Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Debate over how to prosecute the killing of a fetus
- Thread starter Jazzy
- Start date
"Whether we like it or not", including a murder charge for the death of a fetus opens up a whole can of worms in the Great 'A' Debate.
"Whether we like it or not", since 'A' is legal (as long as each States' guidelines are followed), automatically charging someone else with murder when a fetus is killed simply opens up legal prosecution of anyone who's had - or engages in performing - The Big 'A'.
I heard a news interview with the local DA of this case; he indicated they might pursue murder charges if it can be determined that the fetus was alive when first removed from the mother's womb. Given there was only one viable witness (the woman who removed it), it's highly doubtful she'll admit and acknowledge the fetus was born and had life, if only momentarily.
"Whether we like it or not", since 'A' is legal (as long as each States' guidelines are followed), automatically charging someone else with murder when a fetus is killed simply opens up legal prosecution of anyone who's had - or engages in performing - The Big 'A'.
I heard a news interview with the local DA of this case; he indicated they might pursue murder charges if it can be determined that the fetus was alive when first removed from the mother's womb. Given there was only one viable witness (the woman who removed it), it's highly doubtful she'll admit and acknowledge the fetus was born and had life, if only momentarily.
It is a human being and not charging murder just shows how revolting the left is on this subject.
It has a heart beat. It feels pain. It has brain waves. It has positive and negative responses to a mothers moods. So there is no whether we like it or not it is murder no less then if that person killed the mom. So Colorado needs to enter the 19th, 20th and 21st century.
Did it take its first breath? Living humans eligible to be "murdered" must be breathing, otherwise family members who pull the plug on loved ones existing on ventilators would be "murderers".
*Sorry* if you don't like that fact, but that IS the reality of the situation.
*Sorry* if you don't like that fact, but that IS the reality of the situation.
mrldii said:
There have been several heart wrenching court cases based on exactly that.
DrLeftover said:
"Heart wrenching" and "illegal" are not synonymous.
The SCOTUS typically avoids emotionalism and attempts to stick with logic and reasoning when handing out its decisions.
Personally, I'm a fan of basing opinions on logic and reasoning, whether it be from my SCOTUS or simply people I engage with, virtually or in all reality.
mrldii said:
It might be the reality of the situation but it is nowhere in the realm of fact. It is a living feeling human life. That is the fact of the matter.
And if family members pull the plug on a human life that made it clear it wants to live no matter what it would be murder. At least that person had a choice it could plan for if he or she wanted to die. Someone has got to speak for the human life who can't tell us if it would like to be removed from existence.
------------------------------------------------------------------
mrldii said:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yet we got obama care on anything resembling what you mentioned above.
TRUE LIBERTY said:
Obama isn't currently seated on the Supreme Court of the United States.
The fact that you intertwined the POTUS with the SCOTUS and attempted to make them one-and-the-same shows your ignorance in how the U.S. government works...
...and how you speak out of emotional reactionism. AND to think you're proud of the fact that you carry a gun and will use it at the slightest provocation. God spare your neighbors.
"Debate" in deed.
mrldii said:
I didn't get anything mixed up, it is the supreme court that illegally rewrote a unconstitutional law to make it legal in there minds. They used nothing but emotion in that ruling.
I am proud I have the right to carry a gun. A big distinction. Where you got the idea I would shoot anybody at the slightest provocation is only in your mind. I pray that gun only gets used on paper targets and nothing else.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dee said:
[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif]“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”[/font]
[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif]― [/font][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif]Ronald Reagan[/font]
Nope. Just because their logic and reasoning doesn't sit well with you, emotionally, does NOT automatically make it "illegal".TRUE LIBERTY said:
I got that you're a mad man with a gun who will use it at the slightest provocation because of the quote you've included as your signature. It appears to resonate with you; if it didn't, you wouldn't have included it.
In any event, this is the "debate" forum; there is no "debate" here. Logic, reasoning, and rationale are the basis for debate - NOT emotionalism and knee-jerk reactionism.
Factually-speaking, there can be no murder charges, as - according to Colorado law - there is no evidence that the baby was born live; factually-speaking, this is what the DA in charge of the case has cited as his reasoning as to why murder charges have not been leveled.
Anything else is pure emotionalism.
Nope they rewrote to fit there idea of constitutional. A tax not a tax and then a tax again.
The term madman can hold many meanings. But if you want to make it out to be that way have at it. LOL!
Plenty of rationalism here. You say potato, I say, we'll you get the idea.
Factually that is pure bunk and the DA being to cowardly to open this can of worms up. That is like saying if she had killed the woman there is no proof the mother was alive when she committed the act of cutting her open to take the baby.
The term madman can hold many meanings. But if you want to make it out to be that way have at it. LOL!
Plenty of rationalism here. You say potato, I say, we'll you get the idea.
Factually that is pure bunk and the DA being to cowardly to open this can of worms up. That is like saying if she had killed the woman there is no proof the mother was alive when she committed the act of cutting her open to take the baby.
TRUE LIBERTY said:
See? Now you're just spinning in circles, chasing your own tail...in the middle of "debate", no less.
Of course the mother was alive; she was carrying - and nurturing - a fetus in the 7th month of the 9 months needed TO give birth, thus creating a life capable of being "murdered".
Besides, if the mother hadn't been alive (and continued to live after the assault) there wouldn't be "attempted murder" charges brought against the perpetrator.
Perhaps the "Debate" forum isn't the best place for you to park your little wagon? Your style seems much better suited to the "Politics" arena, where facts, reality, and logic aren't such a mainstay.
mrldii said:TRUE LIBERTY said:
See? Now you're just spinning in circles, chasing your own tail...in the middle of "debate", no less.
Of course the mother was alive; she was carrying - and nurturing - a fetus in the 7th month of the 9 months needed TO give birth, thus creating a life capable of being "murdered".
Besides, if the mother hadn't been alive (and continued to live after the assault) there wouldn't be "attempted murder" charges brought against the perpetrator.
Perhaps the "Debate" forum isn't the best place for you to park your little wagon? Your style seems much better suited to the "Politics" arena, where facts, reality, and logic aren't such a mainstay.
No tail chasing just pointing out how you are wrong.
Exactly, she was alive as much as her baby was.
If you think that just ignore me.
Isn't abortion illegal after 24 weeks? This fetus was 30 weeks.
So to me. Yes it should of been treated as murder.
So to me. Yes it should of been treated as murder.
mrldii has this under control 
The legal standard varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In some places, the baby is not considered 'alive' until it both draws its first breath and the cord is cut, which means the Infanticide practice of "partial birth abortion" is legal there.
What about ethical? A fetus can survive birth at 30 weeks with medical intervention based on just being premature.
The fetus had what chance under those circumstances? It wasn't natural premature labour. It was malice, with intent.
