Something different

How is this any different than an abortion?

http://kdvr.com/2013/09/10/man-pleads-g ... tion-pill/

Discuss?

gmule wrote: How is this any different than an abortion?

This is an easy one. Because it wasn't the WOMANS CHOICE


I know what youre thinking

"Well, if they can kill their babies then why can't we kill their babies too!"

#idiot

Vice Lord wrote:

gmule wrote: How is this any different than an abortion?

This is an easy one. Because it wasn't the WOMANS CHOICE


I know what youre thinking

"Well, if they can kill their babies then why can't we kill their babies too!"

#idiot

I figured that you would reply with something like this. I was hoping for an intelligent discussion.

Two Words: It's a WOMANS CHOICE


Period. Paragraph

That's actually 4 words, not two - five if you count all the words represented by the contraction.

So what are we to take away from this? That human life in the womb is sometimes a human being and other times it isn't? That when one person acts to terminate that life it is murder yet when another makes that same decision it isn't? That one single person gets to decide who is a human being and who isn't? That violates the very notion of all being created equal and endowed with the same rights, doesn't it?

Either human life in the womb is in possession of its inalienable rights or it is not, it can't have those rights some times but not others. Her boyfriend wasn't convicted of assaulting her, he was convicted of murdering another human being, the human being that resided within her womb.

This isn't about any perceived "right to choose", nor has it ever been about that. What this is about is whether or not human life which is still in the womb is endowed with the same right to life that human life outside of the womb is endowed with. Clearly it is under federal law because this man was convicted of murdering another human being. So is the federal law he was convicted of violating unconstitutional or does human life in the womb have an inalienable right to life?

If the man can be charged with murder, then isn't that some type of discrimination? The woman takes that pill to kill the baby and it's ok... the man gives that baby the same fate and it's murder.

Should a woman who shoots her own dog get a different punishment than if her boyfriend did it?

I think the woman should be able to sue the boyfriend for taking away her "choice", but if it's only a choice and not a living sacred human life, then the man shouldn't be charged with murder.

Exactly Rick. Murder is a homicide committed in the absence of any justification or excuse. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another human being. If the life that was destroyed isn't that of a human being, then there is no homicide, which means there can be no murder. Words, especially when used in a legal context, have very specific meanings which are not fungible to mean whatever a person decides they mean.

And so I ask again. Is the law that the boyfriend pleaded guilty to violating unconstitutional or is it a self evident truth that we are endowed with our inalienable rights upon our creation?

Vice Lord wrote:

gmule wrote: How is this any different than an abortion?

This is an easy one. Because it wasn't the WOMANS CHOICE


I know what youre thinking

"Well, if they can kill their babies then why can't we kill their babies too!"

#idiot

Hey VL, often before the last word of the post there is a pound sign, you may want to abort that.

Rick wrote: If the man can be charged with murder, then isn't that some type of discrimination? The woman takes that pill to kill the baby and it's ok... the man gives that baby the same fate and it's murder.

Should a woman who shoots her own dog get a different punishment than if her boyfriend did it?

I think the woman should be able to sue the boyfriend for taking away her "choice", but if it's only a choice and not a living sacred human life, then the man shouldn't be charged with murder.

The baby belongs to the mom before it is born and to the both of them after until it is old enough to own itself. At ALL TIMES, from before conception until after burial, custody and decision making is shared with the state, with the state taking as much control as it wants. Pretty simple.

Now if a boyfriend and a girlfriend have a dog, don't they have the right to shoot it? I don't think this is illegal. I don't think they have the right to hit it. But my understanding is they can shoot it, drown it or take it to the vet and have the vet kill it. Deformed puppies are killed by breeders and vets. I am not suggesting anyone do it, just what your legal rights are went it comes to putting your pets down.