Awful Murder

UNT90 · June 3, 2009

Abortion - the biggest example ever of compromising morality and legality in order to make life more convenient for the irresponsible (in almost all cases).

Censored by Laurie · June 3, 2009

Abortion - the biggest example ever of compromising morality and legality in order to make life more convenient for the irresponsible (in almost all cases).

Can't argue with analasys and statistics like that.

Seriously. You really can't argue with it.

KRAM1 · June 3, 2009

You're an atheist, right?

And you are a conservative, right?

EagleD · June 3, 2009

And you are a conservative, right?

No, and never claimed to be. But I find it interesting that an atheist (which you have claimed) would make the argument that the doctor will have to answer to God.

Mean Green 93-98 · June 3, 2009

Most legal arguments are.
When a baby is born, it is a life. Right now there is a clear definition, but if we are to apply it to anything pre-birth, I think the most reasonable criteria would be viability.

The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court made no effort to define when life begins, but made an ad hoc effort to define "personhood." That is, a person who is entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment. There is really no getting around the fact that a new life is created at conception.

Censored by Laurie · June 3, 2009

There is really no getting around the fact that a new life is created at conception.

Well, lets pop the squid out and see how it does. Holy crap I just got around the absolute you threw down!

hickoryhouse · June 3, 2009

Interesting case on the legal status of a fetus

Hall pleaded guilty Monday to four counts of first-degree murder and

received four sentences of natural life in prison without parole for

the deaths of Tunstall and her children, along with 60 years for the

intentional homicide of Tunstall's unborn child.

The fetus, legally, was not considered human enough to necessitate another life sentence but was considered important, and alive, enough to sentence the lady to an additional 60 years.

June 3, 2009

The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court made no effort to define when life begins, but made an ad hoc effort to define "personhood." That is, a person who is entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment. There is really no getting around the fact that a new life is created at conception.

Well, since it is so clear, I certainly hope that a woman her runs a stop sign, and has a miscarriage as a result of her carelessness, will be charged with manslaughter and go to prison. Just to be fair. She did, after all, kill a person(hood).

UNT90 · June 3, 2009

Can't argue with analasys and statistics like that.
Seriously. You really can't argue with it.

Bring all the numbers you want, some things are just self-evident. Justify it any way you want, but it all comes back to sacraficing the moral and legal for convenience, which is so chic in society nowadays on just about every issue.

KRAM1 · June 3, 2009

No, and never claimed to be. But I find it interesting that an atheist (which you have claimed) would make the argument that the doctor will have to answer to God.

NEVER...NEVER...NEVER EVER...EVER HAVE I CLAIMED TO BE AN ATHEIST. I would love for you to show me where you came up with that piece of incorrect information? I expect for you to correct this post of yours IMMEDIATELY. And, before you post something like this again, you might want to check your facts. You definitely have me mixed up with someone else. Good grief...get it straight...PLEASE!!!!! :angry: :angry:

Michael Scott · June 3, 2009

NEVER...NEVER...NEVER EVER...EVER HAVE I CLAIMED TO BE AN ATHEIST. I would love for you to show me where you came up with that piece of incorrect information? I expect for you to correct this post of yours IMMEDIATELY. And, before you post something like this again, you might want to check your facts. You definitely have me mixed up with someone else. Good grief...get it straight...PLEASE!!!!!

God (if you're real), thank you. I needed a laugh today and this man's reading comprehension hit the spot.

NOTE: I hadn't read the pages of endless drivel setting this up when I responded, but the quote and the follow up in the post were still gold. The more things change...

Edited June 3, 2009 by Michael Scott

keith · June 3, 2009

Well, lets pop the squid out and see how it does. Holy crap I just got around the absolute you threw down!

It would suffer the same fate as a full term baby that isn't cared for by other human beings.

Keith

June 3, 2009

It would suffer the same fate as a full term baby that isn't cared for by other human beings.
Keith

No matter how much caring you do for the cell mass at conception, it would still not survive. Obviously the main difference and exactly his point.

KRAM1 · June 3, 2009

God (if you're real), thank you. I needed a laugh today and this man's reading comprehension hit the spot.
NOTE: I hadn't read the pages of endless drivel setting this up when I responded, but the quote and the follow up in the post were still gold. The more things change...

Yes, and just how did EagleD confuse me with "Michael Scott" in the first place??? That's the humor in this for certain. Glad to have you around "Michael Scott"...you might want to help EagleD get his facts straight.

Michael Scott · June 3, 2009

Yes, and just how did EagleD confuse me with "Michael Scott" in the first place??? That's the humor in this for certain. Glad to have you around "Michael Scott"...you might want to help EagleD get his facts straight.

Yup, that's the comedy here - EagleD's issues. You've cracked the Da Vinci Code on this one for sure.

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

No, and never claimed to be. But I find it interesting that an atheist (which you have claimed) would make the argument that the doctor will have to answer to God.

I think that was me....

http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=420684

KRAM1 · June 3, 2009

I think that was me....
http://www.gomeangreen.com/forums/index.ph...st&p=420684

In all respects...other than that atheist thing...it would be a good thing to be mixed up with Flyer! I might just have to take it as a compliment...the mixing us up part, that is.....

EagleD · June 3, 2009

In all respects...other than that atheist thing...it would be a good thing to be mixed up with Flyer! I might just have to take it as a compliment...the mixing us up part, that is.....

I get you two confused all the time. Sorry. But hey, way to take the high road.

Edited June 3, 2009 by EagleD

keith · June 3, 2009

No matter how much caring you do for the cell mass at conception, it would still not survive. Obviously the main difference and exactly his point.

"Survive" is an odd choice of words in this context, but I get your point. In order for something to survive, that would mean....oh nevermind. My point was that whether the caring begins inside the womb or outside the womb, caring is essential for the cell mass or fetus or baby or whatever we want to call it to progress along a path of development we all know.

Keith