislature, not the judge, created the loophole, and the judge enforced it AS WRITTEN, that is his job.

He did nothing wrong, it was the legislature's fault for allowing the loophole.


the interpretation of the word "any" could have gone either way. regardless, I am sure the law will certainly be changed now, not only in Virginia but in many other states as well.

That's fair enough.

The problem is this wording was meant to protect doctors from prosecution, not a mother shooting herself to kill a 9 month old fetus.

Then it should fall to the LEGISLATURE to correct the wording. It is the job of the judge to enforce as written, and avoid delving into interpretation whenever possible. He did his job.

Ya know what?

I dont' give a damn.

the interpretation of the word "any" could have gone either way. regardless, I am sure the law will certainly be changed now, not only in Virginia but in many other states as well.

I would think the only logical interpretation of "any" would be...ANY, as in "without exception".

The LEGISLATURE put "any" in the law, it's their fault.

Saying that you can interpret "any" in any other way then all inclusive is like saying "that depends on what your definition of is is". Nonsensical. Any means any.

Sounds like a dumb Lifetime movie, but this is true. A woman, 9 months pregnant, shoots herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby and the Judge finds her not guilty of any crime. Apparently this type of "abortion" is legal according to the Judge's interpretation of the law. The law in the state of Virginia states that "any" person performing the abortion is performing a legal act. The problem is this wording was meant to protect doctors from prosecution, not a mother shooting herself to kill a 9 month old fetus. Virginia does not perform abortions in such a late term.

I dunno, sounds like personal responsibility to me. Maybe shes guilty of illegally discharging a firearm(depending on the specifics of legal fire arm use in that jurisdiction), but murder? Hah.

Sorry, I know it hurts, but you lost the fight. Human beings have a right to decided how the resources of their body will be used without the interference of moralists. Their actions and choices might sometimes alarm or disgust you, they might even violate the basic tenets of your beliefs and worldview, but thats the tradeoff for living in a free society.

I know, I know, abortion stops a heart beating, it kills a little baby. Still, you need to think about the consequences of your stances in a broader social setting. Lets say you're dying of end stage renal failure and you need a kidney or you'll die. Lets say I'm a perfect match. Do you think the government should be able to compel me to undergo a risky and expensive medical procedure so that you can have the use of one of my organs against my will?

I'll give you the same advice I'd give the muslims over at Pace whining about finding korans in the toilet: welcome to the west, you might wanna buy a helmet.

I dunno, sounds like personal responsibility to me. Maybe shes guilty of illegally discharging a firearm(depending on the specifics of legal fire arm use in that jurisdiction), but murder? Hah.

Sorry, I know it hurts, but you lost the fight. Human beings have a right to decided how the resources of their body will be used without the interference of moralists. Their actions and choices might sometimes alarm or disgust you, they might even violate the basic tenets of your beliefs and worldview, but thats the tradeoff for living in a free society.

I know, I know, abortion stops a heart beating, it kills a little baby. Still, you need to think about the consequences of your stances in a broader social setting. Lets say you're dying of end stage renal failure and you need a kidney or you'll die. Lets say I'm a perfect match. Do you think the government should be able to compel me to undergo a risky and expensive medical procedure so that you can have the use of one of my organs against my will?

I'll give you the same advice I'd give the muslims over at Pace whining about finding korans in the toilet: welcome to the west, you might wanna buy a helmet.

at what part of my post did I make you think I was anti abortion?

You know, it's actually pretty good she did this. Because she removed that kid from the gene pool. Any person so dumb as to try to abort their fetus with a pistol deserves to have their genetics booted out.

I would think the only logical interpretation of "any" would be...ANY, as in "without exception".

The LEGISLATURE put "any" in the law, it's their fault.

Saying that you can interpret "any" in any other way then all inclusive is like saying "that depends on what your definition of is is". Nonsensical. Any means any.


Judges also try to interpret "Original Intent". I am pretty sure it is clear what the original intent of the law was.

at what part of my post did I make you think I was anti abortion?

huh, that is really odd. I had clicked the quote button for the OP, I'd even edited it down a tad. I'll fix that right away.

In my opinion this is a clear case of murder. The judge however focused on a loophole in the wording of the law.

It is murder IMO but women like this need help not prison sentences.

I dunno, sounds like personal responsibility to me. Maybe shes guilty of illegally discharging a firearm(depending on the specifics of legal fire arm use in that jurisdiction), but murder? Hah.

Sorry, I know it hurts, but you lost the fight. Human beings have a right to decided how the resources of their body will be used without the interference of moralists. Their actions and choices might sometimes alarm or disgust you, they might even violate the basic tenets of your beliefs and worldview, but thats the tradeoff for living in a free society.

I know, I know, abortion stops a heart beating, it kills a little baby. Still, you need to think about the consequences of your stances in a broader social setting. Lets say you're dying of end stage renal failure and you need a kidney or you'll die. Lets say I'm a perfect match. Do you think the government should be able to compel me to undergo a risky and expensive medical procedure so that you can have the use of one of my organs against my will?
I'll give you the same advice I'd give the muslims over at Pace whining about finding korans in the toilet: welcome to the west, you might wanna buy a helmet.

how about we use common sense and look at things on a case by case basis. Are humans capable of doing that? I certainly believe so. Forcing someone to donate a kidney is not the same as putting a bullet in a 9 month old fetus. And if making that distinction makes me a "Moralist" well then I am pretty damn happy to have the common sense to be that moralist.

Judges also try to interpret "Original Intent". I am pretty sure it is clear what the original intent of the law was.

original intent (or legislative intent) is relevant only when:

1) there are multiple possible interpretations of the words used, and/or;
2) the definition of the word has changed since the law was drafted

Neither is the case here. Any means any. That's all it means. Originalist intent is therefore irrelevant. A judge should differ to the legislature, under the presumption that the law is written the way the legislature WANTED IT TO BE WRITTEN.

legislative intent should only, ONLY be utilized when there are multiple possible interpretations, and/or when the law might mean something now that it didn't mean when it was written. That simply is not the case. The judge did his job. if the legislature wanted it written a different way, they could have written it a different way. That is their job.

Yeah, definitely glad that that kid's out of the gene pool.

how about we use common sense and look at things on a case by case basis. Are humans capable of doing that? I certainly believe so. Forcing someone to donate a kidney is not the same as putting a bullet in a 9 month old fetus. And if making that distinction makes me a "Moralist" well then I am pretty damn happy to have the common sense to be that moralist.

That is one of the most frightening things ive heard a person say in a long time that didnt intentionally mean to say something horrifying. The day we decide "things" on a case by case basis is the day modern western society crumbles into a big pile of dust.

I's of had no problem with this if it was < 6 months. After that it';s murder. (Yes that's an arbitrary number, what of it?)

I remember seeing this in the local newspaper (I live a ways from there) and.. wow.

Actually this isn't leagal since Virginia won't do abortions that late in the pregnancy, and the baby was a baby and not a fetus, and she was days from giving birth. Why did she wait that long to get rid of the baby- by shooting it? I'm not against abortion at all, but shooting yourself to kill your own days-from-being-born child is flat-out wrong.

I remember seeing this in the local newspaper (I live a ways from there) and.. wow.

Actually this isn't leagal since Virginia won't do abortions that late in the pregnancy, and the baby was a baby and not a fetus, and she was days from giving birth. Why did she wait that long to get rid of the baby- by shooting it? I'm not against abortion at all, but shooting yourself to kill your own days-from-being-born child is flat-out wrong.

Its flat out psychotic is what it is … AT this point why bother. No sane person would do this

Abortion should be legal until six months after birth.

That is one of the most frightening things ive heard a person say in a long time that didnt intentionally mean to say something horrifying. The day we decide "things" on a case by case basis is the day modern western society crumbles into a big pile of dust.

i don't see how differentiating between something that is obviously wrong from something that is obviously right is frightening. calling a bullet to a 9 month old fetus murder is right. forcing a kidney transplant is not right. it is just common sense. it would be nice if people drew these lines once in a while.

original intent (or legislative intent) is relevant only when:

1) there are multiple possible interpretations of the words used, and/or;
2) the definition of the word has changed since the law was drafted

Neither is the case here. Any means any. That's all it means. Originalist intent is therefore irrelevant. A judge should differ to the legislature, under the presumption that the law is written the way the legislature WANTED IT TO BE WRITTEN.

legislative intent should only, ONLY be utilized when there are multiple possible interpretations, and/or when the law might mean something now that it didn't mean when it was written. That simply is not the case. The judge did his job. if the legislature wanted it written a different way, they could have written it a different way. That is their job.

apparently, due to the fuss over the decision, there are multiple interpretations.

also, an abortion in its 9th month, days before the due date, is in fact illegal in Virginia. The judge seemed to have missed that.

calling a bullet to a 9 month old fetus murder is right.

By definition, murder, in a legal sense is whatever the law says it is. The law said it was not in this case.

apparently, due to the fuss over the decision, there are multiple interpretations.

also, an abortion in its 9th month, days before the due date, is in fact illegal in Virginia. The judge seemed to have missed that.

I suggest you read your own article. The judge stated that the wording of the statute only made it criminal to perform an abortion on ANOTHER, not oneself.

Since the law only criminalized performing abortions on a 2nd party, and not on yourself, the loophole allowed her to do it without penalty.

And since you have failed not only to note that this decision was not without precident, nor have you produced the statute in question, it seems silly to talk about different definitions.

In my opinion this is a clear case of murder.

only because your opinion is confused.

Any reason why we're discussing a 6 month old article?

I suggest you read your own article. The judge stated that the wording of the statute only made it criminal to perform an abortion on ANOTHER, not oneself.

Since the law only criminalized performing abortions on a 2nd party, and not on yourself, the loophole allowed her to do it without penalty.

And since you have failed not only to note that this decision was not without precident, nor have you produced the statute in question, it seems silly to talk about different definitions.


yes i reread the article and it does only specify a 2nd party. the problem here is inability of legislators to classify an unborn baby, even in the 9th month as a person. there is also the issue of inconsistancy when it comes to abortion and fetal protection statutes, one is perfectly legal yet the other is a crime, even though the outcome is the same. what if a woman is hit by a drunk driver whiler she walks to an abortion clinic and the fetus dies? things can get very complicated.

the fetal protection statutes certainly need to be revised.

only because your opinion is confused.


yes, killing a 9 month old fetus, days before the due date is not murder. :rolleyes:

ok now the real whack jobs are starting to hit this thread.

Any reason why we're discussing a 6 month old article?
The study of history is a worthy pursuit. :)

Any reason why we're discussing a 6 month old article?

The real question is...

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/gatelover12/20040203-spamcopy.jpg

yes, killing a 9 month old fetus, days before the due date is not murder. :rolleyes:

ok now the real whack jobs are starting to hit this thread.

according to the virginia code, even under its unconsitutional abortion ban, that would be a crime of lesser severity than burglary. ergo, not murder.

look it up.

Abortion should be legal until six months after birth.I agree. (unless you were sarcastic, that is)

the fetal protection statutes certainly need to be revised.

Perhaps, and whose job is it to revise LEGISLATION?

I'll give you a hint, it's not the judge's.

yes, killing a 9 month old fetus, days before the due date is not murder. :rolleyes:



No, it isn't, according to virginia. Murder, in its legal definition is whatever the law says it is.

Sounds like a dumb Lifetime movie, but this is true. A woman, 9 months pregnant, shoots herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby and the Judge finds her not guilty of any crime. Apparently this type of "abortion" is legal according to the Judge's interpretation of the law. The law in the state of Virginia states that "any" person performing the abortion is performing a legal act. The problem is this wording was meant to protect doctors from prosecution, not a mother shooting herself to kill a 9 month old fetus. Virginia does not perform abortions in such a late term.

In my opinion this is a clear case of murder. The judge however focused on a loophole in the wording of the law.


http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=104124&ran=195201

It'd be one thing if the baby was still too young to live on its own--that is, if it hadn't passed the stage where it's still technically a parasite. But nine months? That baby is just about born, man. That was a clear cut case of murder, not to mention they could have at least nailed the bitch on a suicide charge.

Fair enough. It was a rather stupid way of doing so. Why couldn't she use a coat hanger or go to another state like everyone elce?

I agree. (unless you were sarcastic, that is)

No, I wasn't. Babies are stupid. They are unable to operate with judgement, and therefore are not sapient (by definition). I do not consider beings that are not sapient worthy of the title of personhood, and therefore, I do not consider recently born babies people. I can advocate the abortion of recently born babies and not consider it murder because of this. It's not murder when I kill an animal, because it is not a person. Why should a non-person human be any different?

EDIT: Yes, before any of you jump in to criticise this, I do consider this definition of personhood universal. A severely mentally handicapped person, if unable to operate judgement, ceases to be a person.

It'd be one thing if the baby was still too young to live on its own--that is, if it hadn't passed the stage where it's still technically a parasite. But nine months? That baby is just about born, man. That was a clear cut case of murder, not to mention they could have at least nailed the bitch on a suicide charge.

Does America still charge people for attempted sucide?

No, I wasn't. Babies are stupid. They are unable to operate with judgement, and therefore are not sapient (by definition). I do not consider beings that are not sapient worthy of the title of personhood, and therefore, I do not consider recently born babies people. I can advocate the abortion of recently born babies and not consider it murder because of this. It's not murder when I kill an animal, because it is not a person. Why should a non-person human be any different?

EDIT: Yes, before any of you jump in to criticise this, I do consider this definition of personhood universal. A severely mentally handicapped person, if unable to operate judgement, ceases to be a person.

...that is absolutely ridiculous and you know it. Babies slowly gain the self-awareness they need as they live. Mentally handicapped people can and probably will be cured in the future. Regardless of whether their mental abilities are up to snuff or not, they are still human beings, thusly still people, thusly it is STILL MURDER.

LibFreq: I dunno, actually.

...that is absolutely ridiculous and you know it. Babies slowly gain the self-awareness they need as they live. Mentally handicapped people can and probably will be cured in the future. Regardless of whether their mental abilities are up to snuff or not, they are still human beings, thusly still people, thusly it is STILL MURDER.

LibFreq: I dunno, actually.

Bullshit. They're humans, granted, but they're not people unless they're sapient. I don't deal in possibilities, I deal with now. And now, a young, unwanted child is not a person, and therefore aborting it is not murder.

Bullshit. They're humans, granted, but they're not people unless they're sapient. I don't deal in possibilities, I deal with now. And now, a young, unwanted child is not a person, and therefore aborting it is not murder.
And I say in response that one should only abort if the life still cannot live on its own. (Unless there is serious, life threatening risk to the mother.) Furthermore, a person is a person is a person. They are sapient whether they have their full mental capabilities or not. The fact is, they either had them or will have them, and killing them before they have them or before they can be restored IS murder.

This judge.....ummmm judge...interpretedd the law like realy strict...must have been afraid of being overturned on appeal..

So fix it and change the law .

I find her guilty of MURDER....common sense says she is a murderer...but the law had a loophole....

Hey OJ is still free .

And I say in response that one should only abort if the life still cannot live on its own. (Unless there is serious, life threatening risk to the mother.) Furthermore, a person is a person is a person. They are sapient whether they have their full mental capabilities or not. The fact is, they either had them or will have them, and killing them before they have them or before they can be restored IS murder.

Utter tosh. You're speaking on a subject you clearly have no expertise in. Sapience is the ability to utilise judgement; a newly born baby does not show judgement -- nor do the severely mentally handicapped. A human, as I see it, must be able to exercise judgement before being granted the title of personhood. A human who cannot judge is not a person, and is therefore not particularly important.

No, I wasn't. Babies are stupid. They are unable to operate with judgement, and therefore are not sapient (by definition). I do not consider beings that are not sapient worthy of the title of personhood, and therefore, I do not consider recently born babies people. I can advocate the abortion of recently born babies and not consider it murder because of this. It's not murder when I kill an animal, because it is not a person. Why should a non-person human be any different?

EDIT: Yes, before any of you jump in to criticise this, I do consider this definition of personhood universal. A severely mentally handicapped person, if unable to operate judgement, ceases to be a person.Fully agree; quite unusual to find someone else with the same view on this matter as myself, hence why I asked if you were being sarcastic. Sapient personalities and indentities are what makes and differentiates individuals. Before a baby has developed such, it is simply a biological machine. It is also the "part" of a person that I value the person as a person for; destroying that is what I would concider murder. If there is no such thing to destroy, then there is nothing to murder. This is the way I would view and value artificially intelligent life as well.

Fully agree; quite unusual to find someone else with the same view on this matter as myself, hence why I asked if you were being sarcastic. Sapient personalities and indentities are what makes and differentiates individuals. Before a baby has developed such, it is simply a biological machine. It is also the "part" of a person that I value the person as a person for; destroying that is what I would concider murder. If there is no such thing to destroy, then there is nothing to murder. This is the way I would view and value artificially intelligent life as well.

Exactly. What makes us special is our mind, and with it, our personality. Without the mind we are nothing. Conversely, if we are only mind (as an AI would be), we are still more important than a meat machine.

Utter tosh. You're speaking on a subject you clearly have no expertise in. Sapience is the ability to utilise judgement; a newly born baby does not show judgement -- nor do the severely mentally handicapped. A human, as I see it, must be able to exercise judgement before being granted the title of personhood. A human who cannot judge is not a person, and is therefore not particularly important.
And who's place is it to determine what a person needs to do to be able to earn the title of personhood? You? I think not. I find your attitude disgusting and disgraceful, not to mention completely lacking in compassion for your fellow humans.

*accusation of Kyronea being a fundie in three, two, one...*

And who's place is it to determine what a person needs to do to be able to earn the title of personhood? You? I think not. I find your attitude disgusting and disgraceful, not to mention completely lacking in compassion for your fellow humans.

*accusation of Kyronea being a fundie in three, two, one...*

Obviously I'd say me, or at least someone who agrees with me. Such is the nature of an opinion. My definition of personhood is entirely subjective, but I naturally believe it to be the correct and rational one. I have plenty of compassion for people, but I feel no need or desire to show more compassion towards humans than I do to any other species of animal. I don't buy that having a certain DNA structure grants you more rights than a rock or a plant. Sapience, on the other hand, does. A mind is infinitely more important than a body.

EDIT: Your religion doesn't interest me.

This judge.....ummmm judge...interpretedd the law like realy strict...must have been afraid of being overturned on appeal..

So fix it and change the law .

I find her guilty of MURDER....common sense says she is a murderer...but the law had a loophole....

Hey OJ is still free .

You put so much emphasis on the word MURDER yet use it incorrectly. The definition of murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life … for right or wrong apparently this was legal

Common sense is not the litmus for murder, legality is one of them though.

Obviously I'd say me, or at least someone who agrees with me. Such is the nature of an opinion. My definition of personhood is entirely subjective, but I naturally believe it to be the correct and rational one. I have plenty of compassion for people, but I feel no need or desire to show more compassion towards humans than I do to any other species of animal. I don't buy that having a certain DNA structure grants you more rights than a rock or a plant. Sapience, on the other hand, does. A mind is infinitely more important than a body.

EDIT: Your religion doesn't interest me.
I can agree with you to a certain extent, to be honest. What I don't agree with is your casual disregard for babies and the mentally ill. At the very least, you could see that killing babies is wrong, because they are guarenteed to become what you would consider a person, and thus you're cutting off that chance, and thus, committing murder.

And I'm an atheist, actually.

As far as I'm concerned, until a baby is born it's part of the woman's body. If someone cut off their finger they wouldn't be charged with anything. Same here.

I can agree with you to a certain extent, to be honest. What I don't agree with is your casual disregard for babies and the mentally ill. At the very least, you could see that killing babies is wrong, because they are guarenteed to become what you would consider a person, and thus you're cutting off that chance, and thus, committing murder.

And I'm an atheist, actually.

What we fundamentally disagree on is the potential for personhood. You believe that this is sufficient reason to give meaning to a being - the potential that the being could develop full personhood. I, on the other hand, am more of a pragmatist, and therefore don't consider this sufficient. I believe that there's also equal potential that the child could suddenly turn into a balloon and burst. What I mean by this whimsical metaphor is: the future is uncertain; we only know the present or the past, and we should therefore only work from data gathered in those times. To do otherwise tempts fate.

And who's place is it to determine what a person needs to do to be able to earn the title of personhood? You? I think not. I find your attitude disgusting and disgraceful, not to mention completely lacking in compassion for your fellow humans.Few actually take the time to think of a consistent definition. I and Mindset have; a sapient mind and its personality. There is nothing preventing anyone, including you, from forming his/her own view. Your view is subjective anyway, and has been made up by someone (how absolutely "disgusting and disgraceful", isn't it?) in the end. You might just as well use your own mind and make yourself a sensible definition that you are happy with instead of just swallowing the garbage - collectively created by a vague agreement on what to pull from the asses - of your society and culture.

You put so much emphasis on the word MURDER yet use it incorrectly. The definition of murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life … for right or wrong apparently this was legal

Common sense is not the litmus for murder, legality is one of them though.



Dude ....notice I ...meaning " me " Said that I ....meaning myself ...found her guilty...and also notice that I accepted the findings of the judge ....


So whats your point ?

I said change the law ?

I dont get you ....either you didn't read what I posted or your making a point that escapes me ...

I find her guilty of MURDER....common sense says she is a murderer.

Which is why he's a judge and you are not.

Dude ....notice I ...meaning " me " Said that I ....meaning myself ...found her guilty...and also notice that I accepted the findings of the judge ....


So whats your point ?

I said change the law ?

I dont get you ....either you didn't read what I posted or your making a point that escapes me ...

Apparently I am, the simple fact is it does not matter what you personally believe it is still not murder. Unlike a judge you do not have the actual ability to define the legality of an action so in the end can not in reality declare something “murder”

Anyways the point was moot, it is just a particular incorrect usage that happens to bug me as pro-life people use it all the time.

If I said what I'm thinking, I would be banned from the forums. Something I deffinately do not want to happen...

Few actually take the time to think of a consistent definition. I and Mindset have; a sapient mind and its personality. There is nothing preventing anyone, including you, from forming his/her own view. Your view is subjective anyway, and has been made up by someone (how absolutely "disgusting and disgraceful", isn't it?) in the end. You might just as well use your own mind and make yourself a sensible definition that you are happy with instead of just swallowing the garbage - collectively created by a vague agreement on what to pull from the asses - of your society and culture.

I have made a sensible definition that I am happy with: that human life is human life, regardless of mental capability. As far as I'm concerned, babies and the mentally ill are as much people as anyone else. That is not swallowing the garbage, as you put it. It's what makes sense to me.

If I said what I'm thinking, I would be banned from the forums. Something I deffinately do not want to happen...

Telegram it to me. I am curious as to what you have to say.

Upward: I think he's merely trying to say that in his own personal view it's murder, as it is in mine. That baby could have easily lived on its own, thus it was a person and thus--in my mind--it is murder. Whether the law agrees with me or not is beside the point.

If I said what I'm thinking, I would be banned from the forums. Something I deffinately do not want to happen...

Perhaps you could...soften it a bit?

Telegram it to me. I am curious as to what you have to say.

Upward: I think he's merely trying to say that in his own personal view it's murder, as it is in mine. That baby could have easily lived on its own, thus it was a person and thus--in my mind--it is murder. Whether the law agrees with me or not is beside the point.

No it is not beside the point as it voids the very definition but whatever I will get off my personal pet peeves

Apparently I am, the simple fact is it does not matter what you personally believe it is still not murder. Unlike a judge you do not have the actual ability to define the legality of an action so in the end can not in reality declare something “murder”

Anyways the point was moot, it is just a particular incorrect usage that happens to bug me as pro-life people use it all the time.



Kool...... I am pro choice with a strong conviction , I have acted as an armed escort to get people into clinics and had piss thrown on me and blood and shit and have had people call me every fucking vile name in the book ...but like I said...MURDER.

She could have aborted the baby before the third trimester with EASE,,

She could have gone to a state that would give her an abortion based on her mental instability...


SHE chose instead to commit murder .

She took a gun and aimed it at her stomache and shot a full term ready for diapers kiddo....


TO ME....in my mind thats MURDER .

what is so hard to understand about that ?

Kool...... I am pro choice with a strong conviction ...but like I said...MURDER.

She could have aborted the baby before the third trimester with EASE,,

She could have gone to a state that would give her an abortion based on her mental instability...


SHE chose instead to commit murder .

She took a gun and aimed it at her stomache and shot a full term ready for diapers kiddo....


TO ME....in my mind thats MURDER .

what is so hard to understand about that ?

It's not hard to understand, but you're using the incorrect terminology and emotionally charged rhetoric. Murder is a purely legal term, and since this was legally declared to NOT be murder, no amount of claiming to the contrary will make it so.

Kool...... I am pro choice with a strong conviction ...but like I said...MURDER.

She could have aborted the baby before the third trimester with EASE,,

She could have gone to a state that would give her an abortion based on her mental instability...


SHE chose instead to commit murder .

She took a gun and aimed it at her stomache and shot a full term ready for diapers kiddo....


TO ME....in my mind thats MURDER .

what is so hard to understand about that ?

Considering there are those who would consider killing an infant not to be murder you are lucky that people just think killing a 9 month along unborn child is somehow not murder. To me, if the baby can survive outside the womb on its own, it IS a life. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

It's not hard to understand, but you're using the incorrect terminology and emotionally charged rhetoric. Murder is a purely legal term, and since this was legally declared to NOT be murder, no amount of claiming to the contrary will make it so.

Murder is not a purely legal term. Murder existed long before law. It is the inhuman slaughter of another person. Calling the shooting of a 9 month fetal infant murder, is not emotionally charged rhetoric but truth and fact.

There are mothers out there 9 months preganant who get murdered and their babies cut out of their wombs. These babies can easily survive on their own. killing the child whether in the womb or out of the womb is infanticide. Maybe not according to how the law was written in this case but that just means the law was poorly written and wrong. A murder was still commited.

Perhaps, and whose job is it to revise LEGISLATION?

I'll give you a hint, it's not the judge's.

yeah, i know, that's what i was getting at.


No, it isn't, according to virginia. Murder, in its legal definition is whatever the law says it is.

Read my above post. Murder is murder, even if the law is blind to it or is poorly written.

No, I wasn't. Babies are stupid. They are unable to operate with judgement, and therefore are not sapient (by definition). I do not consider beings that are not sapient worthy of the title of personhood, and therefore, I do not consider recently born babies people. I can advocate the abortion of recently born babies and not consider it murder because of this. It's not murder when I kill an animal, because it is not a person. Why should a non-person human be any different?

EDIT: Yes, before any of you jump in to criticise this, I do consider this definition of personhood universal. A severely mentally handicapped person, if unable to operate judgement, ceases to be a person.

this is one of the most disturbing mind numbing opinions i have ever read. you obviously do not believe in the soul and you obviously hald no value in the growth of human potential. I value the sanctity and RIGHT of life, especially human life.

If you have an infant then i guess i could stomp on his or her head, killing your baby instantly and you would not get anymore upset with me than if i had killed your dog? or parrot?

not every day i run across someone who actually supports infanticide.

Obviously I'd say me, or at least someone who agrees with me. Such is the nature of an opinion. My definition of personhood is entirely subjective, but I naturally believe it to be the correct and rational one. I have plenty of compassion for people, but I feel no need or desire to show more compassion towards humans than I do to any other species of animal. I don't buy that having a certain DNA structure grants you more rights than a rock or a plant. Sapience, on the other hand, does. A mind is infinitely more important than a body.


apparently not if you approve the destruction of a growing and maturing mind.

I partially agree with the arguement that, not being sapient, infants haven't arrived at personhood. I think killers of the non- or pre-sapient should be charged with a lesser crime. And my body is mine. Regardless of how long the parasite has been there.

this is one of the most disturbing mind numbing opinions i have ever read. you obviously do not believe in the soul and you obviously hald no value in the growth of human potential. I value the sanctity and RIGHT of life, especially human life.

If you have an infant then i guess i could stomp on his or her head, killing your baby instantly and you would not get anymore upset with me than if i had killed your dog? or parrot?

not every day i run across someone who actually supports infanticide.

Lovely straw man you have there. No, I do not believe in the soul. I am an atheist and I reject all the supernatural as rubbish. I've already stated on many occasions that potential is not a good measurement of worth. Life is not sacrosanct.

No, I don't advocate stomping on an infant's head for the sake of stomping on its head. That's your logical fallacy right there: my argument is not that killing babies for killing babies sake is right, it's that aborting unwanted babies who have not yet achieved sapience is not wrong. Big difference. If I wanted the child, obviously I'd be upset. If not, I'd be upset that you aborted it in such a brutal manner.

apparently not if you approve the destruction of a growing and maturing mind.

You've ignored all my posts and instead allowed your rationality to be clouded by emotion. I've already stated that potential is not a valid measure of worth. If it's not sapient, it's not a person, and therefore if it's unwanted it's not wrong to abort it.

You know, I've found that being atheistic or religious has no bearing on one's view on life. Me, I see life as precious precisely BECAUSE I'm an atheist, and know that when it's gone, it's gone, permenantly. As such, I consider life sac--well, no, not sacred, since that's a religious term. Um...I consider it extremely important, something that should not be disposed of casually. How's that?

how about we use common sense and look at things on a case by case basis. Are humans capable of doing that? I certainly believe so. Forcing someone to donate a kidney is not the same as putting a bullet in a 9 month old fetus. And if making that distinction makes me a "Moralist" well then I am pretty damn happy to have the common sense to be that moralist.

You cannot look at these things on a case by case basis, not if you're in the US. Like it or not we live under a constitutional system, that means one-size-fits-all law. "Equal protection under the law" isn't just a catchy phrase, it means that we apply the law equally. The problem with case by case consideration is that you almost invariably end up with injustice. Beyond that, there are simply too many cases. We have to pick out battles, and our society has decided to draw the line at birth. Its a rough heuristic, but its the one we live under.

Now, I'm all for agitating to change laws we find unjust. As of right now abortion is considered a constitutional right. If you have a problem with that, I'm all for you trying to change the constitution. Just do us a favor and don't bend our entire system of laws over a barrel by trying to find some shady back door to save the babies because the right way is just too hard.

Murder is not a purely legal term. Murder existed long before law. It is the inhuman slaughter of another person. Calling the shooting of a 9 month fetal infant murder, is not emotionally charged rhetoric but truth and fact.

There are mothers out there 9 months preganant who get murdered and their babies cut out of their wombs. These babies can easily survive on their own. killing the child whether in the womb or out of the womb is infanticide. Maybe not according to how the law was written in this case but that just means the law was poorly written and wrong. A murder was still commited.

Ah, but now you are talking about morality, not legality. There is a very real difference between whether something is wrong and whether it is illegal.

Lovely straw man you have there. No, I do not believe in the soul. I am an atheist and I reject all the supernatural as rubbish. I've already stated on many occasions that potential is not a good measurement of worth. Life is not sacrosanct.

No, I don't advocate stomping on an infant's head for the sake of stomping on its head. That's your logical fallacy right there: my argument is not that killing babies for killing babies sake is right, it's that aborting unwanted babies who have not yet achieved sapience is not wrong. Big difference. If I wanted the child, obviously I'd be upset. If not, I'd be upset that you aborted it in such a brutal manner.



You've ignored all my posts and instead allowed your rationality to be clouded by emotion. I've already stated that potential is not a valid measure of worth. If it's not sapient, it's not a person, and therefore if it's unwanted it's not wrong to abort it.

ahh the Straw Man accusation, the most overused phrase on this board. You call yourself a pragmatist, you are nothing of the kind. You simply believe convenience trumps conscience. You deny the humanity of the child so that he or she can be killed and you refuse to recognize their potential for the same reasons. Your thinking is primitive and narrow. Just like you, the Romans denied the humanity of slaves. The humanity of Indians was denied. The humanity of blacks was denied. The humanity of Jews was denied and yes, the humanity of the unborn is denied. You are now extending that denial of humanity to a young child you see as not sapient.

You do not believe that potential is a good measurement of worth and you also said that you are focused on the "now" and the past because it is what you know. For this reason, you obviously lack vision and foresight. You are incapable of having faith and dreams. Your minded is limited or perhaps you confine yourself intentionally to the here and now because it is more comfortable and convenient for you. You fail to, or are incapable of, seeing the man or woman that 3 month old child can and/or will become. By killing this child you are committing a pre-meditated and pre-emptive murder of what you define as a "true" human being. It would be the same as going to the future and murdering the child as a matured and sapient man or woman. A true pragmatist would recognize this consequence, you do not.

And who are you to say the child is unwanted? Again a pragmatist would have seen the consequences of the infanticide you promote. An unwanted child is a child that no person wants. Perhaps you or the parent may not want the child, but there are many barren women/couples who would love and cherish the child as their own. This makes the child wanted and the infanticide an abomination.

Why do you limit the definition of humanity to being sapient? Are you a doctor, a scientist, a psychologist, an expert on the human mind and psyche? How did you come to your "abortion is ok until 6 months after birth" conclusion? Where did the 6 months come from? Once again you have severely limited your view for the sake of convenience. You ignore that science tells us that what makes us human is a combination of factors that are quite complex and go beyond sapience. You ignore that a human is, according to science, a human because of their DNA and Genetic makeup, not whether they are sapient or not. Humans are also human because of distinct features they share which other creatures do not such as Self Concept, Insight into anothers mind, Morality, Social Structures, Awareness of Mortality and yes, religous sensibilities. A child develops these characteristics long after he or she becomes sapient and you, as a human adult, possess one of these traits; Morality. Human morality may be genetically determined, it may be a divine gift but no matter where it came from it gives us the ability to tell right from wrong. By denying a childs humanity for the sake of convenience, as many have done in other instances before you, you ignore your conscience and therefore fail to use your Morality; one of the most important distinguishing human characteristics.

You also fail to recognize the fundamental right of life. It is not for you to take away because of cold, callous and shallow thinking. A child is learning and developing every day. A human child, biologically and scientifically human, is not just a body but an ever evolving and maturing being who learns. His or her brain is quickly being wired by the life experiences he or she faces. This learning is what allows the child to become sapient and it is this learning that allows the child to become the superior being that a human is when compared to any other life form on earth. Yet you would cut this learning short, rob this child of their potential and in effect murder in cold blood the man or women that is supposed to be.

Then there is emotion and the intimate connection a child possesses even before birth. It is documented fact that a child can die if he/she is not loved and held and given attention. a 1 month old, a 2 months old, certainly not sapient from your view can feel pain, sorrow, loneliness and emotional warmth and comfort. An infant baby looks you in the eyes and can identify very quickly his/her mother or father and distinguish a familiar face from a stranger. A child can feel love as soon he is born. Love is a very complex emotion but a child is capable of feeling it. This child is most certainly human. Love is emotion, and accuse me of having my rationality clouded by emotion? Emotion is an essential part of humanity. Perhaps you should get in touch with your emotions a little more because they work quite well with rationality. It is what makes us human!

and without Sentience we would never achieve sapience.

You know, I've found that being atheistic or religious has no bearing on one's view on life. Me, I see life as precious precisely BECAUSE I'm an atheist, and know that when it's gone, it's gone, permenantly. As such, I consider life sac--well, no, not sacred, since that's a religious term. Um...I consider it extremely important, something that should not be disposed of casually. How's that?

Precious. You consider life precious and invaluable.

More people should shoot themselves in the belly. My only complaint is that she survived to become a cause celebre.

Why not allow abortion, gay marriages, and post-birth abortion?

It would increase immediate "sapient" rights.

Better yet, I'd like the U.S. a lot more two or three generations down the road because we would hardly have a liberal in sight.

Why not allow abortion, gay marriages

Why not indeed.

She could have pursued a more sane form of abortion - EARLIER. Leaving it until 9 months is rather late.

I am surprised they didn't order a psych eval. Somebody who points a firearm at themselves obviously isn't "firing all cylinders."

A pity.

People might be a tad surprised how many women actually think about harming their child after they're born.

If you are willing to risk your life to end another life that you find inconvenient, humanity would be better off without you. Yes, the "fetus" was technicly alive. It most likely had the same chance of survival outside the womb at that moment as a kid being born, unless, of course, you believe it had some weird abnormality that would have rendered this impossible.

It's cases like these that hurt abortian rights. Morality is a complex issue and law should not be used when defining it. If it were, then slavery in the US during the 1600s-mid 1800s would not be immoral because it was legal. There are people who believe that an egg cell is a human being. There are others who see only themselves as human beings and, thus, are likely to not have a problem with mass killing. I'm not going to let an internet forum tell me what to think, as one of you could be a seven year old and everyone else would not even know it. I prefer "man-to-man". Allows for easier punching of faces.

apparently not if you approve the destruction of a growing and maturing mind.

ahh the Straw Man accusation, the most overused phrase on this board. You call yourself a pragmatist, you are nothing of the kind. You simply believe convenience trumps conscience. You deny the humanity of the child so that he or she can be killed and you refuse to recognize their potential for the same reasons. Your thinking is primitive and narrow. Just like you, the Romans denied the humanity of slaves. The humanity of Indians was denied. The humanity of blacks was denied. The humanity of Jews was denied and yes, the humanity of the unborn is denied. You are now extending that denial of humanity to a young child you see as not sapient.

You do not believe that potential is a good measurement of worth and you also said that you are focused on the "now" and the past because it is what you know. For this reason, you obviously lack vision and foresight. You are incapable of having faith and dreams. Your minded is limited or perhaps you confine yourself intentionally to the here and now because it is more comfortable and convenient for you. You fail to, or are incapable of, seeing the man or woman that 3 month old child can and/or will become. By killing this child you are committing a pre-meditated and pre-emptive murder of what you define as a "true" human being. It would be the same as going to the future and murdering the child as a matured and sapient man or woman. A true pragmatist would recognize this consequence, you do not.

And who are you to say the child is unwanted? Again a pragmatist would have seen the consequences of the infanticide you promote. An unwanted child is a child that no person wants. Perhaps you or the parent may not want the child, but there are many barren women/couples who would love and cherish the child as their own. This makes the child wanted and the infanticide an abomination.

Why do you limit the definition of humanity to being sapient? Are you a doctor, a scientist, a psychologist, an expert on the human mind and psyche? How did you come to your "abortion is ok until 6 months after birth" conclusion? Where did the 6 months come from? Once again you have severely limited your view for the sake of convenience. You ignore that science tells us that what makes us human is a combination of factors that are quite complex and go beyond sapience. You ignore that a human is, according to science, a human because of their DNA and Genetic makeup, not whether they are sapient or not. Humans are also human because of distinct features they share which other creatures do not such as Self Concept, Insight into anothers mind, Morality, Social Structures, Awareness of Mortality and yes, religous sensibilities. A child develops these characteristics long after he or she becomes sapient and you, as a human adult, possess one of these traits; Morality. Human morality may be genetically determined, it may be a divine gift but no matter where it came from it gives us the ability to tell right from wrong. By denying a childs humanity for the sake of convenience, as many have done in other instances before you, you ignore your conscience and therefore fail to use your Morality; one of the most important distinguishing human characteristics.

You also fail to recognize the fundamental right of life. It is not for you to take away because of cold, callous and shallow thinking. A child is learning and developing every day. A human child, biologically and scientifically human, is not just a body but an ever evolving and maturing being who learns. His or her brain is quickly being wired by the life experiences he or she faces. This learning is what allows the child to become sapient and it is this learning that allows the child to become the superior being that a human is when compared to any other life form on earth. Yet you would cut this learning short, rob this child of their potential and in effect murder in cold blood the man or women that is supposed to be.

Then there is emotion and the intimate connection a child possesses even before birth. It is documented fact that a child can die if he/she is not loved and held and given attention. a 1 month old, a 2 months old, certainly not sapient from your view can feel pain, sorrow, loneliness and emotional warmth and comfort. An infant baby looks you in the eyes and can identify very quickly his/her mother or father and distinguish a familiar face from a stranger. A child can feel love as soon he is born. Love is a very complex emotion but a child is capable of feeling it. This child is most certainly human. Love is emotion, and accuse me of having my rationality clouded by emotion? Emotion is an essential part of humanity. Perhaps you should get in touch with your emotions a little more because they work quite well with rationality. It is what makes us human!

and without Sentience we would never achieve sapience.

Your argument is so filled with logical fallacy and gaping holes that it's going to take me a while to put together a post to list them all. Bear with me.

I'm glad she has done that. It was perfectly right to do so, as she just treated the problem herself so others won't have it. Humanity body count exceeds 6 billion, closing to the pop cap. Unfortunately, the head count is not as high.

The only mistake was in her aim: she ought shoot herself in the heart, killing two genetic failures in one shot.


Why not allow abortion, gay marriages, and post-birth abortion?
We already have abortion, gays and post-birth abortion (capital punishment).

Replying to OP:

Wow... Shows how stupid peopel and judges alke can be.

As far as I'm concerned, until a baby is born it's part of the woman's body. If someone cut off their finger they wouldn't be charged with anything. Same here.I agree. Even if it wasn't part of her body, it would be self-defense, which I assume is legal in Virginia.

I don't think she should have been charged with any crime at all. This lies entirely within the realm of 'things we do to our own bodies'. The government or society has no jurisdiction on what we do with our own bodies.

You may argue that the fetus is a separate body, which is fine. However it is still inside the woman's body, and therefore the above still apllies.

<insert witty comment about having no right not to be offended>

Attempted suicide.

I dunno, sounds like personal responsibility to me. Maybe shes guilty of illegally discharging a firearm(depending on the specifics of legal fire arm use in that jurisdiction), but murder? Hah.

Sorry, I know it hurts, but you lost the fight. Human beings have a right to decided how the resources of their body will be used without the interference of moralists. Their actions and choices might sometimes alarm or disgust you, they might even violate the basic tenets of your beliefs and worldview, but thats the tradeoff for living in a free society.

I know, I know, abortion stops a heart beating, it kills a little baby. Still, you need to think about the consequences of your stances in a broader social setting. Lets say you're dying of end stage renal failure and you need a kidney or you'll die. Lets say I'm a perfect match. Do you think the government should be able to compel me to undergo a risky and expensive medical procedure so that you can have the use of one of my organs against my will?

I'll give you the same advice I'd give the muslims over at Pace whining about finding korans in the toilet: welcome to the west, you might wanna buy a helmet.

I'm sorry, this is a good argument for regular abortion but at the point when a viable birth can occur, that argument pretty much goes to pot. She didn't have to continue giving her resources to the fetus. She had other options that didn't require her to shoot herself and it. I think women should have the option of removing their resources from a fetus at any point, however, had she done that there would be a living child today.

I agree. Even if it wasn't part of her body, it would be self-defense, which I assume is legal in Virginia.

In self-defense, you are not permitted to take a life when you could easily prevent the problem in a way that wouldn't require... discharging a firearm for example. This woman had options for removing this child from her body that were less traumatic to her, the fetus and would have left both of them in perfect health.

you know what I find funny? How conservatives will latch on calling for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".

It's the job of the judge to interpret the law, not create the law. The legislature, not the judge, created the loophole, and the judge enforced it AS WRITTEN, that is his job.

He did nothing wrong, it was the legislature's fault for allowing the loophole.

So far you are the only one I hear howling and whining. Your main complaint seems to be that nobody has called "for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".. and you have such a burning desire to disagree with "conservatives" that you had to make imaginary ones up. Congrats you won your debate against your phantom enemies.

Why not allow abortion, gay marriages, and post-birth abortion?

It would increase immediate "sapient" rights.

Better yet, I'd like the U.S. a lot more two or three generations down the road because we would hardly have a liberal in sight.

You're hilarious. I find it sad that this looks like an argument to a conservative. Life is so precious to you that... Well, I'm sorry, I should qualify that. You appear to feel that life is precious provided that life and its parents don't have a belief you find offensive.

By the way, you do realize that liberals are often the children of conservatives and vice versa? In fact, sometimes people actually start out conservative and then when they learn how important it is to treat people with respect and to not deny them their rights, become liberal.

(See we can all hyperbolize the beliefs of the 'other' side.)

Then it should fall to the LEGISLATURE to correct the wording. It is the job of the judge to enforce as written, and avoid delving into interpretation whenever possible. He did his job.

Errr, it is exactly the judges job to interpret the law. And he did.

So far you are the only one I hear howling and whining. Your main complaint seems to be that nobody has called "for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".. and you have such a burning desire to disagree with "conservatives" that you had to make imaginary ones up. Congrats you won your debate against your phantom enemies.

In all fairness, the OP does complain about the judge not the law. He wanted the judge to interpret it differently. That is a request for a judge to be more of an activist and it is a pretty good argument that conservatives aren't against activist judges so much as they're against judges who rule in a way that they consider to liberal.

By the way, you do realize that liberals are often the children of conservatives and vice versa?


Possibly. Without testing we can never be absolutely sure who the fathers of children are no matter their political leanings.:p

In all fairness, the OP does complain about the judge not the law. He wanted the judge to interpret it differently. That is a request for a judge to be more of an activist and it is a pretty good argument that conservatives aren't against activist judges so much as they're against judges who rule in a way that they consider to liberal.

Thanks for that. That's my point. THe OP wasn't mad with the LAW, he was made with the JUDGE for apparently "deciding it wrong". Which is my point, it seems some groups are all for judges going beyond the limitations they shouled stay within and making judgements that fit with their viewpoints...just as long as they don't do it the other way.

Errr, it is exactly the judges job to interpret the law. And he did.

no, it is the job of the judge to apply the law. Occassionally in the application of the law he or she must interpret it. But interpretation should only occur when there is a lack of plain meaning, which there apparently was not here.

I judge should never venture into the realm of interpretation when a dictionary will do just fine.

Abortions for everyone! boooo

Abortions for nobody! boooo

Abortions for some, miniture Americans flags for everyone else! hooray

sorry ;) :sniper:

In all fairness, the OP does complain about the judge not the law. He wanted the judge to interpret it differently. That is a request for a judge to be more of an activist and it is a pretty good argument that conservatives aren't against activist judges so much as they're against judges who rule in a way that they consider to liberal.


Speaking from the viewpoint of a person who doesnt like being called liberal or conservative, I do not think that the phenomenon you are writing about is quite the one way street you make out toit
be.

Unless I'm wrong "activist judge" is just a buzz phrase meaning that a judge has socio/political leanings which overly influence his interpretation of the law.
I do not believe that it is against the ethics of either conservatives or liberals to argue that a decision of a judge (especially a disagreeable one) is motivated by political leanings rather than by the law as the law was intended by those who wrote the law. This holds true even before a judge might make a decision. As proof I offer every confirmation hearing of every judge nominated to the supreme court in the last 30 years.

What's the problem really? If she had shot herself in the leg nobody would have complained. And if she decided to shoot into her own belly that's still her own body and nobody else's business.
The Judge made he right decision, regardless of the law.
.

Did't she shoot herself in the belly so as to cause the death of the life inside? It's not like she shot herself in the leg, foeti rarely develop there.

Did't she shoot herself in the belly so as to cause the death of the life inside? It's not like she shot herself in the leg, foeti rarely develop there.

It does not matter what part of her body she shot. Since it is her own body she can do with it whatever she likes.

no, it is the job of the judge to apply the law. Occassionally in the application of the law he or she must interpret it. But interpretation should only occur when there is a lack of plain meaning, which there apparently was not here.

I judge should never venture into the realm of interpretation when a dictionary will do just fine.

Judges work in courtrooms and not in ivory towers. Legislators are better at doubletalk than they are at specificity. In the writing of laws as well as the making of speeches. You put these two together and judges very often have to interpret law, most especially in the indictment bit of a trial.

Woohoo, free coke for everyone then?

Speaking from the viewpoint of a person who doesnt like being called liberal or conservative, I do not think that the phenomenon you are writing about is quite the one way street you make out toit
be.

Unless I'm wrong "activist judge" is just a buzz phrase meaning that a judge has socio/political leanings which overly influence his interpretation of the law.
I do not believe that it is against the ethics of either conservatives or liberals to argue that a decision of a judge (especially a disagreeable one) is motivated by political leanings rather than by the law as the law was intended by those who wrote the law. This holds true even before a judge might make a decision. As proof I offer every confirmation hearing of every judge nominated to the supreme court in the last 30 years.


Activist judge is a term used almost exclusively by conservatives complaining that they interpreted the law rather than simply ruling on the law as written. The primary response from liberals is that they only seem to complain when it's a decision they don't like. The OP evidences that claim.

The confirmation hearings often involve a bunch of partisans trying to qualifiy judges that lean their way and disqualify judges that lean the other way. The point here is that the complaint by conservatives about activist judges is a dishonest one. Your evidence supports that.

I'll tell you what - find some articles showing a speech by Clinton or other major Democrat complaining about activist judges. I promise I can easily find ten from prominent Republicans for every one you find for a democrat.

Judicial activism according to Webster's refers to the practice of expanding rights through the interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe Webster's is biased, but you can see how this might be more of an issue from a conservative standpoint (since by definition conservatives are against change from the past definitions and interpretations).

It's not hard to understand, but you're using the incorrect terminology and emotionally charged rhetoric. Murder is a purely legal term, and since this was legally declared to NOT be murder, no amount of claiming to the contrary will make it so.


Excuse me ? But what part of IN MY OPINION did you not get ?:rolleyes:

Its my terminology and also MY opinion that she murdered a full term fetus .

It may not fit the LEGAL definition but the lady had plenty of time to actually legally abort the baby...she chose to shoot it instead...at FULL TERM...emotionally charged rhetoric my ass :rolleyes:

It just seems so damm simple to me .

Baby ready to be born shot by mom...arresst the bitch and send her for a mental evaluation then charge her with some form of murder for killing her child.

I accept the fact that the LAW that was used not to charge her is broken and needs to be fixed.

I accept the fact that the JUDGE did his job and was 100 percent right in not charging the crazy bitch.

BUT it doesnt CHANGE MY OPINION that she murdered a kid .

And like I said I am pro choice just not pro shooting a baby when its full term .

The fetus is inside of her body and thus hers and hers alone. And as long as her life and her nutrients are the only causes to sustain the fetus just like a hand or a leg she can do with it whatever she wishes to. It's not murder if she takes a part of her own life. It's just like cutting off an arm. Nobody's business but hers.
.

Your argument is so filled with logical fallacy and gaping holes that it's going to take me a while to put together a post to list them all. Bear with me.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you do realize that regardless of one judge's interpretation it COULD still be murder. I'll give you an example, I plan to kill my wife. I shoot her. It's completely premeditated and illegal. However, the prosecuter cannot prove it. Or a judge says that my rights were violated in some way. Or a judge says the burden of proof isn't met. Or it's decided to be self-defense, but in fact it's not. I wasn't defending myself. No judicial decision can change that I actually broke the law and that I murdered.

That may not apply here, but you can't get out the argument just by saying that if ONE JUDGE says she didn't commit a crime, then she didn't. Judges aren't infallible and pretending they are is absolutely fallacious.

The fetus is inside of her body and thus hers and hers alone. And as long as her life and her nutrients are the only causes to sustain the fetus just like a hand or a leg she can do with it whatever she wishes to. It's not murder if she takes a part of her own life. It's just like cutting off an arm. Nobody's business but hers.
.

You oversimplify to make your argument. I'm pro-choice, but obviously what makes this differnt from her leg is that had she separated this fetus from her body it would have gone on to live a healthy, happy life. The comparison to a leg doesn't stand.

The fetus is a part of the mother's body until it comes out. And nobody has any rights to tell a woman what to do with her body. It is as simple as that.

Everyone keeps talking about what a horrible, evil bitch this woman was, and all I can think is how incredibly miserable and desperate one would have to be to shoot oneself in the stomach rather than waiting a few more days till the baby was born.

Do I think what she did was good or reasonable? Of course not. But she has my sympathy, just the same.

I'm sorry, this is a good argument for regular abortion but at the point when a viable birth can occur, that argument pretty much goes to pot. She didn't have to continue giving her resources to the fetus. She had other options that didn't require her to shoot herself and it. I think women should have the option of removing their resources from a fetus at any point, however, had she done that there would be a living child today.

You know, I'd be inclined to agree with you if abortion was accessible. The problem is that, in many states, actually obtaining an abortion is difficult. The only "women's clinic" I can find in Suffolk(where the woman in question is from) is called "The Kiem Centers" and it appears to be strongly pro-life. The nearest Planned Parenthood seems to be around thirty miles away.

I'm not saying that the woman in question made the right choice, and it is likely that she had other options, but I'm not so sure this is a criminal matter.

You oversimplify to make your argument. I'm pro-choice, but obviously what makes this differnt from her leg is that had she separated this fetus from her body it would have gone on to live a healthy, happy life. The comparison to a leg doesn't stand.



A huge group of people seem to be MISSING that little MAJOR point.

The baby was not only viable but FULL TERM ready to come out the oven..

I dont think its LEGAL in any state in the US to abort a full term baby unless the mothers life is in danger....and even that is stretching it...cesarian section time...in this case it would be hard to accept that a baby brought to full term was endangering the ladys life.

Although shooting your self in the belly is a great way to endanger your own life . If they want to they can more than likely charge her with weapons violations etc...but hey I think they just want that nut as far away from them as possible .:p



So that leaves the law that never could see in the future how a mother might actually excecute her baby all by herself...SHE decide to perform a full term abortion by bullet . I guess thats what the law decided. and abortions legal...but not at full term .....Soooooooooooo the laws broke and I bet it will have people tripping over each other to fix it.

The fetus is a part of the mother's body until it comes out. And nobody has any rights to tell a woman what to do with her body. It is as simple as that.

Ok, so you point is that you have no real argument so rather than respond to people's objections, you'll just keep repeating yourself. We get it. You're not here to challenge your views but to preach. But now that you've completed your preaching can you move on... or, you know, you could try defending your position.

I find your position to be exactly the kind of extreme position that damages pro-choice activism. Prior to this point we can claim that women are being forced to do something against their will, however, when it reaches this point women can relieve themselves of the burden of pregnancy in a way that doesn't require them to kill this child. And, yes, when it becomes capable of surviving without the assistance of the mother, then it certainly is its own life.

Care to explain how a ninth month fetus is equivelent to any part of her body when it is fully capable of surviving on its own? Can she still shoot the fetus after birth as long as it's still attached to the mother?

I know I'm an ass for asking you to make an argument on a debate forum, but I tend to be just that kind of ass.

You know, I'd be inclined to agree with you if abortion was accessible. The problem is that, in many states, actually obtaining an abortion is difficult. The only "women's clinic" I can find in Suffolk(where the woman in question is from) is called "The Kiem Centers" and it appears to be strongly pro-life. The nearest Planned Parenthood seems to be around thirty miles away.

I'm not saying that the woman in question made the right choice, and it is likely that she had other options, but I'm not so sure this is a criminal matter.

At this point, she didn't need an abortion. She needed a birth. What she did was more traumatic to her body than if she'd birthed the child. She shot herself which had to be fixed surgically AND the baby had to be removed. This was a full-term child. There was no abortion to be had that wouldn't require her to actively KILL the child, rather than when abortions are actually availabe when the fetus dies simply by being removed from life support.

If late-term abortions are illegal, and in almost all places they are, and she conducted one, which she did, it most certainly IS a criminal matter.

Activist judge is a term used almost exclusively by conservatives complaining that they interpreted the law rather than simply ruling on the law as written. .

So I can count the number of times each person uses or at least introduces the term in this thread and determine their political leanings? If a person doesnt use the term their political status is unknown. If they use the term they are a conservative?

I wonder how that pans out in this thread or even this forum?


At any rate I realise that you hold such strong political feelings and biases about that phrase that it becomes a sticking point in a discussion with you. Which is why I attempted to go around the phrase in the post you quoted. For whatever reason you wont have any of that apparantly so where do we go from here? More ridiculous posing and semantics regarding the term "activist judge" or a frank discussion of the parallels and differences between liberals and conservatives when they regard judicial decisions?

At this point, she didn't need an abortion. She needed a birth. What she did was more traumatic to her body than if she'd birthed the child. She shot herself which had to be fixed surgically AND the baby had to be removed. This was a full-term child. There was no abortion to be had that wouldn't require her to actively KILL the child, rather than when abortions are actually availabe when the fetus dies simply by being removed from life support.

If late-term abortions are illegal, and in almost all places they are, and she conducted one, which she did, it most certainly IS a criminal matter.

I understand your stance, I simply disagree. My argument is that situations like these are fairly rare(otherwise they wouldn't make headlines) and preventing them is not important enough to infringe upon abortion rights. I look at this in much the same way as I look at the MCA: terrorists are bad but I would rather they go free than lose my liberty in the process of punishing them.

I understand your stance, I simply disagree. My argument is that situations like these are fairly rare(otherwise they wouldn't make headlines) and preventing them is not important enough to infringe upon abortion rights. I look at this in much the same way as I look at the MCA: terrorists are bad but I would rather they go free than lose my liberty in the process of punishing them.


No need to infringe on abortion rights at all.


Just fix the law that makes it legal to shoot a full term baby .

I understand your stance, I simply disagree. My argument is that situations like these are fairly rare(otherwise they wouldn't make headlines) and preventing them is not important enough to infringe upon abortion rights. I look at this in much the same way as I look at the MCA: terrorists are bad but I would rather they go free than lose my liberty in the process of punishing them.

There is no need to infringe upon abortion rights. They are rare because late-term abortions are illegal and, in most cases, no one will perform it even if it were legal.

Meanwhile, to pretend like executing a self-sustaining child is equivalent or even related to removing an embryo from one's body is what damages abortion rights more than pretty much any other argument or position. I can't imagine a claim that would gel more people against abortion than claiming that a woman can do whatever she likes provided the 'fetus' is still attached to her body.

So I can count the number of times each person uses or at least introduces the term in this thread and determine their political leanings? If a person doesnt use the term their political status is unknown. If they use the term they are a conservative?

I wonder how that pans out in this thread or even this forum?


At any rate I realise that you hold such strong political feelings and biases about that phrase that it becomes a sticking point in a discussion with you. Which is why I attempted to go around the phrase in the post you quoted. For whatever reason you wont have any of that apparantly so where do we go from here? More ridiculous posing and semantics regarding the term "activist judge" or a frank discussion of the parallels and differences between liberals and conservatives when they regard judicial decisions?

Ha. Nice ad hominem there. I take it you don't have a stronger argument then?

I told you how you could prove your position. Or do you figue the ad hominem is good enough? The hypocrisy of claiming you'd like a reasoned debate while removing most of the arguments from my post including the one that references the lexical definition of the term and why it would logically be used more often by conservatives did get past me.

I'm not attacking conservatives. You'll notice that I've actually arguing against the more extreme liberals in this thread. I guess evidence isn't as important as ad hominems though, huh? The point is that it is a point of inconsistency among conservatives. Inconsistency is hardly a trait unique to conservatives, mind you. I've noticed the accusations about my political leanings change by the thread topic. Yours thoroughly amuses me, but I'm disappointed that you don't have more faith in your argument.

Ok, so you point is that you have no real argument so rather than respond to people's objections, you'll just keep repeating yourself. We get it. You're not here to challenge your views but to preach. But now that you've completed your preaching can you move on... or, you know, you could try defending your position.

I find your position to be exactly the kind of extreme position that damages pro-choice activism. Prior to this point we can claim that women are being forced to do something against their will, however, when it reaches this point women can relieve themselves of the burden of pregnancy in a way that doesn't require them to kill this child. And, yes, when it becomes capable of surviving without the assistance of the mother, then it certainly is its own life.

Care to explain how a ninth month fetus is equivelent to any part of her body when it is fully capable of surviving on its own? Can she still shoot the fetus after birth as long as it's still attached to the mother?

I know I'm an ass for asking you to make an argument on a debate forum, but I tend to be just that kind of ass.

A nine month fetus is equivalent to any part of her body because it is not fully capable of surviving on its own. As long as it is inside the mother's womb it does not survive on its own but through the nutrients and especially the oxygen it gets from the mother. So if the mother could somehow interrupt the delivery of nutrients and oxygen the fetus will not survive on its own although you claim it was capable to. So who are you to put your opinion above biology? The fetus consist entirely of the matter that was put into it by the mother (except the one sperm cell), so the fetus is a real part of the mother's body (even though it has only half her genes). It's her flesh and her life.

A nine month fetus is equivalent to any part of her body because it is not fully capable of surviving on its own.

False. It is completely capable of surviving without the mother and almost all do. The survivablity rate at the point when this woman shot herself approaches 100%.

As long as it is inside the mother's womb it does not survive on its own but through the nutrients and especially the oxygen it gets from the mother. So if the mother could somehow interrupt the delivery of nutrients and oxygen the fetus will not survive on its own although you claim it was capable to. So who are you to put your opinion above biology? The fetus consist entirely of the matter that was put into it by the mother (except the one sperm cell), so the fetus is a real part of the mother's body (even though it has only half her genes). It's her flesh and her life.

Yes, it would. If she disrupted that flow she would go into labor, the child would be born and it would be capable of breathing on its own, and no more reliant than any birthed child. There is no qualitative difference in the capabilities of a child one day before birth and one day after.

Again, you rely on try to avoid the debate. I'm not debating biology. I'm debating you. Your argument actually goes counter to biology. You have to ignore that the child would be naturally birthed if you performed the act you're describing. The only way to actually destroy a nine-month old fetus is to actively kill it, like this woman did. That's biology. This baby dreams, is already capable of learning, has imprinted with the voice of its mother, has every bit of the capability of a birthed child of the same development. There is no qualitative difference according to biology. Biology actually causes abortions for the same reasons that women get them in the first and early second trimester. Biology doesn't cause them in the third trimester. It causes births of children that may or may not survive. If you're going to invoke biology I suggest you open a book, because biology and you are not on the same page or even in the same book.

"The one-minute old child consists entirely of matter that was put into it by the mother, the fetus is a real part of the mother's body. It's her flesh and her life." Let's allow women to crush the heads of newly-birthed children. Your argument is equally appicable to that behavior.

I am not changing my position only because you do not like it. Everyone is the owner of his/her body and that's it. No need for compromises due to other people's ideologies.

And well, I have not yet read any argument why a woman should not be allowed to do with her body what she wants to. If the fetus was really capable of surviving on its own, as you claim, it could have fled from the shot.

I am not changing my position only because you do not like it. Everyone is the owner of his/her body and that's it. No need for compromises due to other people's ideologies.

And well, I have not yet read any argument why a woman should not be allowed to do with her body what she wants to. If the fetus was really capable of surviving on its own, as you claim, it could have fled from the shot.


Using your logic I can shoot sleeping people or people in hospital beds under the influence....hey if they could survive they would have woke up and run ,,,:D

Ha. Nice ad hominem there. I take it you don't have a stronger argument then?

How is this an Ad Hominem argument? I did not say your points are wrong because you are biased. I said that you are biased. Are you not biased?

I told you how you could prove your position. Or do you figue the ad hominem is good enough?

Of course Ad Hominems are not good enough. Neither are the accusations of using Ad Hominem arguments enough to prove their use. For instance if I accuse you of dodging the argument I asked for and turning it in a pointless direction it does not in any way prove that you did or did not dodge the argument. It pnly means I accuse you of it.

The hypocrisy of claiming you'd like a reasoned debate while removing most of the arguments from my post including the one that references the lexical definition of the term and why it would logically be used more often by conservatives did get past me.

So the hypocrisy did get past you? The ability to attack with terms like hypocrisy based upon differing principles did not pass you by.

From now on I will use your entire post when I quote you, no matter how tedious it might be for others to read a thread with every word of yours repeated ad infinitum. Feel free to only use that part of my posts which you wish to reply to however.



I'm not attacking conservatives.

How is this related? Attack them if they deserve it and leave them be when they deserve that might be a better philosophy but you go ahead with your way.
You'll notice that I've actually arguing against the more extreme liberals in this thread.
See, this is where it's better to argue ideas rather than people. The more extreme liberals may be right or wrong on a given issue.

I guess evidence isn't as important as ad hominems though, huh?

Ive noticed this in your style versus me but I dont concede this point to you, no


The point is that it is a point of inconsistency among conservatives. Inconsistency is hardly a trait unique to conservatives, mind you. I've noticed the accusations about my political leanings change by the thread topic. Yours thoroughly amuses me, but I'm disappointed that you don't have more faith in your argument.

I do not recall mentioning your political leanings much less making any accusations about them. What exactly did I accuse your political leanings of?



This is not the direction I'd have taken it but it's fine.

I am not changing my position only because you do not like it. Everyone is the owner of his/her body and that's it. No need for compromises due to other people's ideologies.

And well, I have not yet read any argument why a woman should not be allowed to do with her body what she wants to. If the fetus was really capable of surviving on its own, as you claim, it could have fled from the shot.

Like I said, if you just came to preach you've already done so, so why remain? If you came to explore and discuss your position, why not start?

Can a one-minute old child flee? How about a one-year-old? I guess they are just parts of a woman's body? Or do you want, perhaps, to make an argument that's not ridiculous?

Yes, it would. If she disrupted that flow she would go into labor, the child would be born and it would be capable of breathing on its own, and no more reliant than any birthed child.
And do you think we really need more abandoned children of retarded mothers?

You really need to learn how to use quote tags.

How is this an Ad Hominem argument? I did not say your points are wrong because you are biased. I said that you are biased. Are you not biased?
It's an ad hominem because you ignored my arguments stating that they had no bearing because of my bias. Ad hominems don't have to be false or insulting (which is debatable) just an attempt to dismiss an argument by making claims about the person rather than the argument.

Here are the parts of my post you ignored -
Activist judge is a term used almost exclusively by conservatives complaining that they interpreted the law rather than simply ruling on the law as written. The primary response from liberals is that they only seem to complain when it's a decision they don't like. The OP evidences that claim.

The confirmation hearings often involve a bunch of partisans trying to qualifiy judges that lean their way and disqualify judges that lean the other way. The point here is that the complaint by conservatives about activist judges is a dishonest one. Your evidence supports that.

I'll tell you what - find some articles showing a speech by Clinton or other major Democrat complaining about activist judges. I promise I can easily find ten from prominent Republicans for every one you find for a democrat.

Judicial activism according to Webster's refers to the practice of expanding rights through the interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe Webster's is biased, but you can see how this might be more of an issue from a conservative standpoint (since by definition conservatives are against change from the past definitions and interpretations).

You left out the entire argument preferring to pretend as if accusing me of bias was enough of an argument. That's called an ad hominem.

Ad hominem means against the man in latin. You're argument was against the man, not against the argument.

At any rate I realise that you hold such strong political feelings and biases about that phrase that it becomes a sticking point in a discussion with you.

In other words, my arguments relating to "judicial activism" are not worth addressing because I'm incapable of rationally looking at it. Then you basically stated that I was mentally broken because I wanted to stay on the original topic rather than allowing you to hijack the topic to make it about something else. None of which actually addressed my point or the topic at hand.

Of course Ad Hominems are not good enough. Neither are the accusations of using Ad Hominem arguments enough to prove their use. For instance if I accuse you of dodging the argument I asked for and turning it in a pointless direction it does not in any way prove that you did or did not dodge the argument. It pnly means I accuse you of it.

You didn't make an argument. You avoided it. You claimed "activist judge" could be used both ways. You also claimed I'd argued a 'one-way street'. I replied by showing why I was only addressing it one direction because the term is only used in one direction and because it only applies in one-direction here. You're response was to claim that I must be wrong because I'm incapable of looking at this reasonably. That's ad hominem.

So the hypocrisy did get past you? The ability to attack with terms like hypocrisy based upon differing principles did not pass you by.

From now on I will use your entire post when I quote you, no matter how tedious it might be for others to read a thread with every word of yours repeated ad infinitum. Feel free to only use that part of my posts which you wish to reply to however.

The hypocrisy was that you didn't actually address my arguments and then accused me of refusing to address arguments. Amusingly, when I address the very arguments you made both in the first post I replied to and the last post, you act as if it doesn't matter. By the way, my 'attack' was related to your post, not you. Your post was hypocritical. You attacked me as unable to get past my political biases in order to have a rational discussion. I'm sorry that the difference isn't obvious to you. It should be.

How is this related? Attack them if they deserve it and leave them be when they deserve that might be a better philosophy but you go ahead with your way.

You accused me of bias, of pretending as if it's a one-way street and pretending if judge complaints don't go both ways. I pointed out that I wasn't selecting for conservatives (as an accusation of bias would claim). I pointed out that the street you were noticing was because of the topic at hand and had nothing to do with my bias. You claimed my bias makes me incapable in this discussion. Unlike your post, mine actually addresses your claims.

See, this is where it's better to argue ideas rather than people. The more extreme liberals may be right or wrong on a given issue.

No disagreement. However, in this particular case, it was part of the topic so I addressed it. Your reply was to cry about how I'm biased and how I'm arguing a one-way street rather than the FACT that I was just focused on the topic.

If you don't like the topic at hand, feel free to start another. Amusingly, you accuse me of being unwilling to address the topic, however, let's examine your posts.

So far you are the only one I hear howling and whining. Your main complaint seems to be that nobody has called "for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".. and you have such a burning desire to disagree with "conservatives" that you had to make imaginary ones up. Congrats you won your debate against your phantom enemies.

At any rate I realise that you hold such strong political feelings and biases about that phrase that it becomes a sticking point in a discussion with you. Which is why I attempted to go around the phrase in the post you quoted. For whatever reason you wont have any of that apparantly so where do we go from here? More ridiculous posing and semantics regarding the term "activist judge" or a frank discussion of the parallels and differences between liberals and conservatives when they regard judicial decisions?

Yes, these are the posts of someone trying to foster a conversation. What is it you said "See, this is where it's better to argue ideas rather than people." Amusing that you would say you prefer to discuss topics rather than people while both of the people you replied to were addressing the topic in a general way and you made personal attacks on both of them. I'm sorry I hijacked it with my references to dictionaries and suggestions that you provide evidence. Next time I'll just suggest you're crazy and irrational since according to you that is addressing the topic and not the people. Will that make you feel better?

Ive noticed this in your style versus me but I dont concede this point to you, no

Ha. How funny. You're reply to my evidenced claims is to first attack me and then to reply with "no, you do that." If you were trying to make me laugh, thank you. If not, sorry. I asked you for evidence. You avoided it, choosing instead to cut out that part of my post and then attack me. In that post, I provided evidence that 'judicial activism' the term we were discussing is by definition only used one way and asked you to prove me wrong. Your claims are nonsensical.

I do not recall mentioning your political leanings much less making any accusations about them. What exactly did I accuse your political leanings of?

If you don't read your posts why should anyone else?

At any rate I realise that you hold such strong political feelings and biases"

As you can see above, you said it, you tell me what political leanings you were referring to.

And do you think we really need more abandoned children of retarded mothers?

The fact that mother is willing to shoot herself has no bearing on the health of the child. Meanwhile, by that argument then had she birthed this child, we should celebrate if she shot it. I'm not going to pretend like this was a good thing and I think it's unfortunate that anyone would.

Let's allow women to crush the heads of newly-birthed children. Your argument is equally appicable to that behavior.

meh. i've never been able to work up a huge level of moral indignation over infanticide. doesn't strike me as particularly wrong, though for different reasons than abortion.

I hope she finds happiness. In the end, that's the only thing I care about.

meh. i've never been able to work up a huge level of moral indignation over infanticide. doesn't strike me as particularly wrong, though for different reasons than abortion.

See, I don't get this. What if I killed your baby, would that be okay? Is it okay whether it's the mother or the father that does it? What makes it so different than other types of murder in your eyes?

I hope she finds happiness. In the end, that's the only thing I care about.

I'd be more concerned for the child's happiness. At that stage of pregnancy the child could have had a life. If the woman suddenly did not want the child she should have allowed the kid to be born and given up for adoption.

I'd be more concerned for the child's happiness. At that stage of pregnancy the child could have had a life. If the woman suddenly did not want the child she should have allowed the kid to be born and given up for adoption.

I see 'could have', 'should have', and 'if' - but in the end, there's only 'is'. There is no baby. There is a woman. Why be concerned for what isn't, but be unconcerned for what is? She needs help, and I hope she finds it.

I see 'could have', 'should have', and 'if' - but in the end, there's only 'is'. There is no baby. There is a woman. Why be concerned for what isn't, but be unconcerned for what is? She needs help, and I hope she finds it.

I agree with the end part, but I'd point out that you could make exactly the same argument if she did this post-birth. The most damage we can do to the pro-choice movement is to make our regard for the issue arbitrary. And yes, when the capability, the awareness, the aptitude of the child doesn't change inside and outside the womb, making that the line is arbitrary.

I see 'could have', 'should have', and 'if' - but in the end, there's only 'is'. There is no baby. There is a woman. Why be concerned for what isn't, but be unconcerned for what is? She needs help, and I hope she finds it.

When the unborn child reaches the point where it can survive on its own outside the womb it is ALIVE, at least as far as I'm concerned. This woman just sounds selfish to me.

The fact that mother is willing to shoot herself has no bearing on the health of the child. Meanwhile, by that argument then had she birthed this child, we should celebrate if she shot it. I'm not going to pretend like this was a good thing and I think it's unfortunate that anyone would.

Well, I agree it would be better if she got sterilized before. But procreation of selfish and careless retards isn't a good thing. We aren't that short on people to run around saving every fetus, especially whose mother should have never been given a chance to procreate in the first place.

Sure, that fetus could have a life. So what? Lift the child count limit in China and millions will have.

and yes, I am, but that doesn't invalidate the arguments.
If the woman suddenly did not want the child she should have allowed the kid to be born and given up for adoption.
If the woman had been smart enough for that, she would never came up with an idea to shoot herself.

If the woman had been smart enough for that, she would never came up with an idea to shoot herself.

Yeah, I suppose coming up with the idea of shooting yourself to abort your unborn child isn't a sign of high intelligence...

Well, I agree it would be better if she got sterilized before. But procreation of selfish and careless retards isn't a good thing. We aren't that short on people to run around saving every fetus, especially whose mother should have never been given a chance to procreate in the first place.

Sure, that fetus could have a life. So what? Lift the child count limit in China and millions will have.

and yes, I am, but that doesn't invalidate the arguments.

If the woman had been smart enough for that, she would never came up with an idea to shoot herself.
Ok, you're making a positive assertion that quite frankly is absurd. Show the selfish gene or evidence for one or stop claiming that we're better off when women murder their children.

What if I killed your baby, would that be okay?

no. though it wouldn't be murder either.

Is it okay whether it's the mother or the father that does it?

in standard situations, the agreement of both would be necessary.

What makes it so different than other types of murder in your eyes?

infants, particularly very young ones, just don't seem to me to have the level of personhood needed to make it count as murder. and since infanticide has accepted throughout human history in a wide variety of cultures, it seems to me that my moral inuitions on this are within the normal human range.

no. though it wouldn't be murder either.

If I killed a baby it wouldn't be murder? Perhaps you should look that word up, my friend.

in standard situations, the agreement of both would be necessary.

Why? They aren't people. There is no law that a woman can't sell a television without the permission of her boyfriend or husband even if they purchased it together. Since you've ignored every way this is qualitatively different, it kind of destroys any argument for why the agreement of both should be necessary or why if I break into someone's house and murder their infant why it should be treated any differently than if I knocked over their TV.




infants, particularly very young ones, just don't seem to me to have the level of personhood needed to make it count as murder. and since infanticide has accepted throughout human history in a wide variety of cultures, it seems to me that my moral inuitions on this are within the normal human range.

I think you mean to say that you don't think they should have the degree of personhood necessary. Murder in the current lexicon simply means that it's illegal and that it's premeditated. Killing a baby is absolutely murder.

So was slavery, genocide, torture, dictatorships, etc. I don't think that it's existed in history really says anything about whether or not we should accept it. Forgive me if I put infanticide among the many things I'm glad we've left in the past.

It's particularly absurd when infants are extremely desired in many parts of the world.

Then it should fall to the LEGISLATURE to correct the wording. It is the job of the judge to enforce as written, and avoid delving into interpretation whenever possible. He did his job.

If there really was a such a loophole, then it is absolutely the legislature's fault. Just as it was the legislature's fault recently in GA when a grown woman got away with statutory rape by getting pregnant and marrying a 15-year old kid. Sure, the law was *meant* to allow men her age to marry young girls they impregnated (which, as far as I'm concerned, is just as stupid), but the wording of the law allowed for this as well. And when they tried to prosecute her, the judge went by the law.


I'm trying to figure out where the loophole actually lies, however. Last I checked, every state in the union outlaws 9th-month abortion except in certain specified medical cases. If a doctor had performed an abortion on this woman, said doctor would have been charged. So, abortion or not, it was illegal if the fetus or the mother did not meet certain medical requirements.

Meanwhile, if we are basically going to list the killing of a viable fetus by another as murder (which some states now do), I see no logical reason why the mother, outside of medical reasons, gets a free pass. We can certainly debate whether or not it *should* be classified as murder, but if it is murder, then it is murder, no matter who does it.

If I killed a baby it wouldn't be murder? Perhaps you should look that word up, my friend.

i'm talking entirely in ought mode here. the definition would be different under the circumstances i'm describing.

Why? They aren't people. There is no law that a woman can't sell a television without the permission of her boyfriend or husband even if they purchased it together.

because it should be the case that decisions concerning things that are jointly held and for which people are jointly responsible should be made jointly?

Since you've ignored every way this is qualitatively different, it kind of destroys any argument for why the agreement of both should be necessary or why if I break into someone's house and murder their infant why it should be treated any differently than if I knocked over their TV.

huh?


I think you mean to say that you don't think they should have the degree of personhood necessary.

sure, that doesn't seem different from what i said in any meaningful way

So was slavery, genocide, torture, dictatorships, etc. I don't think that it's existed in history really says anything about whether or not we should accept it.

i'm not offering historical occurance as evidence of rightness, merely grounding my moral intuition as not being prima facie insane.

It's particularly absurd when infants are extremely desired in many parts of the world.

it turns out that getting an infant isn't particularly hard - barring medical issues, any two idiots with approriate gametes can do it.

I'm trying to figure out where the loophole actually lies, however. Last I checked, every state in the union outlaws 9th-month abortion except in certain specified medical cases. If a doctor had performed an abortion on this woman, said doctor would have been charged. So, abortion or not, it was illegal if the fetus or the mother did not meet certain medical requirements.

It's likely that the law said something like "it's illegal to perform an abortion in 3rd trimester on another person" or words to that effect. Which creates the loophole of it's legal to do it fully on yourself.

That's what I'd imagine anyway

Ok, you're making a positive assertion that quite frankly is absurd. Show the selfish gene or evidence for one or stop claiming that we're better off when women murder their children.

Selfishness? It's not nearly as bad as stupidity. And, yes, a child of a retard is less likely to be very smart; besides genes, a large part of human's personality is formed by education, and especially by his parents. She had few if any chances to bring her child as an adequate sociable person, both because disliking it and lacking basic capabilities. In fact, stupidity in the first place was why she made this. Would it be better if she did it later? Is child abuse good? Are "nigga gangs" (or wigga gangs) good? Do we really need more, or, maybe, it's better to stop it at an early stage, when the child isn't even born?

Darwin Awards exist for a reason. They remind us that, even despite the humanity has eliminated the natural selection, some fall even below the low thresholds of modern society and clean the pool of their genes. No matter how much you try to recycle, something has to be thrown out.

because it should be the case that decisions concerning things that are jointly held and for which people are jointly responsible should be made jointly?

So, you're in favor of looking up the marital status of people before they do everything, yeah? You're 'ought mode' pretty much fails to worry about practicality or to deal with any of the reasoning for permitting such behavior.

huh?

Again, do you think if I bring a television to a pawn shop to sell that they have to call up my wife before they allow it. You've shown no qualitative difference between these scenarios because you've taken all humanity away from infants. I'm not sure what's confusing about it. When infants are property then they should have no special laws at all, including that I can knock over a TV or kill a baby and there is no difference.


sure, that doesn't seem different from what i said in any meaningful way

How unfortunate. Again, then it appears you're not using words with their proper meaning.



i'm not offering historical occurance as evidence of rightness, merely grounding my moral intuition as not being prima facie insane.
Actually, given that our reasoning changes, referring to history does nothing to support the sanity of your claims.



it turns out that getting an infant isn't particularly hard - barring medical issues, any two idiots with approriate gametes can do it.
You're aware that a great number of 'idiots' have medical issues. Also, some 10% of people aren't heterosexual so they find adoptions quite valuable. There's no need to murder infants in order to do away with them. If both parents agree, they can usually find someone quite willing to take that child off their hands. There is no value to infanticide unless you're just unwilling to avoid violent solutions.

She could have aborted the baby before the third trimester with EASE,

This is a disgusting lie. I know people who have gotten pregnant and had no signs WHATSOEVER: No weight gain, no morning sickness, no nothing. Until the middle of the third trimester. So let's face it: She probably could not have.

Selfishness? It's not nearly as bad as stupidity. And, yes, a child of a retard is less likely to be very smart; besides genes, a large part of human's personality is formed by education, and especially by his parents. She had few if any chances to bring her child as an adequate sociable person, both because disliking it and lacking basic capabilities. In fact, stupidity in the first place was why she made this. Would it be better if she did it later? Is child abuse good? Are "nigga gangs" (or wigga gangs) good? Do we really need more, or, maybe, it's better to stop it at an early stage, when the child isn't even born?

Darwin Awards exist for a reason. They remind us that, even despite the humanity has eliminated the natural selection, some fall even below the low thresholds of modern society and clean the pool of their genes. No matter how much you try to recycle, something has to be thrown out.

Wow, pretty much everything you say here is unsupported. You don't what her mental state was. She may very well have been more intelligent than you. You know nothing about what chances she had or what she was thinking or what she liked, but you're quite happy to claim as much.

Darwin awards exist because it removes people known to have mental stability or capability problems, not people you're worried might have a chance to be.

Who decides who we're better without? Personally, I don't have much stomach for people who just make crap up and then pretend as if because of their made crap up a tragedy should be celebrated. I could do without those people. However, unlike the arrogance you're happy to display, I don't pretend that my evalution of your value to the world justifies a celebration of your death.

It's likely that the law said something like "it's illegal to perform an abortion in 3rd trimester on another person" or words to that effect. Which creates the loophole of it's legal to do it fully on yourself.

That's what I'd imagine anyway

If that or something like that is the case, then the intent is very obviously to allow for a woman to try and induce an abortion herself. There is no reason to add the phrase (or any phrase with similar meaning) "on another person", unless the goal is specifically to allow for self-abortion. No one would have any room to criticize the judge - all criticism would have to go the legislature who specifically added wording that allows for it.

I wonder if I can find the law....

This is a disgusting lie. I know people who have gotten pregnant and had no signs WHATSOEVER: No weight gain, no morning sickness, no nothing. Until the middle of the third trimester. So let's face it: She probably could not have.

Dude, probably? The rare case where there are no signs are exactly that. Because it occasionally happens that peopel don't notice, doesn't suggest that women "probably" wouldn't know. Nature gives women a number of clues because the female body needs to be treated differently during pregnancy. Weight gain, a stoppage of the period (though spotting occurs in SOME cases, not most), morning sickness, cravings, changes in body shape, changes in body chemistry, changes in mental state, and perhaps a few dozen other qualities that are there if one doesn't simply ignore them.

To pretend "she probably could not have" is to simply ignore the facts. You don't really know whether she could have or couldn't have. Stop pretending to know things you don't.

You really need to learn how to use quote tags.


It's an ad hominem because you ignored my arguments stating that they had no bearing because of my bias. Ad hominems don't have to be false or insulting (which is debatable) just an attempt to dismiss an argument by making claims about the person rather than the argument.

Here are the parts of my post you ignored -


You left out the entire argument preferring to pretend as if accusing me of bias was enough of an argument. That's called an ad hominem.

No, in point of fact "activist judge" as a concept is indeed a two way street used by both liberals and conservatives against the other side. I tried to point this out and you decided without a shred of evidence that this was not only wrong but an ad hominem attack upon yourself.

Ad hominem means against the man in latin. You're argument was against the man, not against the argument.


Hardly, it is more another observation that there is little difference between the tactics of the left and the tactics of the right in demonising one another along with a perfect example of complete avoidance of the issue in favor of partisan semantics



In other words, my arguments relating to "judicial activism" are not worth addressing because I'm incapable of rationally looking at it. Then you basically stated that I was mentally broken because I wanted to stay on the original topic rather than allowing you to hijack the topic to make it about something else. None of which actually addressed my point or the topic at hand.

Nice straw man but how does it fit in with your assertion that ad hominems are bad? Are some fallacies OK and others wrong? I think you are intelligent and a good debator, probably best ob this site. Crying soul to run away from an argument might be easy but it is hardly up to your usual standards.



You didn't make an argument. You avoided it. You claimed "activist judge" could be used both ways.

What part of "the concept of Activist judge can and has been used by both conservatives and liberals" is not an argument?

You also claimed I'd argued a 'one-way street'. I replied by showing why I was only addressing it one direction because the term is only used in one direction and because it only applies in one-direction here. You're response was to claim that I must be wrong because I'm incapable of looking at this reasonably. That's ad hominem.

O never claimed that you are incapable of it, I claimed and still do claim that you refuse to acknowlege that the concept is used by conservatives and liberals and I gave the supposition that the reason you will not acknowlege this is that you have a dog in the fight. You are biased. I stand by the statement and still believe the suppositiob.



The hypocrisy was that you didn't actually address my arguments and then accused me of refusing to address arguments. Amusingly, when I address the very arguments you made both in the first post I replied to and the last post, you act as if it doesn't matter. By the way, my 'attack' was related to your post, not you. Your post was hypocritical. You attacked me as unable to get past my political biases in order to have a rational discussion. I'm sorry that the difference isn't obvious to you. It should be.

You do not seem unable to see past your biases, you do seem unwilling. Im intrigued that the difference isnt obvious to you. It should be.



You accused me of bias, of pretending as if it's a one-way street and pretending if judge complaints don't go both ways. I pointed out that I wasn't selecting for conservatives (as an accusation of bias would claim). I pointed out that the street you were noticing was because of the topic at hand and had nothing to do with my bias. You claimed my bias makes me incapable in this discussion. Unlike your post, mine actually addresses your claims.



No disagreement. However, in this particular case, it was part of the topic so I addressed it. Your reply was to cry about how I'm biased and how I'm arguing a one-way street rather than the FACT that I was just focused on the topic.

If you don't like the topic at hand, feel free to start another. Amusingly, you accuse me of being unwilling to address the topic, however, let's examine your posts.





Yes, these are the posts of someone trying to foster a conversation. What is it you said "See, this is where it's better to argue ideas rather than people." Amusing that you would say you prefer to discuss topics rather than people while both of the people you replied to were addressing the topic in a general way and you made personal attacks on both of them. I'm sorry I hijacked it with my references to dictionaries and suggestions that you provide evidence. Next time I'll just suggest you're crazy and irrational since according to you that is addressing the topic and not the people. Will that make you feel better?



Ha. How funny. You're reply to my evidenced claims is to first attack me and then to reply with "no, you do that." If you were trying to make me laugh, thank you. If not, sorry. I asked you for evidence. You avoided it, choosing instead to cut out that part of my post and then attack me. In that post, I provided evidence that 'judicial activism' the term we were discussing is by definition only used one way and asked you to prove me wrong. Your claims are nonsensical.



If you don't read your posts why should anyone else?



As you can see above, you said it, you tell me what political leanings you were referring to.]

:rolleyes:

If that or something like that is the case, then the intent is very obviously to allow for a woman to try and induce an abortion herself. There is no reason to add the phrase (or any phrase with similar meaning) "on another person", unless the goal is specifically to allow for self-abortion. No one would have any room to criticize the judge - all criticism would have to go the legislature who specifically added wording that allows for it.

I wonder if I can find the law....

The reasoning for the added wording, as noted in the article, is often because they want to punish the doctor but not the patient.

What I'm saying is that that is a probable explanation on why she had to do THIS. No sane person would shoot themselves in the stomach if their had been any other chance to get rid of it. You pro-lifers are the types who tend to distort and ignore facts.

I'm guessing this is the law, actually, and it's pretty much what Arthias said:

§ 18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; penalty.

A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.

B. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years.

And the law is extremely clear here. You have to kill the fetus "of another" for it to apply. There is no reason to believe that the legislature's intention was to include the mother killing her own fetus.

Even with the following law:
§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester provided the following conditions are met:

(a) Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or under the control of the State Board of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services.

(b) The physician and two consulting physicians certify and so enter in the hospital record of the woman, that in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

(c) Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.

there is really no provision for the instance in which a mother chooses to kill her own viable fetus. This covers medical abortion, not simply causing the death of a fetus.


Of course, I do have to say that, if the legislature's intent was not to leave this loophole, they are seriously incompetent.

Edit: I'll give it to them though, it is *much* easier to search the Virginia law code than the GA one.


The reasoning for the added wording, as noted in the article, is often because they want to punish the doctor but not the patient.

Based on the laws above, that is completely unecessary. Medical abortions are covered, and a doctor can be punished under those laws. It seems pretty clear that the "willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation" is referring more to the "hit a woman in the stomach" type of crime than to medical abortion, which is already covered in other areas of the law.

Who decides who we're better without?
You know, it's not like I have decided that the world would be better without her siblings and she needs an abortion.

It's she who did.

It was her fetus. It was she who disposed of it. I'd add that she did it in a very dumb way.

Well... you say that maybe she could be more intelligent than me. Possibly. I as well can assume that there are chances that she could be more intelligent than you - may I? Let's suppose it's so.
Wait a minute. If so, who are you to question her decision???

]

:rolleyes:

This is just said. Now you're quite happy to lie.

No, in point of fact "activist judge" as a concept is indeed a two way street used by both liberals and conservatives against the other side. I tried to point this out and you decided without a shred of evidence that this was not only wrong but an ad hominem attack upon yourself.

The two-way street comment was not the one I responded that you'd used an ad hominem. You're allowed to be wrong A LOT, but please don't be dishonest.

Proof:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11839826&postcount=107
Speaking from the viewpoint of a person who doesnt like being called liberal or conservative, I do not think that the phenomenon you are writing about is quite the one way street you make out toit
be.

Unless I'm wrong "activist judge" is just a buzz phrase meaning that a judge has socio/political leanings which overly influence his interpretation of the law.
I do not believe that it is against the ethics of either conservatives or liberals to argue that a decision of a judge (especially a disagreeable one) is motivated by political leanings rather than by the law as the law was intended by those who wrote the law. This holds true even before a judge might make a decision. As proof I offer every confirmation hearing of every judge nominated to the supreme court in the last 30 years.


Activist judge is a term used almost exclusively by conservatives complaining that they interpreted the law rather than simply ruling on the law as written. The primary response from liberals is that they only seem to complain when it's a decision they don't like. The OP evidences that claim.

The confirmation hearings often involve a bunch of partisans trying to qualifiy judges that lean their way and disqualify judges that lean the other way. The point here is that the complaint by conservatives about activist judges is a dishonest one. Your evidence supports that.

I'll tell you what - find some articles showing a speech by Clinton or other major Democrat complaining about activist judges. I promise I can easily find ten from prominent Republicans for every one you find for a democrat.

Judicial activism according to Webster's refers to the practice of expanding rights through the interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe Webster's is biased, but you can see how this might be more of an issue from a conservative standpoint (since by definition conservatives are against change from the past definitions and interpretations).
Even your claim about not having a shred of evidence lie is just that, I pointed out the lexical definition of the term and why the term can really only be applied by conservative.

Hardly, it is more another observation that there is little difference between the tactics of the left and the tactics of the right in demonising one another along with a perfect example of complete avoidance of the issue in favor of partisan semantics

Amusing. The 'partisan semantics' were the point. It was what you originally replied to. Your observation was in the first post, the second post was an attack on me. How sad that you try to pretend that post doesn't exist. Lying really has no place in a debate where you can be quoted say other than you claim.

Nice straw man but how does it fit in with your assertion that ad hominems are bad? Are some fallacies OK and others wrong? I think you are intelligent and a good debator, probably best ob this site. Crying soul to run away from an argument might be easy but it is hardly up to your usual standards.

Amusing. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that ad hominems are bad. I didn't realize that ad hominems being bad was a topic for debate. I would think that fallacies are bad in debate is a given. Particularly when you get caught. Honestly, this is just sad. First you ask me to prove you've used an ad hominem and when I do, now you act as if I have to prove that FALLACIES are 'bad'. Anything to be contrary, huh?

Meanwhile your argument that you didn't use an ad hominem is now based on referring to another post that didn't contain the ad hominem. Do you think my memory is so short? This is perhaps the most transparent attempt yet.

What part of "the concept of Activist judge can and has been used by both conservatives and liberals" is not an argument?

Again, you lie. Terribly sad. That quote is not from the post I called an ad hominem. Are you completely disinterested in debate? In fact, you pretend to quote yourself saying something you didn't say. The closest you said to this was in an earlier post to which I replied without ANY reference to an ad hominem. I replied to your point when you made the comment and even in my reply to your ad hominem comment I pointed out that while there are issues on both sides of the aisle this topic does not touch on that issue nor does the term "judicial activist".

Changing the argument and then arguing against is another fallacy. Do you recognize it? Show me where I said disagreeing with judges only occurs on one side (as you've said I did). Show me where I even suggested such a thing. I was referring to the particular term and said so. And the original poster was referring to this exact incident and the related hypocrisy. No one ever said that a similar phenomena doesn't occur in the other direction or even hinted at it. But, hey, keep making crap up and I'll keep making you look silly, deal?

You know, it's not like I have decided that the world would be better without her siblings and she needs an abortion.

It's she who did.

It was her fetus. It was she who disposed of it. I'd add that she did it in a very dumb way.

Well... you say that maybe she could be more intelligent than me. Possibly. I as well can assume that there are chances that she could be more intelligent than you - may I? Let's suppose it's so.
Wait a minute. If so, who are you to question her decision???

She may have been more intelligent than me. Individuals at my intelligence level or above, even as rare as they are, have a MUCH higher incidence of mental instability. People at extreme ends of the spectrum account for a large portion of sociopathic behavior. If she were more intelligent than me that would explain a lot. Like how she got away with it and how she managed to survive with little issue.

I'm not the one who claimed that intelligence is a factor here. That was you. I guess now that you're called on it, it's now very important for you to dismiss the argument altogether. Killing viable infants is not her choice to make. The intent of the law was to make this illegal and I'll wager it will be soon when they correct the wording. And last I checked the ability to question the illegal behavior of others or to question whether it should be legal isn't restricted by whether or not one is more or less intelligent than the individual committing the act.

Meanwhile, do you think she's celebrating her behavior? I imagine she'll likely be hospitalized to deal with the mental instability that would bring about such an event. I'm glad that you're happy to allow the mentally unstable to decide which infants live and which are shot. I'm not.

And while we're on the subject of intelligence, did she kill her 'siblings'?

Like I said, if you just came to preach you've already done so, so why remain? If you came to explore and discuss your position, why not start?

Can a one-minute old child flee? How about a one-year-old? I guess they are just parts of a woman's body? Or do you want, perhaps, to make an argument that's not ridiculous?

This is not about the child. This is about the woman. This is about telling anyone what to do with his or her body. Who are you to tell a woman what to do with her own body? How dare you constrict her natural right of self-determination as an individual? You would also harvest organs from anyone by force, wouldn't you?

I'm glad that you're happy to allow the mentally unstable to decide which infants live and which are shot. I'm not.

Once again, it is not relevant what you are happy with. It is no-one's decision but the individual's what to do with his/her own body. The state of mind is irrelevant.

BTW do you find slavery tolerable?
.

She may have been more intelligent than me. Individuals at my intelligence level or above, even as rare as they are, have a MUCH higher incidence of mental instability. People at extreme ends of the spectrum account for a large portion of sociopathic behavior. If she were more intelligent than me that would explain a lot. Like how she got away with it and how she managed to survive with little issue.
And it explains one more thing: why you really shouldn't question her decisions about her body.


I'm not the one who claimed that intelligence is a factor here. That was you. I guess now that you're called on it, it's now very important for you to dismiss the argument altogether. Killing viable infants is not her choice to make.

Who are you to decide that? Or maybe you have scientific proof?

If she was more intelligent than you, then why do you think that you know better what she should do and what she shouldn't?

I can understand, though not support, mentally superior people ordering around inferior ones, but what's the point in less intelligent people telling more intelligent ones what to do?



I'm glad that you're happy to allow the mentally unstable to decide which infants live and which are shot. We are not discussing the law, BTW, but it would be outlawed. It's not like she made decisions for your child or for anyone else. The decision was made in a closed system. It didn't affect anyone outside. Know the term "black box'? You know the input and the output; what's going inside is none of your business. The fetus did not contact with interests of other people and never left the black box. It does not matter whether she sterilized beforehand or did what she did. Output was not affected: 0 either way.
BTW, do you consider suicide a crime? I'll tell more: suicide is more appropriate for othes to judge than abortion, as it affects objects outside the black box. Abortion doesn't, so why poke noses into everyone's private affairs?

In self-defense, you are not permitted to take a life when you could easily prevent the problem in a way that wouldn't require... discharging a firearm for example. This woman had options for removing this child from her body that were less traumatic to her, the fetus and would have left both of them in perfect health.Not necessarily. I'm not sure what the law is in Virginia, but in Florida, for instance, it's legal to shoot an intruder who's in your home. They don't even have to be threatening you physically. I would think an intruder in your uterus would fall under the same definition.

But, let's say that Virginia's law is as you describe. If she's going to give birth or have a c-section, she's going to have to wait until she can make it to the hospital, at the very least. If you're being assaulted, should the law require you to wait until force less than lethal force can be used? If so, how long, maximum, should you have to wait?

And it explains one more thing: why you really shouldn't question her decisions about her body.

Yet, I will question her decisions about the body of the child. And I'll do it because intelligence is a requirement for us to debate this topic. I'm almost positive you didn't take an IQ test to join, now did you?


Who are you to decide that? Or maybe you have scientific proof?

Logical fallacies? Really?

Let's see, first I'm not qualified to reply. Then I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I can prove my non-scientic position is scientific. Oh, I forgot that in order to be capable of surviving on your own you have to be able to 'run away'. Amusing. I doubt you even realize that you're losing this argument.

If she was more intelligent than you, then why do you think that you know better what she should do and what she shouldn't?

I can understand, though not support, mentally superior people ordering around inferior ones, but what's the point in less intelligent people telling more intelligent ones what to do?

Well, there's the fact that people on the far side of the intelligence spectrum tend to be more unstable. There's that. There's also the fact that intelligence and wisdom are not the same or even provably linked. Then there's the fact that we don't live in a intellocracy.

We are not discussing the law, BTW, but it would be outlawed. It's not like she made decisions for your child or for anyone else. The decision was made in a closed system. It didn't affect anyone outside. Know the term "black box'? You know the input and the output; what's going inside is none of your business. The fetus did not contact with interests of other people and never left the black box. It does not matter whether she sterilized beforehand or did what she did. Output was not affected: 0 either way.

The fetus contact its own interests. It had ever bit is much interest in life as a birthed child would. This wasn't an embryo or even a young fetus. This was a fully-grown child capable of life. This isn't a black box. There was another involved in the 'black box', a child that is no different than an other infant other than being inside the womb rather than out. There is no qualitative difference. You've been offered the opportunity to show one, but chose rather to make absurd comments about intelligence.

And if you think the output was zero, then perhaps you should open a textbook.

BTW, do you consider suicide a crime? I'll tell more: suicide is more appropriate for othes to judge than abortion, as it affects objects outside the black box. Abortion doesn't, so why poke noses into everyone's private affairs?

This wasn't an abortion. She killed a living human being. In a suicide she'd have only affected herself. Here all she had to do was go through LESS medical trauma and there would have been a living child. Her 'abortion' required her to risk her life and actively kill a child.

Tell you what? Why don't you tell me when a child becomes a living person and why? Or would you rather stick to the fallacies and other foolishness?

Not necessarily. I'm not sure what the law is in Virginia, but in Florida, for instance, it's legal to shoot an intruder who's in your home. They don't even have to be threatening you physically. I would think an intruder in your uterus would fall under the same definition.

But, let's say that Virginia's law is as you describe. If she's going to give birth or have a c-section, she's going to have to wait until she can make it to the hospital, at the very least. If you're being assaulted, should the law require you to wait until force less than lethal force can be used? If so, how long, maximum, should you have to wait?

She could induce a birth as easily as she shot herself. It's not a very difficult process and requires simpler tools than a gun. This woman was mentally unstable and I feel sorry for her. But she wasn't defending herself. The intruder, here, was someone she let in. She has to try reasonable methods to get it to leave before she shoots it.

She could induce a birth as easily as she shot herself. It's not a very difficult process and requires simpler tools than a gun. This woman was mentally unstable and I feel sorry for her. But she wasn't defending herself. The intruder, here, was someone she let in. She has to try reasonable methods to get it to leave before she shoots it.I'm not certain if she tried to induce birth or not. Perhaps she didn't know how to induce birth? Even still, the intruder is someone who is assaulting her. If you let someone into your house and they start to assault you, what methods do you need to take to get them to stop before you shoot them?

I'm not certain if she tried to induce birth or not. Perhaps she didn't know how to induce birth? Even still, the intruder is someone who is assaulting her. If you let someone into your house and they start to assault you, what methods do you need to take to get them to stop before you shoot them?

The only person who assaulted her is her. She gave allowed the child to enter and access to her resources. She wanted to end that access but she has to allow the 'intruder' reasonable access to the ability to leave. That wasn't done here. In a regular abortion, when the resources are cut of the death of the tissue is a result. However, in this case this was a life that could sustain itself but simply wasn't allowed to leave in any way that wouldn't result in a gunshot wound. Your analogy fails because the goal here wasn't to end to pregnancy but to prevent the birth. She was trying to stop the immenent leaving of the child.

The only person who assaulted her is her. She gave allowed the child to enter and access to her resources. She wanted to end that access but she has to allow the 'intruder' reasonable access to the ability to leave. That wasn't done here. In a regular abortion, when the resources are cut of the death of the tissue is a result. However, in this case this was a life that could sustain itself but simply wasn't allowed to leave in any way that wouldn't result in a gunshot wound. Your analogy fails because the goal here wasn't to end to pregnancy but to prevent the birth. She was trying to stop the immenent leaving of the child.The fetus had nine months to leave. How long must she wait?
Additionally, I agree that it's true that she wanted to stop the birth. However, this can be justified by her wishing to cease the assault on her body. It's possible that she didn't mind the assault but didn't want the birth to happen, but would be incredibly difficult to prove if the law were written this way. She could simply say 'I can't take it anymore' and would get off, if self-defense is legal.

The fetus had nine months to leave. How long must she wait?
Additionally, I agree that it's true that she wanted to stop the birth. However, this can be justified by her wishing to cease the assault on her body. It's possible that she didn't mind the assault but didn't want the birth to happen, but would be incredibly difficult to prove if the law were written this way. She could simply say 'I can't take it anymore' and would get off, if self-defense is legal.

You don't get it. During that period she took no steps to encourage the fetus to leave or to let it know she wanted it to. See, that's the thing. She was okay with it's presence and use of resources up until right before she shot it. Had she wished to simply remove it from her womb and tried earlier it would certainly of died, but that would have been through reasonable measures. The 'intruder' here is a dependent and incapable of leaving on its own or caring for itself. However, one could not walk up to an infant ask it to leave and then shoot it if it didn't. One can't even leave the infant outside the apartment/house. One has to take the infant to the hospital or some other place that can care for it, taking reasonable steps for it's care now that one has decided to discontinue caring for it. This would be exact same scenario. Had she gone to a facility that was prepared for its care the infant would be alive today. She didn't take reasonable steps to address its dependant status.

You don't get it. During that period she took no steps to encourage the fetus to leave or to let it know she wanted it to. See, that's the thing. She was okay with it's presence and use of resources up until right before she shot it. Had she wished to simply remove it from her womb and tried earlier it would certainly of died, but that would have been through reasonable measures. The 'intruder' here is a dependent and incapable of leaving on its own or caring for itself. However, one could not walk up to an infant ask it to leave and then shoot it if it didn't. One can't even leave the infant outside the apartment/house. One has to take the infant to the hospital or some other place that can care for it, taking reasonable steps for it's care now that one has decided to discontinue caring for it. This would be exact same scenario. Had she gone to a facility that was prepared for its care the infant would be alive today. She didn't take reasonable steps to address its dependant status.If someone is attacking you and psychologically incapable of stopping themselves, is it acceptable, at some point, to use lethal force against them?
What if there was a boxing match, with acceptable use of force agreed to by both parties? Then, for one reason, one of the participants give up, but the other continues to beat up on the surrendered participant?

If someone is attacking you and psychologically incapable of stopping themselves, is it acceptable, at some point, to use lethal force against them?
What if there was a boxing match, with acceptable use of force agreed to by both parties? Then, for one reason, one of the participants give up, but the other continues to beat up on the surrendered participant?

You can keep trying to extend the analogy like this but in a boxing match you're in physical danger from not stopping the other boxer immediately. However, in this case the only physical danger presented was by her own hand because she wanted to prevent the pregnancy from ending normally. The child still had leave one of the same two ways, the danger to the mother was exponentially increased, the danger to the child was infinitely increased, and the mother still required medical intervention to deal with the issue.

There are sort of comparable cases to this, like the Menendez brothers. Whether or not you are being abused, which isn't the case here, you cannot go get a gun, avoid trying to deal with the situation in any other way and then murder the abuser. There has to be an imminent threat to your life in order for lethal force to be justified.

My girlfriend lives with me in my apartment. I pay for it. My name is on the lease. I could ask her to leave right, but because I invited her in, I promise you it wouldn't matter how long I waited or how long she ate my food, I couldn't shoot her. In the case of an infant, I couldn't even stop feeding her. If the only baby food I had that was available was my breasts I would be expected to breastfeed. Denying a child resources when that child can be taken somewhere and survive is not permitted in any state.

You can keep trying to extend the analogy like this but in a boxing match you're in physical danger from not stopping the other boxer immediately. Pregnancy also caused physical harm.

However, in this case the only physical danger presented was by her own hand because she wanted to prevent the pregnancy from ending normally. The child still had leave one of the same two ways, the danger to the mother was exponentially increased, the danger to the child was infinitely increased, and the mother still required medical intervention to deal with the issue. Birth or a c-section would also be medically dangerous. In this case, she ended the assault sooner rather than later.

My girlfriend lives with me in my apartment. I pay for it. My name is on the lease. I could ask her to leave right, but because I invited her in, I promise you it wouldn't matter how long I waited or how long she ate my food, I couldn't shoot her.No, she isn't physically assaulting you.

In the case of an infant, I couldn't even stop feeding her. If the only baby food I had that was available was my breasts I would be expected to breastfeed. Denying a child resources when that child can be taken somewhere and survive is not permitted in any state.In the case of an infant, the infant isn't assaulting its mother. A fetus is.

(I cut out the part about the Menendez brothers because I mostly agreed with it. The difference is that the abuse stops at some point. The assault of a fetus is continual.)

My God, MORE abortion shit? Americans just don't give it up, do they?
I don't personally agree with late-term abortions, considering that I think at that point the woman probably would have made up her mind about whether to have the baby or not, but in the United States some 85% of counties don't have an abortion clinic. Having access to abortion can be a major problem for some women, and that may have been the case for this woman.
When the abortion issue first came out, though, it's interesting that the issue over whether the fetus is "life" or not never even arose. That came after the conservatives gave up pushing against it on the grounds that it was giving women rights, which they of course didn't like.
All in all, I don't think this woman did anything wrong, she just did something so unimaginably stupid that my first reaction was to toss my head back and laugh. I cannot believe that abortion is even still an issue in the United States when there is so much poverty, when the government is waging illegal and security-weakening wars, when racism is still prevalent, when the incarceration rate is among the highest in the world (I'm not sure if Russia is higher or not), and corporate big men are making off with stolen money like it's noboby's business. Considering all of those things, the fact that anybody still gives a crap over whether anybody gets an abortion makes me want to laugh and fume at the same time.
Now, I wonder what kind of gun she used?:mp5: (sorry, I just had to)

Ya know what?

I dont' give a damn.

if you truely dont give a dam, you wouldnt post anything.

if stupidity was a crime, she would have gotten 36 life sentences.

Pregnancy also caused physical harm.

What new physical harm would have happened between the house and the hospital?

Birth or a c-section would also be medically dangerous. In this case, she ended the assault sooner rather than later.

Her ending of the assault was much more dangerous and did not end the need for surgery. She still had the birth the dead child or have it removed.


No, she isn't physically assaulting you.

In the case of an infant, the infant isn't assaulting its mother. A fetus is.

(I cut out the part about the Menendez brothers because I mostly agreed with it. The difference is that the abuse stops at some point. The assault of a fetus is continual.)

No, it's not continual. You've not evidenced that she is being assualted in any way or that there would be any damage done to her on the part of the fetus that hadn't already been done. The damage done by a fetus may be gradual but it's not continuous. The damage to her insides, her skin, her uterus, etc. is all done by this point. In fact, all she did was ENSURE there would be a lot more damage, but one shooting many of thsoe damaged organs and then guaranteeing that they would have to surgically remove the child.

Again, the resources the fetus is taking were freely given to the fetus right up until the moment she shot the fetus. She didn't take reasonable measures to stop the fetus from taking those resources after initially granting the fetus access. She killed the fetus as a result, willfully and actively, to prevent it from leaving her womb and stopping the use of those resources. Everything about your analogies doesn't even remotely match up to what actually happened. You've not shown even one of your assumptions holds up even logically.

Again, what damage would this 'assault' have done between the house and the hospital?

should be counted as murder.

What new physical harm would have happened between the house and the hospital?Most likely the same physical harm as before - the pregnancy itself. And of course, the knowledge that pregnancy, and birth, can both be lethal.

Her ending of the assault was much more dangerous and did not end the need for surgery. She still had the birth the dead child or have it removed.I'm not sure how much surgery she would need; perhaps no more than a c-section. But in this case, the assault would stop sooner.

No, it's not continual. You've not evidenced that she is being assualted in any way or that there would be any damage done to her on the part of the fetus that hadn't already been done. The damage done by a fetus may be gradual but it's not continuous.From dictionary.com:

gradual

–adjective 1. taking place, changing, moving, etc., by small degrees or little by little: gradual improvement in health.
2. rising or descending at an even, moderate inclination: a gradual slope. [/quote]Do you mean the first or second definition of gradual? (By the second, I'm not referring to a slope, naturally.)

Again, the resources the fetus is taking were freely given to the fetus right up until the moment she shot the fetus. She didn't take reasonable measures to stop the fetus from taking those resources after initially granting the fetus access. She killed the fetus as a result, willfully and actively, to prevent it from leaving her womb and stopping the use of those resources. Everything about your analogies doesn't even remotely match up to what actually happened. You've not shown even one of your assumptions holds up even logically.I would say that the resources were freely given up until the point she made the decision to shoot the fetus, whenever that decision was made.

Again, what damage would this 'assault' have done between the house and the hospitalAgain, is someone obligated to let someone else assault them without fighting back, even if the only way they can fight back at a particular moment is to use lethal force?

My God, MORE abortion shit? Americans just don't give it up, do they?
I don't personally agree with late-term abortions, considering that I think at that point the woman probably would have made up her mind about whether to have the baby or not, but in the United States some 85% of counties don't have an abortion clinic. Having access to abortion can be a major problem for some women, and that may have been the case for this woman.
When the abortion issue first came out, though, it's interesting that the issue over whether the fetus is "life" or not never even arose. That came after the conservatives gave up pushing against it on the grounds that it was giving women rights, which they of course didn't like.
All in all, I don't think this woman did anything wrong, she just did something so unimaginably stupid that my first reaction was to toss my head back and laugh. I cannot believe that abortion is even still an issue in the United States when there is so much poverty, when the government is waging illegal and security-weakening wars, when racism is still prevalent, when the incarceration rate is among the highest in the world (I'm not sure if Russia is higher or not), and corporate big men are making off with stolen money like it's noboby's business. Considering all of those things, the fact that anybody still gives a crap over whether anybody gets an abortion makes me want to laugh and fume at the same time.
Now, I wonder what kind of gun she used?:mp5: (sorry, I just had to)

Indeed.



@Jocabia: please stop treating poeple like they were your property. If a women decides not to have a baby, regardless in what stage of the pregnancy, that's her decision and not yours. There are no ifs or whens here.
In your case it is obviously just like Rickvaria expressed: you are afraid of giving a woman the right of determining the circumstances of her own life.

Indeed.



@Jocabia: please stop treating poeple like they were your property. If a women decides not to have a baby, regardless in what stage of the pregnancy, that's her decision and not yours. There are no ifs or whens here.
In your case it is obviously just like Rickvaria expressed: you are afraid of giving a woman the right of determining the circumstances of her own life.

we have laws so people dont have to make decisions. otherwise we would be running around shitting on each other.

Indeed.



@Jocabia: please stop treating poeple like they were your property. If a women decides not to have a baby, regardless in what stage of the pregnancy, that's her decision and not yours. There are no ifs or whens here.
In your case it is obviously just like Rickvaria expressed: you are afraid of giving a woman the right of determining the circumstances of her own life.

Amusing, but no. I support legalized abortion. I don't support a woman increasing the damage to herself just to prevent an already viable child from entering the world. If this was to protect her life, then I would absolutely say her rights should trump that of any child, even one much older. However, in this case she wasn't protecting herself, she was seeking to end the life of a viable child. That's not equivalent and people like you are the ONLY reason that there is a sustainable abortion debate. Absent the slippery slope claims of conservatives there is essentially no argument. I'm not afraid of anything. I'm UNWILLING to allow women to kill children. This wasn't an embryo. This was a child.

Your appeals to emotion are just that. You've tried pretty much every logical fallacy in the book, to no avail. Why don't you try, you know, an argument?

Most likely the same physical harm as before - the pregnancy itself. And of course, the knowledge that pregnancy, and birth, can both be lethal.

Again, you have to show how this changes or could have changed in any reasonable fashion as a result of her action or lack thereof. You can't. You haven't even tried.


I'm not sure how much surgery she would need; perhaps no more than a c-section. But in this case, the assault would stop sooner.

No, it didn't. If you're not aware having a dead fetus inside you and a bullet wound is very traumatic and dangerous. Both she and the fetus would be bleeding. Now she needs the same c-section she could have gotten before, but in addition she is endangered by the bullet and the dead fetus.

From dictionary.com:

gradual

–adjective 1. taking place, changing, moving, etc., by small degrees or little by little: gradual improvement in health.
2. rising or descending at an even, moderate inclination: a gradual slope.

Do you mean the first or second definition of gradual? (By the second, I'm not referring to a slope, naturally.)[/quote]

The changes are more applicable to the first, of course. They even reference health in the first. And you'll notice that it says by small degrees or little by little. That is not continuous. If you really think the growth of a child is on a continuous slope, you should probably head to the library or perform a search. Meanwhile, the second definition of gradual references the degree. I was referencing how continuous it is.


I would say that the resources were freely given up until the point she made the decision to shoot the fetus, whenever that decision was made.

So the fetus must read her mind and stop taking those resources or it will be shot. Good to know. Again, in the case of a dependent, the rules are different. Had this been an infant, even if the infant was, say, latched onto her nipple and wouldn't let go or attached by an umbilical cord, she still would not be permitted to shoot it.


Again, is someone obligated to let someone else assault them without fighting back, even if the only way they can fight back at a particular moment is to use lethal force?

Again, you've not demonstrated an assault. None. At all. Yes, a person is required to not place themselves intentionally and knowingly in a position where lethal force is necessary and then kill someone. She put the child in a position of dependence on her, one that you say equates to assualt, and then when the child behaved exactly as expected, shot it. She had ways to deal with the situation that would DECREASE her trauma and any damage of any sort she would have suffered and not kill the child. She chose instead to assault herself, kill the child and all without giving the child reasonable opportunity to leave, clearly in an attempt to prevent it from doing so.

Don't get me wrong, this woman was clearly unstable. I'm not suggesting she belongs in prison. But this is hardly a good outcome.

I do not see any difference between a legalized abortion and a non-legalized abortion. And I do not see any difference in what stage of a pregnancy an abortion is performed. And I do not see what relevance the state of the child has for the right of the woman to decide her own fate. Why can you not accept that you are not the one to make decisions for others? This has nothing to do with emotions.

Again, you have to show how this changes or could have changed in any reasonable fashion as a result of her action or lack thereof. You can't. You haven't even tried.I don't think it needs to change, the fact that it happens is sufficient.

No, it didn't. If you're not aware having a dead fetus inside you and a bullet wound is very traumatic and dangerous. Both she and the fetus would be bleeding. Now she needs the same c-section she could have gotten before, but in addition she is endangered by the bullet and the dead fetus.Yes, but now she can be treated with an emergency c-section as opposed to an elective c-section like she would've had before.

The changes are more applicable to the first, of course. They even reference health in the first. And you'll notice that it says by small degrees or little by little. That is not continuous. If you really think the growth of a child is on a continuous slope, you should probably head to the library or perform a search. No, the growth of a child doesn't happen that way, but the fetus continuously uses her organs for its processes.

Meanwhile, the second definition of gradual references the degree. I was referencing how continuous it is.I meant that the second definition refers to a continuous degree.

So the fetus must read her mind and stop taking those resources or it will be shot. Good to know. I didn't say that, however I did say (well, I implied) that if someone attacks you and is psychologically incapable of stopping themselves, it's fine to defend yourself. I would say the same thing if they're physically incapable of stopping themselves.

Again, in the case of a dependent, the rules are different. Had this been an infant, even if the infant was, say, latched onto her nipple and wouldn't let go or attached by an umbilical cord, she still would not be permitted to shoot it.I think that she could probably get the infant off of her nipple or cut the cord more quickly and with less effort than it would take to shoot it. It would take more effort and time to drive travel to the hospital than to shoot it, though.
The point I'm making here is that she wanted the assault to stop, at that moment.

Again, you've not demonstrated an assault. None. At all. Yes, a person is required to not place themselves intentionally and knowingly in a position where lethal force is necessary and then kill someone. She put the child in a position of dependence on her, one that you say equates to assualt, and then when the child behaved exactly as expected, shot it. How can you use someone's body and internal organs against their will without assaulting them?

She had ways to deal with the situation that would DECREASE her trauma and any damage of any sort she would have suffered and not kill the child. She chose instead to assault herself, kill the child and all without giving the child reasonable opportunity to leave, clearly in an attempt to prevent it from doing so.Because she wanted the assault to end at that moment.

Don't get me wrong, this woman was clearly unstable. I'm not suggesting she belongs in prison. But this is hardly a good outcome.I agree, it wasn't a good outcome. I don't advocate the shooting of near-birth fetuses, however, for the reasons I am in the process of explaining, I cannot condemn it, either.

I do not see any difference between a legalized abortion and a non-legalized abortion. And I do not see any difference in what stage of a pregnancy an abortion is performed. And I do not see what relevance the state of the child has for the right of the woman to decide her own fate. Why can you not accept that? This has nothing to do with emotions.

laws are brought in to stop people from doing things that hinder the "primary objective". but what is the primary objective?
inconviences for one for the greater good id acceptable.

laws are brought in to stop people from doing things that hinder the "primary objective". but what is the primary objective?
inconviences for one for the greater good id acceptable.

what greater good?

Yet, I will question her decisions about the body of the child.
What was your share in that child?

Let's see, first I'm not qualified to reply. Then I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I can prove my non-scientic position is scientific.
Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But there's a difference between having an opinion and enforcing your opinion on others.
To consider the latter, you need serious proof that your opinion will benefit everyone.

The fetus contact its own interests. It had ever bit is much interest in life as a birthed child would.
Interest? Fetus? What are you talking about? Has it been investing in economy, culture, elsewhere?
If not, it does not affect you.
You see, animals have their interests too.


This isn't a black box. There was another involved in the 'black box', a child that is no different than an other infant other than being inside the womb rather than out.
No. It is a black box, because the child does not interact with you neither directly nor indirectly. Let me be blunt, if some sources wouldn't write about that incident, you would never knew it had ever existed.

Or do you believe in soul and things like that? Then what do you think about bombing down Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia? Putting sanctions leading to starvation and pop decrease? About Nagasaki?
Yeah, sure, it was justified, as they were our enemies.


There is no qualitative difference.
I love this phrase.

What's the qualitative difference between an Iraqi and an American? Between an animal and a human? Animals can survive on their own just fine, yet you don't seem to protest against killing them for food, fun or profit.


This wasn't an abortion. She killed a living human being.
What's so special about human beings living in the West?

Tell you what? Why don't you tell me when a child becomes a living person and why? That's easy. The child becomes a concern of anyone except its parents the moment is first interacts with others.
Otherwise it's none of our concern.
People in underdeveloped tribes or nations kill each other regularly. Does that bother you?

I don't think it needs to change, the fact that it happens is sufficient.

Not to your analogy. Okay, so we both know your analogy sucked. As long as we agree.

Yes, but now she can be treated with an emergency c-section as opposed to an elective c-section like she would've had before.

And that's different, how? Now she will be treated to an emergency c-section rather than an surgery where the treatment done with more consideration for a timing that protects her health AND she gets the bonus of the danger of necrosis and a bullet wound. It's not self-defense when you choose to endanger yourself in order to prevent someone from leaving your property.


No, the growth of a child doesn't happen that way, but the fetus continuously uses her organs for its processes.

It certainly does. She agreed to allow it to. At nine months, that agreement was conscious and with intent. She suddenly decides she doesn't like it and she can shoot it. Dependency doesn't work that way. In this event a surrogate was available and willing and she denied the dependent a surrogate instead preferring to end its life.


I meant that the second definition refers to a continuous degree.

But that's not how it occurs. And the primary point of the second definition is the level of degree not the continuity of it. Gradual in both cases is a reference to degree, not to continuity. That's the reason why it is applied both ways, because the core meaning is the same. Regardless, the second meaning doesn't apply to the growth of a fetus or any other stage of human development or the damage to the mother.


I didn't say that, however I did say (well, I implied) that if someone attacks you and is psychologically incapable of stopping themselves, it's fine to defend yourself. I would say the same thing if they're physically incapable of stopping themselves.

One, you keep making the assertion of an attack, but you've offered no logical reason why this is qualitatively an assault. The damage that occurred was the expected result of the pregnancy that the woman tacitly agreed to. You can't regard that as an assault logically or otherwise. Meanwhile, again in order for it be self-defense you have to show how the action somehow safeguarded her or how absent the action she could have been in more danger. You've not shown this in any way, nor can you.


I think that she could probably get the infant off of her nipple or cut the cord more quickly and with less effort than it would take to shoot it. It would take more effort and time to drive travel to the hospital than to shoot it, though.
The point I'm making here is that she wanted the assault to stop, at that moment.

You seem to have a convenient ability to ignore the facts. The 'assault' of the fetus continued until after the surgery to remove it. It was taking more resources by bleeding than it ever could just by being in the womb. Her addressal of the issue was slower and took MORE effort than it would have taken to get medical attention. Again, the result was a need for the same medical attention and in addition medical attention for the wound, as well as killing the child and putting her life at severe risk. You are willing to ignore degree in one scenario and then apply it another. It doesn't help your case.

How can you use someone's body and internal organs against their will without assaulting them?

An agreement, for one. Two, pregnancy. Assault REQUIRES intent. The definition of assault does not require that damage occurs or could. I could poke you in the chest and be guilty of assault. It requires that you do something against another unlawfully and with intent. Neither occurred her. You did better with the term 'attack'. However, even the term attack implies intent which there isn't here. It's like calling a tripping and falling on someone an attack, particularly when beforehand the person agreed to be subject to the fall.


Because she wanted the assault to end at that moment.

I agree, it wasn't a good outcome. I don't advocate the shooting of near-birth fetuses, however, for the reasons I am in the process of explaining, I cannot condemn it, either.

So, you keep saying, but it requires you to ignore that degree completely while invoking in every comparison I've made. This would interesting if it wasn't so illogical on your part.

What was your share in that child?

Amusing. So as long as everyone that knows you agrees that it's okay for you to die, then someone can kill you? As fact would have it, we actually ensure that juries, those that judge others, are made up of people who do not actually have a direct interest. Pretty much makes your claim look more than a little silly.


Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But there's a difference between having an opinion and enforcing your opinion on others.
To consider the latter, you need serious proof that your opinion will benefit everyone.

Or someone. In this case, the benefit of my opinion the child is not a point of debate. Were my opinion to be law, the child would be living, the benefit is clear.


Interest? Fetus? What are you talking about? Has it been investing in economy, culture, elsewhere?
If not, it does not affect you.
You see, animals have their interests too.

No. It is a black box, because the child does not interact with you neither directly nor indirectly. Let me be blunt, if some sources wouldn't write about that incident, you would never knew it had ever existed.

Or do you believe in soul and things like that? Then what do you think about bombing down Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia? Putting sanctions leading to starvation and pop decrease? About Nagasaki?
Yeah, sure, it was justified, as they were our enemies.

Red herrings.


I love this phrase.

What's the qualitative difference between an Iraqi and an American? Between an animal and a human? Animals can survive on their own just fine, yet you don't seem to protest against killing them for food, fun or profit.

You make assumptions as to what I think is acceptable and what isn't and THEN argue against those assumptions. More logical fallacies. For all you know, I'm entirely against all war and all meat-eating or use of animals in any way. Have you heard of the strawman? It's heard of you.


What's so special about human beings living in the West?

Amusing. Are you just arguing with yourself?

That's easy. The child becomes a concern of anyone except its parents the moment is first interacts with others.
Otherwise it's none of our concern.
People in underdeveloped tribes or nations kill each other regularly. Does that bother you?

Okay, so if I have a child and I lock it in a cage, it belongs to me forever. I can kill it, torture it, make clothes out of it, rape it or do whatever I want so long as I and everyone that comes in contact with it agrees to it.

you know what I find funny? How conservatives will latch on calling for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".

It's the job of the judge to interpret the law, not create the law. The legislature, not the judge, created the loophole, and the judge enforced it AS WRITTEN, that is his job.

He did nothing wrong, it was the legislature's fault for allowing the loophole.

so true

you know what I find funny? How conservatives will latch on calling for this guy to be kicked out because he allowed for "murder" by following the literal wording of the law while at the same calling out those damned "liberal activist judges" when they deviate from what they consider to be the "literal wording of the law".

It's the job of the judge to interpret the law, not create the law. The legislature, not the judge, created the loophole, and the judge enforced it AS WRITTEN, that is his job.

He did nothing wrong, it was the legislature's fault for allowing the loophole.

Why do call it a "loophole" in the law?

Not to your analogy. Okay, so we both know your analogy sucked. As long as we agree.No, the analogy didn't suck; if it appears to one person that their life may be in danger, they have the right to act, regardless if their life is actually in danger.

And that's different, how? Now she will be treated to an emergency c-section rather than an surgery where the treatment done with more consideration for a timing that protects her health AND she gets the bonus of the danger of necrosis and a bullet wound. It's not self-defense when you choose to endanger yourself in order to prevent someone from leaving your property.I'm not certain if she had insurance or not; if not, there's no way they'd let her do an elective surgery.
Even still, any way the fetus leaves her will endanger her.

It certainly does. She agreed to allow it to. At nine months, that agreement was conscious and with intent. She suddenly decides she doesn't like it and she can shoot it. Dependency doesn't work that way. In this event a surrogate was available and willing and she denied the dependent a surrogate instead preferring to end its life.If that's the only way to end the attack at that moment, then it is justified.

But that's not how it occurs. And the primary point of the second definition is the level of degree not the continuity of it. Gradual in both cases is a reference to degree, not to continuity. That's the reason why it is applied both ways, because the core meaning is the same. Regardless, the second meaning doesn't apply to the growth of a fetus or any other stage of human development or the damage to the mother.Eh. I'd argue this, but it's unimportant to the discussion.

One, you keep making the assertion of an attack, but you've offered no logical reason why this is qualitatively an assault. The damage that occurred was the expected result of the pregnancy that the woman tacitly agreed to. You can't regard that as an assault logically or otherwise.At the moment she disagreed with the pregnancy, it became an attack, just as if two boxers are boxing, one gives up, and the other continues to box, it becomes an attack.

Meanwhile, again in order for it be self-defense you have to show how the action somehow safeguarded her or how absent the action she could have been in more danger. You've not shown this in any way, nor can you.I disagree, all I have to show is that the threat of harm is present, which it is by definition in pregnancy.

You seem to have a convenient ability to ignore the facts. The 'assault' of the fetus continued until after the surgery to remove it. It was taking more resources by bleeding than it ever could just by being in the womb. If it's dead, it can hardly take energy from her organs, and if it's bleeding, it's bleeding resources that had already been taken. Those resources were already gone.

Her addressal of the issue was slower and took MORE effort than it would have taken to get medical attention. Again, the result was a need for the same medical attention and in addition medical attention for the wound, as well as killing the child and putting her life at severe risk. You are willing to ignore degree in one scenario and then apply it another. It doesn't help your case.I disagree. The degree is that at no point should anyone have to put up with someone (or something) using their organs to sustain themselves.

An agreement, for one. Two, pregnancy. Assault REQUIRES intent. The definition of assault does not require that damage occurs or could. I could poke you in the chest and be guilty of assault. It requires that you do something against another unlawfully and with intent. Neither occurred her. You did better with the term 'attack'. However, even the term attack implies intent which there isn't here. It's like calling a tripping and falling on someone an attack, particularly when beforehand the person agreed to be subject to the fall.I'm not as up on the definitions of legal terminology as I'd like, so I can concede that attack and assault are as you've defined them.
Nonetheless, should someone have to put up with someone tripping and falling on them if they don't wish it to happen? And what would this be called? Hitting? (What if they put up their knees? What if that ends up killing the person falling on them?)

So, you keep saying, but it requires you to ignore that degree completely while invoking in every comparison I've made. This would interesting if it wasn't so illogical on your part.Which degree are you talking about here? Most comparisons I've seen were to an infant, which isn't relevant.

This is a disgusting lie. I know people who have gotten pregnant and had no signs WHATSOEVER: No weight gain, no morning sickness, no nothing. Until the middle of the third trimester. So let's face it: She probably could not have.






lets face it you are wrong. Lets face it there are doctors . Lets face it in this case SHE KNEW SHE WAS PREGNANT, so your argument didn't make it out of the box.

I know of no one, unless they were in denial ..that didn't realise they had not mentrated ..and other changes were taking place to their bodies and hormones.

This was a full term viable baby that was shot ...if she had let the babies head out of the birth canal she would be charged with murder. IF the law was written correctly and some poor soul could actually foresee that a mother might shoot a 9 month full term ready to be born baby...she would be in jail.
In no state in the US is a full tem abortion legal . Add that to the list of reasons your argument is vapid .

She's mentally ill not stupid...even stupid people do not shoot themselves to cause an abortion.

Ok, this has probably been brought up on this thread before, but that's a shitload of reading to do...

But, if this woman was willing to shoot herself to get rid of an nborn fetus, what kind of life do you think that fetus would have had if it had been carried through? A mother who hates its very existance, a DCS who (in every state) is overloaded to the point of letting children fall through the abusive foster home cracks, and on, and on. If you look at it from the whacked out jesusland POV the kid went straight to heaven, and who wouldn't want that?? (okay, that last sentence was both morbid, and sarcastic. But, this thread is annoyingly silly anyway, so...)

Amusing. So as long as everyone that knows you agrees that it's okay for you to die, then someone can kill you? As fact would have it,
In fact, they can. That doesn't mean I won't shoot back, of course, as I've got my interests to protect.

Or someone. In this case, the benefit of my opinion the child is not a point of debate. Were my opinion to be law, the child would be living, the benefit is clear.
And what about, ugh, early abortions? Is there real difference besides them and such abortion? The child is not sentient yet. Unless one believes in soul and things-like-that, there's not much point in making a difference.
If there were no condoms, much more children would be living...

You make assumptions as to what I think is acceptable and what isn't and THEN argue against those assumptions. More logical fallacies. For all you kow, I'm entirely against all war and all meat-eating or use of animals in any way.
Now I see. Well, that's your ideology.
However, I'd enjoy to hear people who are not pacifist and still pro-life.
Have you heard of the strawman? No, I've heard about some large fantasy beings who live in the caves and in the nets, and everyone must be one of them once.
Okay, so if I have a child and I lock it in a cage, it belongs to me forever. I can kill it, torture it, make clothes out of it, rape it or do whatever I want so long as I and everyone that comes in contact with it agrees to it.
In fact, you can. The only thing you need to do is to hide that cage well. This way no one will care.

In fact, they can. That doesn't mean I won't shoot back, of course, as I've got my interests to protect.

Ah, yes. Let me explain to you how gun fights go in the real world. "Did I just hear a gunshot? Oh, my goodness, I'm bleeding." The only place where people call you out with guns is in western movies. In the real world you don't get to respawn and you can't duck when you hear the crack of the gun. You hear the gun go off and then you die.


And what about, ugh, early abortions? Is there real difference besides them and such abortion? The child is not sentient yet. Unless one believes in soul and things-like-that, there's not much point in making a difference.
If there were no condoms, much more children would be living...

Is there a real difference? Well, only according to biology and everyone's understanding of it. Pick up a book and stop believing everything your friends and family tell you. Even when black market abortions used to occur, they didn't do late-term abortions. Doctors don't do it now. It's illegal in every state, while early term abortions are considered a right. A late-term fetus dreams and learns. Pretty everyone but you sees the difference. That there is a difference isn't an opinion. It's a fact. The child is sentient. It is also viable. Prior to the third trimester an abortion only needs to remove the fetus and it will not survive. In the third trimester, you actually have to kill it, because it is viable. That's not a small difference.


Now I see. Well, that's your ideology.
However, I'd enjoy to hear people who are not pacifist and still pro-life.
No, I've heard about some large fantasy beings who live in the caves and in the nets, and everyone must be one of them once.

No, you don't see. I didn't say what my ideology is. Unsurprisingly, you weren't paying attention. One, I'm not 'pro-life'. Like me, the vast majority of pro-choice people believe that late-term abortions are not a protected right because at that point a viable fetus is involved. And any other reference to other ideologies is simply a red herring. This has nothing to do with what else I believe. You're attempts to make this about something else expose your inability to debate by simply, oh, you know, making your argument.


In fact, you can. The only thing you need to do is to hide that cage well. This way no one will care.

I can't figure out if you're a troll who is A) pretending to be what you think pro-choice is so you can make fun of the arguments or B) trying to piss people off or C) both, or if you really believe this tripe and you're just this bad at making your argument, but either way I'm not really interested in the game you're playing. If you come here for honest debate, then I'm happy to educate you on this subject, but for this kind of crap, I'm not your huckleberry.

asdf

In fact, they can. That doesn't mean I won't shoot back, of course, as I've got my interests to protect.

Uh-huh. You know in the real world you don't get to restart at the respawn points when things don't go your way and you can't dodge when you hear the gunshot. Pretty much it goes like this, "what was that sound? Oh, look I'm bleeding." Shooting back only happens in movies about the old west where people tell you they're going to shoot you before they do it.


And what about, ugh, early abortions? Is there real difference besides them and such abortion? The child is not sentient yet. Unless one believes in soul and things-like-that, there's not much point in making a difference.
If there were no condoms, much more children would be living...

Actually, according to biology the child is sentient. And that is the real difference. The brain is functioning at this point equally to a newborn. It is capable of dreaming and learning. Every state in the US makes abortions in the third trimester illegal. When regular abortions were illegal doctors would often perform abortions but not late-term abortions. Even most unsavory types won't do it, which is why this woman couldn't get some black market solution and had to shoot herself. The argument is medical. Your ignorance of the medical differences does not an argument make.


Now I see. Well, that's your ideology.
However, I'd enjoy to hear people who are not pacifist and still pro-life.
No, I've heard about some large fantasy beings who live in the caves and in the nets, and everyone must be one of them once.

You don't see. That's not my ideology. I never said it was. You're desperately trying to find some way to not have to make a real argument and it's not working. You're actually managing two logical fallacies, one is a strawman, which you committed in the last post, followed up by a red herring. I'm not pro-life which is the only thing that has any bearing on this discussion. I presume you know that since you made the argument that this kind of abortion is no different than an earlier abortion. To claim you don't is illogical.

In fact, you can. The only thing you need to do is to hide that cage well. This way no one will care.

Seriously? Are you impressed with yourself for this kind of argument? Either you're trolling and just pretending to believe this crap because A) you think this is the typical pro-choice belief and you're trying to make fun of it or B) you think it will piss people off or C) both, or you really believe this, which is much, much worse. Either way that makes you not worth my time. In case you're wondering, trolling doesn't really piss people off. It simply makes the troll look silly and unimaginative. Making an actual argument is much more difficult and much more impressive.

No, the analogy didn't suck; if it appears to one person that their life may be in danger, they have the right to act, regardless if their life is actually in danger.

You've not shown that she believed her life was in danger or that she was protecting it by shooting the fetus. You've offered not one piece of evidence. In fact, you've already admitted this was likely to be more about preventing the child from coming into the world than about ending the pregnancy. Meanwhile, you’re explanation of self-defense is simplistic and not rooted in reality. A self-defense defense is very hard to prove for a reason.


I'm not certain if she had insurance or not; if not, there's no way they'd let her do an elective surgery.
Even still, any way the fetus leaves her will endanger her.

But not nearly as much as a bullet will before the fetus leaves her in exactly the same way only with more complications. She didn't prevent anything except the life of the child, which was pretty clearly the point. Meanwhile, insurance isn't the issue because many insurance companies have clauses that make it so it won't cover you for intentionally injuring yourself. If you're going to speculate, you're going to have to accept that any speculation you might give is equally availabe to me.

Meanwhile, any way the fetus leaves her will endanger her, and killing it before it leaves her body in the fashion she did increases that danger exponentially. Make an argument that doesn't require me to be unaware of or ignore the facts.


If that's the only way to end the attack at that moment, then it is justified.

It didn't end what you keep calling an attack. It actually exasperated what you call an attack. The fetus by bleeding will use WAY more resources from her body than if she'd not shot herself.


Eh. I'd argue this, but it's unimportant to the discussion.

At the moment she disagreed with the pregnancy, it became an attack, just as if two boxers are boxing, one gives up, and the other continues to box, it becomes an attack.

No, it doesn't. You're very bad at this. One attacks require intent. Two, if you create a dependency you have to take reasonable steps to replace that dependency when possible. Here she went out of her way to avoid reasonable steps. Meanwhile, there was no intent here and thus no attack. The action didn't protect her in any way so stop claiming it did or show that it did.


I disagree, all I have to show is that the threat of harm is present, which it is by definition in pregnancy.

You're accusing the fetus. For lethal self-defense there has to be several key factors.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
...
However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
...
First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack;
...
For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony,

But, hey, keeping an analogy that sucks if you like. However, it's very clearly destroying your argument from the inside out.


If it's dead, it can hardly take energy from her organs, and if it's bleeding, it's bleeding resources that had already been taken. Those resources were already gone.

Seriously, you do appear to intentionally ignoring the facts. The umbellical cord continues to work after the death of the fetus, and the blood that it bleeds continues to be pulled from the mother. You can't change biology just because your argument is wrong.


I disagree. The degree is that at no point should anyone have to put up with someone (or something) using their organs to sustain themselves.

She didn't. She agreed to it, and then when she decided otherwise, she has to take reasonable measure to apply a surrogate. You keep ignoring this. The difference between her shooting this child and then getting a c-section is in the degree of injury to herself being increased. In the analogy I gave of a child still attached by the umbellical cord, the shooting or cutting the cord is also a matter of degree. According to you, in one instance it matters and in another it doesn't. If the cord is an attack as you claim, and attacks justify killing the attacker as you claim, then she could kill the child attached by the umbellical cord. You said she can't which says that the amount of force does matter, and then your argument fails.

I'm not as up on the definitions of legal terminology as I'd like, so I can concede that attack and assault are as you've defined them.
Nonetheless, should someone have to put up with someone tripping and falling on them if they don't wish it to happen? And what would this be called? Hitting? (What if they put up their knees? What if that ends up killing the person falling on them?)

She tacitly agreed to the action and then disagreed with the events once there was no alternative. As shown, she was required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the action, she was required to use the least amount of force necessary, and she was required to use lesser methods when they are available and reasonable. She doesn't qualify for self-defense by the actual definition and requirements for self-defense. Again, you seem to make no effort to deal with the facts, preferring instead to speculate wildly.

Which degree are you talking about here? Most comparisons I've seen were to an infant, which isn't relevant.

Again, you seem to be intentionally obtuse - "You seem to have a convenient ability to ignore the facts. The 'assault' of the fetus continued until after the surgery to remove it. It was taking more resources by bleeding than it ever could just by being in the womb. Her addressal of the issue was slower and took MORE effort than it would have taken to get medical attention. Again, the result was a need for the same medical attention and in addition medical attention for the wound, as well as killing the child and putting her life at severe risk. You are willing to ignore degree in one scenario and then apply it another. It doesn't help your case."

The degree here is that she increased her danger and that of the fetus, she increased the trauma, she increased damage in every way in order to prevent the fetus from vacating her womb without harm to itself and with the absolute minimal harm available to her person, including the out she actually sought. She did this to prevent the life of the child, not to prevent the pregnancy. She violated everything you need to show for self-defense, and she clearly sought to deny life more than any other factor. You have ignored the FACT that the degree of damage to her increased by her actions, but when I mention another similar scenario you claim it doesn't apply because of the degree of the solutions available.

You can't keeping trying to set up the argument so you can make wild speculations and expect me to be restricted from doing so. You can't set up the argument so the degree of the solution doesn't matter and then say that it does in my analogy. You keep shifting the rules because on an even surface, you have no argument.

And infant and fetus are just terms. There is no difference in the quality of life, the capability, the consciousness of a fetus and an infant that are equally developed. At this point, the difference is just one of location, which in a self-defense claim has no bearing.

On the one hand, I am horrified at the idea of a woman (any woman) shooting herself in the stomach. I am deeply distressed by the fact that this woman was clearly disturbed and was not receiving the help she needed.

On the other hand, if I found myself 9 months pregnant, I would shoot myself in the stomach before I'd give birth.

On the other hand, if I found myself 9 months pregnant, I would shoot myself in the stomach before I'd give birth.

Why? You'd do much, much more damage to yourself by shooting than by, say, having a C-section.

Why? You'd do much, much more damage to yourself by shooting than by, say, having a C-section.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the wisest course, just that it's probably what I'd do. I'd rather shoot myself in the stomach than be forced to give birth against my wishes.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the wisest course, just that it's probably what I'd do. I'd rather shoot myself in the stomach than be forced to give birth against my wishes.

At 9 months out, you're going to give birth one way or another if you're going to survive. Shooting yourself in the stomach just means the "birth" will be emergency surgery where they remove all of the pieces that are left.

Of course, the idea that you would "find yourself nine months pregnant," is pretty silly. A woman who reaches 5-6 months of pregnancy before knowing might just have truly missed it. Some women menstruate during pregnancy and don't gain much weight. However, after that, unless the fetus is not developing properly, denial is the only way not to know.

Of course, that doesn't say much about this case anyways. This woman wasn't unaware of her pregnancy, and if she didn't want to be pregnant, she could have ended it long before. It would seem that this woman had some very serious mental issues that weren't being dealt with for whatever reason, and *that* is what caused this.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the wisest course, just that it's probably what I'd do. I'd rather shoot myself in the stomach than be forced to give birth against my wishes.

You'd still need to either give birth or have a c-section anyway. You'd basically do yourself only harm and the fetus only harm, and it's very likely that if your newborn was healthy that it could in a permanent loving home within a month. You liekly even get your medical expenses paid for.

At 9 months out, you're going to give birth one way or another if you're going to survive. Shooting yourself in the stomach just means the birth will be emergency surgery where they remove all of the pieces that are left.

Of course, the idea that you would "find yourself nine months pregnant," is pretty silly. A woman who reaches 5-6 months of pregnancy before knowing might just have truly missed it. Some women menstruate during pregnancy and don't gain much weight. However, after that, unless the fetus is not developing properly, denial is the only way not to know.

Of course, that doesn't say much about this case anyways. This woman wasn't unaware of her pregnancy, and if she didn't want to be pregnant, she could have ended it long before. It would seem that this woman had some very serious mental issues that weren't being dealt with for whatever reason, and *that* is what caused this.

My thoughts exactly. Except I'll add that the 5-6 months thing is a pretty rare occurrance.

You'd still need to either give birth or have a c-section anyway. You'd basically do yourself only harm and the fetus only harm, and it's very likely that if your newborn was healthy that it could in a permanent loving home within a month. You liekly even get your medical expenses paid for.

That would be the rational reaction. If I, however, suddenly found myself with a foreign body living inside my own, rationality would be hard put to get a word in.

On the other hand, I don't think that would ever be likely to happen. And the woman in this case knew about the pregnancy before. I agree that she must have been under severe emotional stress, whatever that was caused by, to react in such a way.

At 9 months out, you're going to give birth one way or another if you're going to survive. Shooting yourself in the stomach just means the birth will be emergency surgery where they remove all of the pieces that are left.

I'm not "giving birth" if they remove the dismembered pieces, any more than a woman who undergoes a late-term abortion is "giving birth" during her procedure.


Of course, the idea that you would "find yourself nine months pregnant," is pretty silly. A woman who reaches 5-6 months of pregnancy before knowing might just have truly missed it. Some women menstruate during pregnancy and don't gain much weight. However, after that, unless the fetus is not developing properly, denial is the only way not to know.

Or you could be one of the millions of women around the world who is denied access to reproductive health care and access to abortion procedures. If I were 9 months pregnant, that's pretty much the only way I'd have gotten there: if I were denied the chance to abort any sooner.

So, I suppose, it's still damn unrealistic, because I'd abort the pregnancy myself long before it got to 9 months.


Of course, that doesn't say much about this case anyways. This woman wasn't unaware of her pregnancy, and if she didn't want to be pregnant, she could have ended it long before. It would seem that this woman had some very serious mental issues that weren't being dealt with for whatever reason, and *that* is what caused this.
It sounds to me a lot like the case of that woman who drowned her kids several years back. She was essentially forced to have baby after baby, despite her clear postnatal depressions, and finally had what was probably a psychotic break. Her family denied her access to psychiatric help despite a lot of serious warning signs.

A lot of women continue pregnancies they don't want. A whole lot of women fail to seek abortions even when they desperately want one. They are not absolved of responsibility for their actions (or inaction), but it is an oversimplification--in my opinion--to simply say that they could abort if they wanted to. Life isn't always that simple, sadly, particularly not in a society with the attitudes about mothering, abortion, and women that we see in much of the modern world.

I'm not "giving birth" if they remove the dismembered pieces, any more than a woman who undergoes a late-term abortion is "giving birth" during her procedure.

You'd be in sever danger from the moment you delivered the shot. A dead baby inside you creates much more danger to you and would likely be removed surgicaly in a way with not significant difference from a c-section. Then you'd, of course, have the issue the bullet and whatever damage you'd done to your reproductive organs. That they'd be able to handle it like a casual late-term abortion is highly unlikely.


Or you could be one of the millions of women around the world who is denied access to reproductive health care and access to abortion procedures. If I were 9 months pregnant, that's pretty much the only way I'd have gotten there: if I were denied the chance to abort any sooner.

So, I suppose, it's still damn unrealistic, because I'd abort the pregnancy myself long before it got to 9 months.

If she were one of these people, I'd would accept that she had been hemmed in. However, she doesn't appear to have been denied an abortion.


It sounds to me a lot like the case of that woman who drowned her kids several years back. She was essentially forced to have baby after baby, despite her clear postnatal depressions, and finally had what was probably a psychotic break. Her family denied her access to psychiatric help despite a lot of serious warning signs.

A lot of women continue pregnancies they don't want. A whole lot of women fail to seek abortions even when they desperately want one. They are not absolved of responsibility for their actions (or inaction), but it is an oversimplification--in my opinion--to simply say that they could abort if they wanted to. Life isn't always that simple, sadly, particularly not in a society with the attitudes about mothering, abortion, and women that we see in much of the modern world.


I agree with this last bit.

That would be the rational reaction. If I, however, suddenly found myself with a foreign body living inside my own, rationality would be hard put to get a word in.

On the other hand, I don't think that would ever be likely to happen. And the woman in this case knew about the pregnancy before. I agree that she must have been under severe emotional stress, whatever that was caused by, to react in such a way.


I suspect that you would actually be quite rational. You're an intelligent person who recognizes the risks and possible outcomes of sex. You wouldn't be happy about it, but I find it hard to believe that you'd A) be unaware of all of the signs that almost always accompany a pregnancy and B) be unable to bring yourself to a more tenable solution.

This reaction was the reaction of an ill person. Basically, the awareness that would allow you to see through her eyes would exactly what would prevent you from ever being behind her eyes, so to speak.

You'd be in sever danger from the moment you delivered the shot. A dead baby inside you creates much more danger to you and would likely be removed surgicaly in a way with not significant difference from a c-section. Then you'd, of course, have the issue the bullet and whatever damage you'd done to your reproductive organs. That they'd be able to handle it like a casual late-term abortion is highly unlikely.

Believe me, I'm quite aware of the medical realities. As I said, perhaps my choice would not be the "best" from another person's stand point. I'm not saying it's the most pragmatic thing to do. I'm just saying that, for me, all the dangers and harms of being shot in the stomach would still be preferable to giving birth against my wishes. That's just me.


If she were one of these people, I'd would accept that she had been hemmed in. However, she doesn't appear to have been denied an abortion.

Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply that she had been. Sorry if that was unclear. I agree that there is no evidence that she was denied an abortion.

Believe me, I'm quite aware of the medical realities. As I said, perhaps my choice would not be the "best" from another person's stand point. I'm not saying it's the most pragmatic thing to do. I'm just saying that, for me, all the dangers and harms of being shot in the stomach would still be preferable to giving birth against my wishes. That's just me.


Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply that she had been. Sorry if that was unclear. I agree that there is no evidence that she was denied an abortion.

Yes, I know. That was more for other people who might use your post as evidence of things you didn't say. I was kind of just baiting you into making it explicitly clear.

Yes, I know. That was more for other people who might use your post as evidence of things you didn't say. I was kind of just baiting you into making it explicitly clear.
Ahhhh, gotcha. Very diplomatic of you! :D

I suspect that you would actually be quite rational. You're an intelligent person who recognizes the risks and possible outcomes of sex. You wouldn't be happy about it, but I find it hard to believe that you'd A) be unaware of all of the signs that almost always accompany a pregnancy and B) be unable to bring yourself to a more tenable solution.

This reaction was the reaction of an ill person. Basically, the awareness that would allow you to see through her eyes would exactly what would prevent you from ever being behind her eyes, so to speak.

I doubt it. I suspected pregnancy for afew days a while back, and my reaction was anything but rational. If I had had access to a gun, I don't know what I would have done.

It's easy to say one would react rationally. That's what I would have said before. Being in the situation is more emotional stress than I would ever have imagined.

I doubt it. I suspected pregnancy for afew days a while back, and my reaction was anything but rational. If I had had access to a gun, I don't know what I would have done.

It's easy to say one would react rationally. That's what I would have said before. Being in the situation is more emotional stress than I would ever have imagined.

That bad, huh?

I've had one pregnancy scare, and I'll admit I was a bit irrational, but I also *knew* I was being irrational. Even after a negative home pregnancy test and then finally getting my period, albeit a little late, I still couldn't get the idea out of my mind that I was, indeed, pregnant. My great grandmother went through 9 months of pregnancy and never missed a period, so, even though I know it's rare, I can never see that as absolute proof. I had my yearly check-up a week or so later and told my doctor that, even though I knew it was silly, I just couldn't get over thinking that. So she did an official pregnancy test just to ease my mind.

Ahhhh, gotcha. Very diplomatic of you! :D

I do it more than I probably should. I recognize that people lurk a lot in these threads. Some people are just looking for uncriticized claims to support their own beliefs and it's important to me that we deny them that in situations where it worsens the current situation in the west. Thus if I read the context of what you're saying but it's not explicit and I let it go, as does everyone who would criticize your point if the context wasn't there, I look to make it more explicit why we're not criticizing the points. Despite a large amount of evidence to the contrary, the forums can be very educational if we recognize that they have that ability.

I doubt it. I suspected pregnancy for afew days a while back, and my reaction was anything but rational. If I had had access to a gun, I don't know what I would have done.

It's easy to say one would react rationally. That's what I would have said before. Being in the situation is more emotional stress than I would ever have imagined.
One of my high school teachers called an emergency parent conference when she found me researching abortion methods during study hall. When I explained that I wasn't even sexually active at the time, she was even more shocked because she found it morbid and disgusting for me to be reading up on such material "for fun" (her words). My parents, sensibly, asked me for my reasons, and I told them the truth: I find it comforting.

I know a lot of people are really bummed out about abortion. I know a lot of people have horribly negative reactions to hearing about abortion, or learning about abortion procedures, or seeing pictures of medical abortions. But I find such things rather comforting.

I like to know that I don't have to have a baby unless I want one. I like knowing ways that I can stop being pregnant if I don't want to be pregnant. I like knowing all the safe, medically-sound ways I can have my pregnancy terminated, and I like knowing all the methods people have devised that minimize pain and danger for me.

Being a sexually active female, I find that such knowledge makes me feel safer and infinitely less panicky when I'm a few days late or when I miss a Pill.

Who knows, maybe that is morbid. But there you have it.

On the one hand, I am horrified at the idea of a woman (any woman) shooting herself in the stomach. I am deeply distressed by the fact that this woman was clearly disturbed and was not receiving the help she needed.

On the other hand, if I found myself 9 months pregnant, I would shoot myself in the stomach before I'd give birth.


How would someone just "find" themselves 9 months pregnant?

What this woman did is an inexcusable act, period. The woman was certainly unbalanced mentally but anyone who looks at this case from the third person and is not horrified by what happened to both victims (crazy lady and unborn baby) has some serious ethical problems.

<snip>
Who knows, maybe that is morbid. But there you have it.
Some people seem to take the old saying "ignorance is bliss" literally. They seem to think being aware of risks and educated about options in advance is a bad thing. I don't understand such people. I've met people who don't like fire drills because thinking about being in a fire scares them. It scares me, too, which is why I like to practice ways to avoid getting trapped in one. They seem to prefer dying in a fire in the future to thinking about fire in the present.

I'm like you. I like knowing all about how pregnancy works, including all the horrible risks involved to me and the embryo/fetus, and all about what abortion entails and how contraceptives work, and all about STDs, too. Without that information, how can I make responsible, informed decisions?

Likewise, I like knowing all about cancer and stroke and fire and terrorism and all the other "Worst Case Scenario" scenarios, and what to do about them, etc. It gives me a sense of having control over my life, of being prepared so I don't have to be afraid.

How would someone just "find" themselves 9 months pregnant?

I was attempting to put myself in the same situation that this woman was in, which is the situation of being 9-months pregnant. I was seeing how I would feel in that same situation.

As for how a woman could find herself 9-months pregnant and not happy about it, well, since you ask...

Some women don't have access to contraception, yet also have a personal opposition to abortion. They are denied the ability to prevent pregnancy, but they also don't believe in aborting a pregnancy once one happens. So they experience unwanted pregnancies because they have no realistic alternative.

Some women are okay with pregnancy intially, and later decide they do not want to be pregnant.

Some women want to have an abortion, but feel that they cannot. Maybe it's illegal, or maybe it's simply unacceptable in their society/culture. Maybe they feel they will lose their family if they have an abortion. Maybe they fear that their current children will be taken from them if they have an abortion (since it will be "proof" that they are a bad mother). Maybe they are in an abusive relationship where their health is even more threatened should they choose to abort.

Some women want to want their pregnancy, but have practical considerations that become a serious issue. For instance, a woman I dealt with became (intentionally) pregnant but then chose to abort after her lover was in a horrible car accident. He was seriously injured and she felt unable to cope with pregnancy and having a baby at the same time as she was coping with his condition and trying to support him. It's not that she didn't want to be pregnant in theory, but in her situation it was a different story.

And there are countless other ways a woman could find herself 9-months pregnant without wanting to be pregnant. These are just a few examples.


What this woman did is an inexcusable act, period. The woman was certainly unbalanced mentally but anyone who looks at this case from the third person and is not horrified by what happened to both victims (crazy lady and unborn baby) has some serious ethical problems.
"Inexcusable"? Tragic, sure, just like when any person injures themselves due to profound mental distress. But to say it is unacceptable is, frankly, a Bush-like tantrum. Whether or not you "accept" this kind of thing is totally beside the point, and using that kind of language makes the issue more about assigning blame than about addressing the root problems that caused the situation in the first place. Don't waste your time.

I was attempting to put myself in the same situation that this woman was in, which is the situation of being 9-months pregnant. I was seeing how I would feel in that same situation.

As for how a woman could find herself 9-months pregnant and not happy about it, well, since you ask...

Some women don't have access to contraception, yet also have a personal opposition to abortion. They are denied the ability to prevent pregnancy, but they also don't believe in aborting a pregnancy once one happens. So they experience unwanted pregnancies because they have no realistic alternative.

Some women are okay with pregnancy intially, and later decide they do not want to be pregnant.

Some women want to have an abortion, but feel that they cannot. Maybe it's illegal, or maybe it's simply unacceptable in their society/culture. Maybe they feel they will lose their family if they have an abortion. Maybe they fear that their current children will be taken from them if they have an abortion (since it will be "proof" that they are a bad mother). Maybe they are in an abusive relationship where their health is even more threatened should they choose to abort.

Some women want to want their pregnancy, but have practical considerations that become a serious issue. For instance, a woman I dealt with became (intentionally) pregnant but then chose to abort after her lover was in a horrible car accident. He was seriously injured and she felt unable to cope with pregnancy and having a baby at the same time as she was coping with his condition and trying to support him. It's not that she didn't want to be pregnant in theory, but in her situation it was a different story.

And there are countless other ways a woman could find herself 9-months pregnant without wanting to be pregnant. These are just a few examples.


"Inexcusable"? Tragic, sure, just like when any person injures themselves due to profound mental distress. But to say it is unacceptable is, frankly, a Bush-like tantrum. Whether or not you "accept" this kind of thing is totally beside the point, and using that kind of language makes the issue more about assigning blame than about addressing the root problems that caused the situation in the first place. Don't waste your time.

Killing a baby in the 9th month of Pregnancy is unacceptable and disgusting. Call it a "Bush-like tantrum" if you want but I am thinking of the child which was literally days away from the due date according to this specific case. I don't give a damn about Bush, but the child here.

If a mothers life is threatened during the later terms, then she has a tough choice to make, but what happened here was unacceptable. She should rot in jail, and frequent psychiatric evaluations.

and you should be able to make up your mind whether you want the child or not before the 9th month hits.

"Did I just hear a gunshot? Oh, my goodness, I'm bleeding." I know that, man. But we're not about shooting and all that, we are about whether people can kill someone they don't like. And the fact is they can. No law can make it impossible for them. But it doesn't mean they don't risk to have the victim defending (if they don't do it proper) or police after them.


Prior to the third trimester an abortion only needs to remove the fetus and it will not survive. In the third trimester, you actually have to kill it, because it is viable. That's not a small difference.
That is a small difference. It's pretty much like a man walking on a rope bridge. When he is in the middle, you need to just cut the bridge and he will not survive without it. When he's at the other end, you need to actually kill him.
But it is the same murder.

It's the same murder even if the bridge is yours and the man stepped on it without your consent.

No law or reasonable morale will make significant difference between you cutting the ropes and just killing the man after he went off the bridge.

If a man lies in a hospital with machinery supporting his life, and he can't survive on his own, cutting off that equipment would still be a murder.

It does not matter whether the fetus can survive on its own.


I can't figure out if you're a troll who is A) pretending to be what you think pro-choice is so you can make fun of the arguments or B) trying to piss people off or C) both, or if you really believe this tripe
All of A, B, C and D.
I just don't have imaginary ethics about rights of unborn installed, so it's all the same to me.
And there are reasons to not have these ethics. We are approaching the cloning tech, which can give real advantages. Real, seen and felt. Imaginary things like projection of full human rights on fetuses should not stand in the way.

Killing a baby in the 9th month of Pregnancy is unacceptable and disgusting. Call it a "Bush-like tantrum" if you want

Okay. :D


but I am thinking of the child which was literally days away from the due date according to this specific case. I don't give a damn about Bush, but the child here.

Then you will, surely, put the goal of protecting "children" ahead of your own personal emotiveness, right? You will be willing to do what is best to achieve the healthiest and safest result for all, right?

Your choice of approach is simply not helpful. It will not save a single child's life for you to stamp your foot and talk about how "unacceptable" this sort of thing is. Even when abortions were all completely illegal, women still killed themselves and aborted late-term pregnancies in all sorts of horrible ways. If you actually want to "save babies" then focus on achieving that end, instead of worrying about telling people which of their actions you accept and which you do not.


If a mothers life is threatened during the later terms, then she has a tough choice to make, but what happened here was unacceptable. She should rot in jail, and frequent psychiatric evaluations.

I'm not entirely sure why she should be jailed, considering that she did not break the law.


and you should be able to make up your mind whether you want the child or not before the 9th month hits.
I already presented several examples of cases where a woman's mind might change DURING pregnancy.

See, a woman doesn't vanish when she becomes pregnant. She's still there. She still is a human person, with feelings and thoughts and a life of her own. Things sometimes happen to human persons over the course of, say, 9 months. Sometimes human people feel different things one month than they did the month before. Sometimes a human person's life, or mental state, can radically change over a relatively short period of time.

I can't possibly know what this woman was really thinking or feeling. But I know that a lot of people's reactions to this thread have grossly oversimplified the entire subject to a point where there's really no meaningful discussion going on. It's just "punish the bitch" repeated in slightly different terms. That won't fix anything, and it sure as fuck won't protect the life of one single child.

I doubt it. I suspected pregnancy for afew days a while back, and my reaction was anything but rational. If I had had access to a gun, I don't know what I would have done.

It's easy to say one would react rationally. That's what I would have said before. Being in the situation is more emotional stress than I would ever have imagined.

However, you didn't get access to the gun or do anything that you couldn't go back on and you've learned from that experience. Everyone is irrational at times, but something in you prevented you from making a mistake you could never take back. I don't know you that well and perhaps you're right, but my experience suggests that people who are this dangerous don't know it.

Killing a baby in the 9th month of Pregnancy is unacceptable and disgusting. Call it a "Bush-like tantrum" if you want but I am thinking of the child which was literally days away from the due date according to this specific case. I don't give a damn about Bush, but the child here.

If a mothers life is threatened during the later terms, then she has a tough choice to make, but what happened here was unacceptable. She should rot in jail, and frequent psychiatric evaluations.

and you should be able to make up your mind whether you want the child or not before the 9th month hits.

This mother's life was threatened. She was clearly and obviously mentally ill. You're hyperbolous reaction doesn't deal with the problem in any real way instead preferring to cry about afterwards and pretend as if a bunch of emotive words will make anyone feel better. You offer no solutions, no understanding of the problem, not information that benefits anyone but instead as is so common in your posts you seek to assign blame and punishment after the fact. This is the problem of extremists of every ilk. If you want to make the world better, this isn't it. It's not even close to it. Take a breath and pretend like we're having a discussion on an internet board where you have the ability to change the minds of people that may actually today or some day in the future have the opportunity to actually put your thoughts into action. The absusrd behavior you're displaying now helps no one and hurts many.

This mother's life was threatened. She was clearly and obviously mentally ill. You're hyperbolous reaction doesn't deal with the problem in any real way instead preferring to cry about afterwards and pretend as if a bunch of emotive words will make anyone feel better. You offer no solutions, no understanding of the problem, not information that benefits anyone but instead as is so common in your posts you seek to assign blame and punishment after the fact. This is the problem of extremists of every ilk. If you want to make the world better, this isn't it. It's not even close to it. Take a breath and pretend like we're having a discussion on an internet board where you have the ability to change the minds of people that may actually today or some day in the future have the opportunity to actually put your thoughts into action. The absusrd behavior you're displaying now helps no one and hurts many.
Exactly.

I wish, just once in a while, the breathless "pro-lifers" would just ask themselves one simple question:

Is what I am saying/doing right now going to help anything at all?

Very often, the answer is that no, it won't help, and it will actually get in the way quite a lot.

Does anybody really think that this woman would have not shot herself if only somebody would have told her that it was "unacceptable" for her to do so? Does anybody think that there are women who are considering shooting themselves in the stomach who will suddenly change their minds simply because they hear that it's "unacceptable" to do this? Do you really think that threatening women with jail for this sort of thing will actually prevent somebody from doing this, if they were already at a point where they were seriously considering it? Do you think that a woman who is that desperate is going to be better off if she's got yet another person telling her about how "unacceptable" her feelings are?

If you find yourself answering "yes" to any of the above, I've got a time-share proposition I'd like to run by you...;)

I know that, man. But we're not about shooting and all that, we are about whether people can kill someone they don't like. And the fact is they can. No law can make it impossible for them. But it doesn't mean they don't risk to have the victim defending (if they don't do it proper) or police after them.

Nice attempt to change the point. You are claiming that it should be legal which isn't about whether they are capable of doing it. This sort of avoidance simply makes you look silly and harms your argument.


That is a small difference. It's pretty much like a man walking on a rope bridge. When he is in the middle, you need to just cut the bridge and he will not survive without it. When he's at the other end, you need to actually kill him.
But it is the same murder.

It's the same murder even if the bridge is yours and the man stepped on it without your consent.

No law or reasonable morale will make significant difference between you cutting the ropes and just killing the man after he went off the bridge.

If a man lies in a hospital with machinery supporting his life, and he can't survive on his own, cutting off that equipment would still be a murder.

It does not matter whether the fetus can survive on its own.

Ridiculous and completely unattached to reality. It does matter that the fetus can survive on its own. See, if the infant is on its own then the only rights to consider are those of the infant. If it cannot then the rights of the woman are clearly involved. And if the infant has no consciousness at all, then there is no human to consider.

And by the way, you're wrong. It wouldn't be murder. You need to open a book once in a while instead of making up nonsensical scenarios that deny biology and the basic definition of words. Murder requires the act to be illegal.

And the man in the hospital bed either has a consciousness or doesn't. If he doesn't, then I can't kill any more than I can kill my thumb. And in your bridge scenario you pretty much have to ignore the fact that were it to have anything to do with actual pregnancy, he wouldn't actually become a man until right about the time he stepped off the bridge.


All of A, B, C and D.
I just don't have imaginary ethics about rights of unborn installed, so it's all the same to me.
And there are reasons to not have these ethics. We are approaching the cloning tech, which can give real advantages. Real, seen and felt. Imaginary things like projection of full human rights on fetuses should not stand in the way.

Again, it would be nice if you opened a book once in a while. By definition they can't all be the same and your ability to make a cogent statement seems to be failing you.

Exactly.

I wish, just once in a while, the breathless "pro-lifers" would just ask themselves one simple question:

Is what I am saying/doing right now going to help anything at all?

Very often, the answer is that no, it won't help, and it will actually get in the way quite a lot.

Does anybody really think that this woman would have not shot herself if only somebody would have told her that it was "unacceptable" for her to do so? Does anybody think that there are women who are considering shooting themselves in the stomach who will suddenly change their minds simply because they hear that it's "unacceptable" to do this? Do you really think that threatening women with jail for this sort of thing will actually prevent somebody from doing this, if they were already at a point where they were seriously considering it? Do you think that a woman who is that desperate is going to be better off if she's got yet another person telling her about how "unacceptable" her feelings are?

If you find yourself answering "yes" to any of the above, I've got a time-share proposition I'd like to run by you...;)

What makes his outrage so much more bankrupt is this is the same person that tows the company line on pretty much any issue no matter how contradictary those positions are. I'm 'pro-life' as long as you have the right color skin. If it's brown here's the pointy end of this very fast moving bullet. And you must have babies, but once they're born I could care less if they starve to death because of unfair business practices that stole your parents jobs and pensions. People are so caught up in trying to prove one party or another is right or to just present a morally-perfect persona that they forget to stop and think about how you can't fit all of these things together. I mean if we're going to start ranting, why don't we start there?

How about a 'Christian' President that advocates torture? Or the President before that was so liberal that he allowed gays to be as gay as they like provided they never let anyone know about it? Or a congress full of criminals who are 'tough on crime'?

Come on, Big D, why don't you explain to us how you're so concerned with poor innocent people while you're willing to punish people for where they come from and the religion they were born into regardless of whether or not they are responsible for the position they're in? Let's hear all about what's 'unacceptable' and your moral outrage that only extends as far as other people and makes NO REQUIREMENT for you to alter YOUR behavior.

EDIT: By the way, Bottle, you and I don't agree a lot of the time, but I thought your statement in reply to him was very eloquent.

What makes his outrage so much more bankrupt is this is the same person that tows the company line on pretty much any issue no matter how contradictary those positions are. I'm 'pro-life' as long as you have the right color skin. If it's brown here's the pointy end of this very fast moving bullet. And you must have babies, but once they're born I could care less if they starve to death because of unfair business practices that stole your parents jobs and pensions. People are so caught up in trying to prove one party or another is right or to just present a morally-perfect persona that they forget to stop and think about how you can't fit all of these things together. I mean if we're going to start ranting, why don't we start there?

You are making the mistake of confusing pro-life ideals with heartless capitalism/racism. Traditional Catholics (at least in Ireland) are an example of people who usually support both strong welfare and a caring society and who oppose abortion.

You are making the mistake of confusing pro-life ideals with heartless capitalism/racism. Traditional Catholics (at least in Ireland) are an example of people who usually support both strong welfare and a caring society and who oppose abortion.

I'm talking about a specific poster or didn't you notice? I was talking about his expressed views. If you can show that Big D is espousing things like equal rights and equality of opportunity feel free to provide a link. I happen to know better.

This is just said. Now you're quite happy to lie.


And you are now using ad hominem attacks as well as alleging that you can determine whether or not I am "quite happy" If indeed you have ESP you might want to have it recalibrated as I am never happy to lie.If not you are making things up.



The two-way street comment was not the one I responded that you'd used an ad hominem. You're allowed to be wrong A LOT, but please don't be dishonest.

Proof:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11839826&postcount=107

Even your claim about not having a shred of evidence lie is just that, I pointed out the lexical definition of the term and why the term can really only be applied by conservative.


That is not evidence it is opinion. In no wise did you show what you keep claiming to show. You claim that since one particular descrioption of activist judge states that an activist judge will add rights then conservatives are by definition against them. Let's examine that. What would be the general feeling by the conservatives and liberals if a judge determined that the second amendment was indeed a right of individuals and granted the right of any citizen to keep and bear any arm she wished to? Would those liberals against this expansion of rights suddenly be conservatives? Would those conservatives who were for this expansion of rights suddenly by definition be liberals? Or would conservatives still be conservatives while liberals still would remain liberals. I suggest that what needs to change is your definition of what seperates liberals and conservatives if one decision about rights from one judge would put most liberals and a great many conservatives into the opposing camp by definition



Amusing. The 'partisan semantics' were the point. It was what you originally replied to. Your observation was in the first post, the second post was an attack on me. How sad that you try to pretend that post doesn't exist. Lying really has no place in a debate where you can be quoted say other than you claim.

You are sure paying much lip service against ad hominem attacks (arguments really but I am willing to use the more-emotionally-charged "attacks" so long as you are)while adhereing to their use yourself. As there are no rules against their light to moderate use here, and you personally use them, I'd be foolishly moralistic or in search of real meaningful debate with you to deny myself the use of ad hominems while exchanging ideas with you.



Amusing. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that ad hominems are bad. I didn't realize that ad hominems being bad was a topic for debate. I would think that fallacies are bad in debate is a given. Particularly when you get caught. Honestly, this is just sad. First you ask me to prove you've used an ad hominem and when I do, now you act as if I have to prove that FALLACIES are 'bad'. Anything to be contrary, huh?


The question is not so much whether fallacies are bad as whether we each use them. Id say it is evident that we do. You seem to be above admitting it.

Meanwhile your argument that you didn't use an ad hominem is now based on referring to another post that didn't contain the ad hominem. Do you think my memory is so short? This is perhaps the most transparent attempt yet.

What part of "the concept of Activist judge can and has been used by both conservatives and liberals" is not an argument?

Again, you lie. Terribly sad. That quote is not from the post I called an ad hominem. Are you completely disinterested in debate? In fact, you pretend to quote yourself saying something you didn't say. The closest you said to this was in an earlier post to which I replied without ANY reference to an ad hominem. I replied to your point when you made the comment and even in my reply to your ad hominem comment I pointed out that while there are issues on both sides of the aisle this topic does not touch on that issue nor does the term "judicial activist".

Changing the argument and then arguing against is another fallacy. Do you recognize it? Show me where I said disagreeing with judges only occurs on one side (as you've said I did). Show me where I even suggested such a thing. I was referring to the particular term and said so. And the original poster was referring to this exact incident and the related hypocrisy. No one ever said that a similar phenomena doesn't occur in the other direction or even hinted at it. But, hey, keep making crap up and I'll keep making you look silly, deal?

It's a deal.

Well it is a common argument put forward by pro-choice people, that pro-lifers are cold-hearted Friedmanites and therefore hypocrites in regard to their concern for human life.

Nice attempt to change the point. You are claiming that it should be legal which isn't about whether they are capable of doing it.
Legal? No. Let's not forget that can doesn't imply legality.

Again, it would be nice if you opened a book once in a while. By definition they can't all be the same and your ability to make a cogent statement seems to be failing you.
If you would like to look like making excellent arguments straight to the point, discussing the opposing arguments rather that the opponent might be a good idea.


Ridiculous and completely unattached to reality. It does matter that the fetus can survive on its own. See, if the infant is on its own then the only rights to consider are those of the infant. If it cannot then the rights of the woman are clearly involved. And if the infant has no consciousness at all, then there is no human to consider.
The problem is that the borderline is entirely arbitrary. You say six months. Someone else says one month. Someone else can say two years post birth.

The definition of being capable to survive on its own is as well somewhat arbitrary. After six months the fetus can only survive in hospital. In some cultures one would be considered able to survive on his own when he can get food for himself.


And by the way, you're wrong. It wouldn't be murder. You need to open a book once in a while instead of making up nonsensical scenarios that deny biology and the basic definition of words. Murder requires the act to be illegal.
So? Cutting the ropes of a bridge when you know someone is walking on it would be illegal. It would be a murder.

And the man in the hospital bed either has a consciousness or doesn't. If he doesn't, then I can't kill any more than I can kill my thumb.
How do you know when the fetus achieves consciousness? There is no even clear definition of consciousness, yet you consider yourself appropriate to judge which fetus may be killed and which not.

And in your bridge scenario you pretty much have to ignore the fact that were it to have anything to do with actual pregnancy, he wouldn't actually become a man until right about the time he stepped off the bridge.
It all depends on the definition on man. Well, in some culture one might become a man after he crosses The Bridge. In some other he becomes a man after Bar Mizvah. In another one becomes a man after he has planted a tree, built a house and raised a son.

The same thing with early development of a human. The time to grant human rights and protection is selected entirely arbitrary. For some cultures one needs to become an adult to have any rights. The current arbitrary line, the moment of birth, is actually quite generous.

But, as mentioned above, it depends on the culture.

Well it is a common argument put forward by pro-choice people, that pro-lifers are cold-hearted Friedmanites and therefore hypocrites in regard to their concern for human life.

And it is a common argument on the other side that those who are pro-choice are evil, murderous, heartless people who have had 10 abortions and would murder infants if given the chance.

There are ridiculous claims made on either side of any given debate, but you really shouldn't go looking for them where they do not exist.

It's a deal.

And you are now using ad hominem attacks as well as alleging that you can determine whether or not I am "quite happy" If indeed you have ESP you might want to have it recalibrated as I am never happy to lie.If not you are making things up.

...

You are sure paying much lip service against ad hominem attacks (arguments really but I am willing to use the more-emotionally-charged "attacks" so long as you are)while adhereing to their use yourself. As there are no rules against their light to moderate use here, and you personally use them, I'd be foolishly moralistic or in search of real meaningful debate with you to deny myself the use of ad hominems while exchanging ideas with you.



Please don't use words unless you know what they mean. Ad hominem means in latter "to the person". I called your statement a lie. That's addressing the statement. The rest of that statement was color commentary and it's unfortunate that you can't tell the different. But you did lie. You lied about what you said, quoting yourself saying something you never said. You lied about what my replies were and what they were in reply to. Now maybe you were just wrong, but that would require you to not remember anything you've said.

Calling a false statement a lie is addressing the argument. Ad hominems would require me to call you a liar (which would be a generalized statement about you) or otherwise attack you in some way and not your argument. Again, please learn the difference.

That is not evidence it is opinion. In no wise did you show what you keep claiming to show.
...

My reply was an opinion. That I replied and what I said is not. Claiming I said something I didn't say or that my reply came in response to something it didn't come in response to is a lie.

Seriously, this is just the saddest excuse for debate I've seen from you,
which is saying a lot.

Let's play this game again since you keep ignoring what I'm actually replying to and pretending I've said something I didn't.

You: No, in point of fact "activist judge" as a concept is indeed a two way street used by both liberals and conservatives against the other side. I tried to point this out and you decided without a shred of evidence that this was not only wrong but an ad hominem attack upon yourself.

Me: The two-way street comment was not the one I responded that you'd used an ad hominem. You're allowed to be wrong A LOT, but please don't be dishonest.

Proof:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=107

Now, I recognize that you're struggling with the obviousness of this, but it is a fact that my accusation of an ad hominem was NOT in reply to what you claimed it was in reply to. To say it was otherwise is not an opinion, it's simply and provably false. The rest of your claims don't address what I said in any fashion because what I gave proof for was clearly the falsness of your claim that I accused you of ad hominem in reply to a non-attack.

The question is not so much whether fallacies are bad as whether we each use them. Id say it is evident that we do. You seem to be above admitting it.
When 'we' use them they are, by definition, bad logic. You want me not to point out the bad logic in your arguments? That's your newest argument. That you don't want me to comment on your bad logic in a debate? I'm sure you'd prefer it if I didn't notice or didn't comment because some might not notice that your arguments are fallacious, but it's much more fun to point out exactly how your arguments are fallacious. You're welcome.

By the way, keep trying to point out my flaws. It's especially fun when don't know what the fallacies you're pointing to mean.

You've not shown that she believed her life was in danger or that she was protecting it by shooting the fetus. You've offered not one piece of evidence. In fact, you've already admitted this was likely to be more about preventing the child from coming into the world than about ending the pregnancy. Meanwhile, you’re explanation of self-defense is simplistic and not rooted in reality. A self-defense defense is very hard to prove for a reason. Of course it's more likely to be about ending the pregnancy, but pregnancy is in and of itself stressful to a pregnant woman, and can be lethal. All someone in that situation needs to say is that they believed their life was in danger.

But not nearly as much as a bullet will before the fetus leaves her in exactly the same way only with more complications. She didn't prevent anything except the life of the child, which was pretty clearly the point. Meanwhile, insurance isn't the issue because many insurance companies have clauses that make it so it won't cover you for intentionally injuring yourself. If you're going to speculate, you're going to have to accept that any speculation you might give is equally availabe to me.If she's getting emergency care, they have to take her then. They can't deny it to her for lack of insurance, the way they could deny someone an elective c-section.

As far as you speculating goes, I don't have a problem with you speculating. I did disagree with the analogies used because they didn't fit the same criteria that I was arguing against.

You're accusing the fetus. For lethal self-defense there has to be several key factors.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm
...
However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
...
First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack;
...
For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony,

But, hey, keeping an analogy that sucks if you like. However, it's very clearly destroying your argument from the inside out.Define "probable means". I've already asked you what a reasonable amount of time is for someone to withstand someone or something hitting them before using lethal force.

Seriously, you do appear to intentionally ignoring the facts. The umbellical cord continues to work after the death of the fetus, and the blood that it bleeds continues to be pulled from the mother. You can't change biology just because your argument is wrong.Even after the cord is severed?

She didn't. She agreed to it, and then when she decided otherwise, she has to take reasonable measure to apply a surrogate. You keep ignoring this. The difference between her shooting this child and then getting a c-section is in the degree of injury to herself being increased. In the analogy I gave of a child still attached by the umbellical cord, the shooting or cutting the cord is also a matter of degree. According to you, in one instance it matters and in another it doesn't. If the cord is an attack as you claim, and attacks justify killing the attacker as you claim, then she could kill the child attached by the umbellical cord. You said she can't which says that the amount of force does matter, and then your argument fails.The amount of force, in this instance is irrelevant. The amount of time needed to stop the incidence of occurring matters. Since cutting the umbilical cord in the instance you gave would take less time than loading up a gun, it is unreasonable to say that to shoot the baby is acceptable. In this instance it would be an unreasonable use of force.
However, in the instance of this woman, birthing the fetus or getting a c-section would take hours or days longer.

She tacitly agreed to the action and then disagreed with the events once there was no alternative. As shown, she was required to make reasonable efforts to prevent the action, she was required to use the least amount of force necessary, and she was required to use lesser methods when they are available and reasonable. She doesn't qualify for self-defense by the actual definition and requirements for self-defense. Again, you seem to make no effort to deal with the facts, preferring instead to speculate wildly.Shooting the fetus is the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack. Birthing the fetus or having a c-section isn't available at that moment.

And infant and fetus are just terms. There is no difference in the quality of life, the capability, the consciousness of a fetus and an infant that are equally developed. At this point, the difference is just one of location, which in a self-defense claim has no bearing.How does the location not have any bearing? A fetus is inside the body. An infant is not. It's reasonable to want to defend yourself from something that's inside the body.

How does the location not have any bearing? A fetus is inside the body. An infant is not. It's reasonable to want to defend yourself from something that's inside the body.
It's very typical of the anti-choicers to decide that the "location" is irrelevant. It's only a woman, after all.

Look, it's really damn simple: I have the right to control when my own body participates in reproduction. As I am female, this means I have the right to choose when I have sex and with whom, what form of contraception I use (if any), and, should pregnancy occur, for how long my body participates in pregnancy.

Male human beings already have this right fully recognized. They are permitted to control their bodies' participation in reproduction throughout the full extent of their involvement.

Because we live in a sexist world, women do not have this right fully recognized. For most of human history, women have been denied the right to choose when they have sex and with whom, what form of contraception they use (if any), and how their bodies participate in pregnancy.

We've made some great strides in fixing the first two, at least in the more fortunate corners of the world, but the last one still seems to baffle a lot of people. Perhaps because they continue to insist that the "location" isn't important.

Hint: it's not a "location." It's a person.

A person who forces me to participate in the first step of the reproductive process is called a "rapist." I see no reason why I should use any other term to describe a person who forces me to participate in pregnancy. It's the exact same mentality, one that says that somebody else is entitled to use my body against my wishes.

/snipYes, I agree. I especially liked the last paragraph, I think I might have to start using the word 'rapist' to define forcing a woman along any stage of her pregnancy. :)

Edit: I think I'll sig that paragraph.

Of course it's more likely to be about ending the pregnancy, but pregnancy is in and of itself stressful to a pregnant woman, and can be lethal. All someone in that situation needs to say is that they believed their life was in danger.

If she's getting emergency care, they have to take her then. They can't deny it to her for lack of insurance, the way they could deny someone an elective c-section.

As far as you speculating goes, I don't have a problem with you speculating. I did disagree with the analogies used because they didn't fit the same criteria that I was arguing against.

Define "probable means". I've already asked you what a reasonable amount of time is for someone to withstand someone or something hitting them before using lethal force.

Even after the cord is severed?

The amount of force, in this instance is irrelevant. The amount of time needed to stop the incidence of occurring matters. Since cutting the umbilical cord in the instance you gave would take less time than loading up a gun, it is unreasonable to say that to shoot the baby is acceptable. In this instance it would be an unreasonable use of force.
However, in the instance of this woman, birthing the fetus or getting a c-section would take hours or days longer.

Shooting the fetus is the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack. Birthing the fetus or having a c-section isn't available at that moment.

How does the location not have any bearing? A fetus is inside the body. An infant is not. It's reasonable to want to defend yourself from something that's inside the body.

I see, so your point is that despite the definition of self-defense not fitting in ANY way in this instance it was self-defense because you say it was. Okey-dokey. That is why your argument fails. Self-defense requires that your actions be to safeguard your life and that you use the least applicable force to safeguard your life. She did not do so. She created a larger danger to her life than existed before and used way more force than was necessary to address the situation, instead choosing an amount of force that exasperated the situation. This was equivalent to dealing with a thief by using a bomb. She greatly increased the danger to everyone involved with the fairly obvious intent of killing the person you try to call an attacker in order to prevent them from leaving.

She didn't stop the 'attack'. At all. After the gunshot, the attack continued just as long as it took to complete the surgery to remove the fetus. The surgery that could have been used to remove the fetus without the gunshot and would have been less traumatic to the mother without the gunshot. I realize you don't like my speculation. Because it points out that you have no idea what you're arguing or could have happened. Your claims rely on wild speculations with no bearing in reality.

About severing the cord, what you don't get is the immediacy of the solution doesn't matter when you invite someone in, you're not allowed to go, "get out... not fast enough *BANG*" In the case of most abortions, the mother is getting her first chance and doing something about the situation. In this case, this mother was aware of the pregnancy and her due date. She flipped out about having a living child so she killed it. There was no self-defense. The only immediate need she had was to do this before the state considered it murder. It had nothing to do with protecting her from harm. It was about denying the child life.

It's very typical of the anti-choicers to decide that the "location" is irrelevant. It's only a woman, after all.

Look, it's really damn simple: I have the right to control when my own body participates in reproduction. As I am female, this means I have the right to choose when I have sex and with whom, what form of contraception I use (if any), and, should pregnancy occur, for how long my body participates in pregnancy.

Male human beings already have this right fully recognized. They are permitted to control their bodies' participation in reproduction throughout the full extent of their involvement.

Because we live in a sexist world, women do not have this right fully recognized. For most of human history, women have been denied the right to choose when they have sex and with whom, what form of contraception they use (if any), and how their bodies participate in pregnancy.

We've made some great strides in fixing the first two, at least in the more fortunate corners of the world, but the last one still seems to baffle a lot of people. Perhaps because they continue to insist that the "location" isn't important.

Hint: it's not a "location." It's a person.

A person who forces me to participate in the first step of the reproductive process is called a "rapist." I see no reason why I should use any other term to describe a person who forces me to participate in pregnancy. It's the exact same mentality, one that says that somebody else is entitled to use my body against my wishes.

I agree with what you've said but this wasn't about ending her participation in pregnancy. The location comment is because he tried to make a silly comparison to self-defense, except the very different scenario here is that she tacitly okayed the pregnancy. Not a chance of pregnancy that anti-choicers argue, but explicitly knew that she was pregnancy and chose not to take action until the birth of the child was imminent. Then when she realized the child was viable and would soon be running around the world she took steps to end that viability. In this case, had she wished to end the pregnancy she had options for doing so that were less traumatic to her and the child. Were this self-defense, then the least amount of force available is required. In this case, the least amount of force was not a pistol.

I'm now pro-abortion because I realized the fact that most abortions are democrats aborting their future voters.

I'm now pro-abortion because I realized the fact that most abortions are democrats aborting their future voters.

What horrible reasoning … There are tons of legitimate reasons to be pro CHOICE from health to freedoms and you choose THAT as a reason?

Even if it is jokingly what kind of sick fuck wishes for this sort of thing based on the potential political standings of the parent and or child?

What horrible reasoning … There are tons of legitimate reasons to be pro CHOICE from health to freedoms and you choose THAT as a reason?

Even if it is jokingly what kind of sick fuck wishes for this sort of thing based on the potential political standings of the parent and or child?

Sarcasm must not be one of your talents. I get attacked for using teal and when I don't people don't get sarcasm. Good grief.

Sarcasm must not be one of your talents. I get attacked for using teal and when I don't people don't get sarcasm. Good grief.

Hence the even jokingly part of my comment, I enjoy sarcasm when it is done in a situation or a way it is humorous.

I'm now pro-abortion because I realized the fact that most abortions are democrats aborting their future voters.
Lol, that only works if you assume that political affiliation is set at birth!

Think of it from the perspective of an 18-year-old voter:

Democrats = "Your body is your own. You can have sex using contraception, and if it fails you can have an abortion. Sex doesn't have to mean pregnancy, disease, or teenage marriage."

Republicans = "Never ever have sex. It's bad. Well, you can have sex, but ONLY when you're married, and ONLY if it makes babies, and ONLY if you don't enjoy it too much or do anything kinky. Oh, and no masturbation or pictures of boobies."

;)

Lol, that only works if you assume that political affiliation is set at birth!

Think of it from the perspective of an 18-year-old voter:

Democrats = "Your body is your own. You can have sex using contraception, and if it fails you can have an abortion. Sex doesn't have to mean pregnancy, disease, or teenage marriage."

Republicans = "Never ever have sex. It's bad. Well, you can have sex, but ONLY when you're married, and ONLY if it makes babies, and ONLY if you don't enjoy it too much or do anything kinky. Oh, and no masturbation or pictures of boobies."

;)
You forgot "and boobies are for sex not for gross stuff like feeding babies. Therefore they must be hidden at all times or else we'll start humping the air."

You forgot "and boobies are for sex not for gross stuff like feeding babies. Therefore they must be hidden at all times or else we'll start humping the air."



Boobies are nice I like them more than pie .

Boobies are nice I like them more than pie .

Maybe it's a London thing... but, where I come from, 'pie' is a euphemism... and arguably far superior to mere 'boobies'.

Maybe it's a London thing... but, where I come from, 'pie' is a euphemism... and arguably far superior to mere 'boobies'.
Ok, this is a bit of a side-track, but here's something that makes me sad:

Boobies get a lot of attention, but the male chest doesn't get nearly as much as it deserves. The male nipple can be a thing of joy, and the male torso a delight.

Yes, I confess, I really just want more nude manflesh to oggle. But is that so wrong?!

Ok, this is a bit of a side-track, but here's something that makes me sad:

Boobies get a lot of attention, but the male chest doesn't get nearly as much as it deserves. The male nipple can be a thing of joy, and the male torso a delight.

Yes, I confess, I really just want more nude manflesh to oggle. But is that so wrong?!

according to the pannel, looking at boobies ten minuits a day, increases your life span for 4-5 years.

What horrible reasoning … There are tons of legitimate reasons to be pro CHOICE from health to freedoms and you choose THAT as a reason?


the funny thing is that, pro-lifers say the same thing, its about health and freedom. i accept the health part cause a doctor said so aswell as somebody i talked to who had one. apartly her body was fucked afterwards and she was very depressed about it and tried to kill herself.

Ok, this is a bit of a side-track, but here's something that makes me sad:

Boobies get a lot of attention, but the male chest doesn't get nearly as much as it deserves. The male nipple can be a thing of joy, and the male torso a delight.

Yes, I confess, I really just want more nude manflesh to oggle. But is that so wrong?!

Yes, very wrong. Which is, of course, what makes it so much fun.

Maybe it's because mannipples are more ticklish than girlnipples, so must be protected at any cost?