The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 25, 2014, 11:33:09 AM
-
First, there was a story about an 80 year old man who shot a pregnant woman. She was fleeing but not untul her and her baby-daddy had broken into the old man's home and roughed him up.
It created a firestorm of shrieks and howls from those hoping to cynically capitalize on the episode to paint all gun owners as callous killers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025285973
Yeah. Well. About that.
kiva (3,304 posts)
He didn't "kill a baby"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025285973#post171
Or a child. Or an infant. He shot and killed a woman who was pregnant. He ended a pregnancy. He killed a zygote or a fetus. He did not kill a woman and her child and should not be charged with killing two people.
For decades anti-choice activists have used this sort of heated rhetoric to limit women's access to a safe and legal medical procedure - first women were 'killing babies', then 'murdering children'. Seeing these terms used here to encourage outrage is disheartening, and I'm hoping people will think about their language when they discuss this topic.
Bonobo (23,836 posts)
1. Whew, glad to see someone else noticed this glaring hypocrisy. nt
cpwm17 (2,062 posts)
6. It wasn't the gunman's choice to kill the future baby
which would have been born if he didn't commit murder. It wasn't his body or future baby so it's a double murder.
kiva (3,304 posts)
7. No it's not a double murder.
A fetus is not a person. A 'future baby' is not a person.
Authorities can charge him with killing the mother.
cpwm17 (2,062 posts)
12. Abortion is the woman's choice
not the choice of a trigger happy gunman. He should be appropriately charged. Perhaps the judge can take the fact that the fetus wasn't born yet into consideration, but he did commit a worse crime by murdering her.
I know this can potentially open up a can of worms concerning the issue of abortion, but I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments. I think one should just do the right thing and charge him with double murder.
If motherhood is solely a woman's choice why do men have to pay child support?
gcomeau (3,966 posts)
18. Which still doesn't make the fetus a person.
Murder is when you KILL A PERSON.
He killed one person, so he committed one murder. Arguing otherwise is, to be blunt, the kind of mindless reality-denying hysteria that the anti-choicers love to appeal to.
Killing one person is entirely enough to be outrages about without making up fictional reasons to get more outraged because somehow calling it one persons murder isn't satisfying enough for you.
Union Scribe (6,502 posts)
14. So if a man slips something to a pregnant woman
and it terminates the pregnancy but doesn't hurt the woman, in your view has he committed any crime?
TorchTheWitch (9,512 posts)
19. of course it is
It just isn't murder and shouldn't be considered murder as long as the potential child couldn't survive outside the woman's body. Slipping something into anyone's food or drink is a crime, and whether or not it physically "hurts" them is immaterial. Let's not forget that the loss of a wanted pregnancy is an emotional trauma for a woman, and emotional trauma IS a "hurt".
Union Scribe (6,502 posts)
25. What do you charge him with? nt
jeff47 (12,574 posts)
29. Yes. Assault and battery against the woman. (nt)
Cheaper than child support.
:fuelfire:
enlightenment (7,827 posts)
9. No, he did not "kill the future baby".
A fetus is only a potential - not a person. You can't murder a potential.
Sen. Walter Sobchak (6,178 posts)
13. So now its a decision between a woman, her doctor and any gunman in the immediate area?
Thanks for keeping us up to date.
Strange bedfellows indeed. This takes ideological blindness to a whole new plateau.
Is the millennia old convention of not executing pregnant women also anti-choice?
What if her doctor shot her?
:fuelfire:
MurrayDelph (1,769 posts)
17. I don't know why this is so hard a concept to grasp
(unless it is deliberately being misinterpreted)
If the woman carrying the fetus says it's a baby, then it's a baby.
If she wants to keep it and someone forces it out of her, it's a crime.
If she wants to get rid of it, that's her business.
The fact that she may have been committing a crime at the time does not take the choice away from her.
Anti-choice people (who are not pro-life, despite the pleasant-sounding label) keep trying to paint pro-choice as pro-abortion. I think a few folks on the board are playing into their hands (or possibly come from that mindset and are trying to "prove" it via pretense).
Emphasis by the Proglodyte.
That's one helluva legal standard.
SHE gets to decide to keep the baby but HE has to pay for it depending on her decision and her EMPLOYER is obligated to keep her un-pregnant if that SHE demands it.
whatthehey (182 posts)
36. I'm sorry, will does not change science
Regardless of who wills it. A fetus is a fetus because of its stage in development, not because it is wanted or not. It doesn't become a baby just because it's a wanted fetus.
According to science something that cannot fend for itself and is incapable of basic cognizance cannot be considered alive.
So where's the harm in shooting Proglodytes?
Hekate (25,983 posts)
21. Thank you. I got bashed up one side and down the other on that issue.
People in that thread went from "she said she was pregnant and he said she said she was" right up to talking about a "8 month fetus" without one shred of evidence that it was a fact. Have the cops or the EMTs or neighbors made note of seeing such a thing? Nobody here has even bothered to find out.
AFAIC she could have been lying to play on his sympathy -- after all, she had just participated in a home invasion robbery and helped beat/injure a very old man. Why wouldn't she lie about this or anything else?
Second point, conceding she might have told the truth: our language. "The baby" and "the kid" were phrases used over and over again as though the female robber were carrying an infant swaddled in a baby blanket in her arms.
You are absolutely right, kiva. There was no baby, there was no child. At most there was a fetus. The terminology is being used to add outrage to outrage, to separate the fetus or zygote from its mother and to confer individual personhood upon something that does not exist, that cannot exist, apart from the womb inside its mother.
It's enough that the woman was killed and it's enough that an old man with a badly injured arm and shoulder was enraged enough to fire at a fleeing robber and later on still enraged enough to say to the cops and in front of cameras, "Yes, I did it" and a couple of other choice things. That whole thread is just nuts, IMO.
leftyohiolib (5,717 posts)
28. "He did not kill a woman and her child " i dont recall you being elected as the decider of these
things. he ended 2 lives - didnt he?
jeff47 (12,574 posts)
30. Only if you believe abortion is murder. (nt)
NCTraveler (3,758 posts)
32. I don't agree.
Terminating the pregnancy was not his choice. It is a difficult subject and I do understand the ramifications of the verbiage used. Her body, her choice. If someone ends a woman's pregnancy without her approval, they should face more than assault and battery charges. To most women who are pregnant, they are with child. Another basic and understandable concept.
Lee-Lee (1,179 posts)
35. It's a damn slippery slope
In a legal sense you can't have a person that is or is not a person.
If the fetus is, then it is.
You can't grant right to determine personhood under the law to the mother, the law doesn't work that way.
If you are saying it's murder for someone else to end the pregnancy but it's ok for the mom, you are conceding that abortion is a form of homicide, just a permissible one.
That's way too close to a legal standard to justifying shutting down legal abortion for me.
Lee-Lee (1,179 posts)
44. The law doesn't work that way
We may wish it did, but it doesn't.
In the eyes of the law a fetus either is or is not a person. It can't waver back and forth.
And if you claim it is, then you are making abortion a form of justifiable homicide under the law.
Therefore my stance is simple- not a person.
CBGLuthier (10,246 posts)
40. Now that is some grade ****ing a nonsense right there
If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, that is her business.
Is some asshole chooses to shoot a pregnant woman said asshole has killed two people.
Murder is the unjustified killing of a PERSON. You cannot bestow personhood on non-persons through and act of will. You cannot claim a family goldfish is a person by way of personal affection and have its killer declared a murderer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025288343
-
The primitives make a pretzel twist look straight.
-
The primitives make a pretzel twist look straight.
Less extend their argument a little.....he didn't kill anyone....just one 250 pound clump of worthless cells.
-
he didn't kill anyone....just one 250 pound clump of worthless cells.
SOMEBODY KILLED NADIN?!?!?
-
SOMEBODY KILLED NADIN?!?!?
Don't be ridiculous...that would be a 350lb clump of worthless cells.
-
If they play their cards right, the dead woman's estate can demand some type of payment from the potential father for what would have been the potential child, especially if the potential father is of a non-minority status.
:mental:
.
-
DUmmies, a question, if "it" is not a human, what happens if left alone?
What would you, if you could, tell an aborted Zygote? Sorry, too bad, so sad?
-
TorchTheWitch (9,512 posts)
19. of course it is
It just isn't murder and shouldn't be considered murder as long as the potential child couldn't survive outside the woman's body. Slipping something into anyone's food or drink is a crime, and whether or not it physically "hurts" them is immaterial. Let's not forget that the loss of a wanted pregnancy is an emotional trauma for a woman, and emotional trauma IS a "hurt".
Okay, can we please apply that logic to the stupid "endangered" smelt so that CA FAMILY farms (you know, the kind you and Jessica Lange used to care about), can have their damned water back? The stupid fish couldn't survive without human intervention, either.
Cindie
-
When I try to understand their logic it hurts!
-
When I try to understand their logic it hurts!
You obviously aren't dulling the pain with enough paint fumes/pot smoke/etc.
-
Below is something that I posted back in May. Thanks and H5 to Snugs for bringing over the proof.
Since there are now DUmmies, DIzzies, and DIzzy DUmmies, I thought it might be nice to post a few things to remember when you are viewing/posting at DU and DI…
A baby outside of a woman’s body is a human and killing the baby is murder, BUT a baby inside a woman’s body is just a clump of cells and is perfectly okay to kill and doing so is NOT considered murder. BUT it is only okay to kill the unborn baby…I mean clump of cells…if the woman within whose body the baby resides contracts the executioner…I mean doctor. If the woman within whose body the baby resides does NOT want the baby killed and someone else kills the baby WITHOUT her permission the baby automatically stops being a clump of cells and becomes a human and the person that kills the baby has committed murder.
Confused yet?
A Christian who loves America and disagrees with homosexuality and abortion is hate-filled, narrow-minded, and is waging a war on women, but an Islamic extremist who enslaves women and executes homosexuals is a Freedom Fighter IF said extremist also hates America.
Dissent is patriotic IF the president in office at the time of the dissent is white. If the president in office is black then dissent is racist UNLESS the one doing the dissenting is also black; however, if the dissenter is black and is also a republican then dissent is again not patriotic and said dissenter is an Uncle Tom.
If the president is white, posting images of the president as a monkey, chimp, or ape is hilarious. If the president is black, posting images of the president as a monkey, chimp, or ape is racist.
High unemployment numbers during a democrat administration means the economy is great. Low unemployment numbers during a republican administration means the economy is terrible.
If you’re a liberal, franksolich is out to get you and due to his stealthy ninja skills could be hiding behind any tree or blade of grass. His politeness is just a sign of his uncivilness.
-
'...but Sambo and his father made it up the tree, and the tigers started chasing each other in a circle around the trunk, and the tigers just kept going faster and faster, until the black and yellow of the tigers turned into syrup and melted butter for the family's pancakes.'
:popcorn:
-
'...but Sambo and his father made it up the tree, and the tigers started chasing each other in a circle around the trunk, and the tigers just kept going faster and faster, until the black and yellow of the tigers turned into syrup and melted butter for the family's pancakes.'
:popcorn:
....and I was a tiger in the Little Black Sambo school play. My mother made me the cutest little tiger suit and I had the best tail of the bunch.
....and Sambo's grill has been a local greasy spoon for over 50 years now....even got little black Sambo on the neon sign. BTW Sambo owns the place.
-
best part of this is....The coroner is reporting that the thugette was NOT pregnant.
-
f she wants to keep it and someone forces it out of her, it's a crime.
If she wants to get rid of it, that's her business.
Amazing how it's always JUST the woman's right...unless child support is involved.
-
These people are just sickening.
-
Hey DUmmies, As you say, this is 'settled law' - So you can suck it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
The operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child†means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero†or “child, who is in utero†means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
The provision amending the Uniform Code of Military Justice is functionally the same, except for minor technical points.
In short, DUmmies - anyone who intentionally kills a pregnant woman is guilty of a double homicide. , anyone who intentionally kills an unborn child without killing the mother is guilty of a homicide but may not be sentenced to death, excepting those who kill the unborn child with the mother's consent ( e.g. an abortion)
I would have expected the Klams to cheer this, as it gives those who kill a pregnant woman a double dose of punishment. But regardless, its 'settled law' so you need to STFU and take it.
-
Suspected Burglar Killed By Elderly Homeowner in Long Beach Was Not Pregnant (http://ktla.com/2014/07/25/suspected-burglar-killed-by-elderly-homeowner-in-long-beach-was-not-pregnant-accomplice-charged/)
Oh my.
You don't think she could have lied, do you?
-
You don't think she could have lied, do you?
Not nearly as important as the fact the Proglodytes lie.
They lie when they claim to have been outraged at the idea a pregnant woman was shot. They lie when they say they are outraged an unborn child was killed.
It was a cynical ploy to push their anti-gun agenda.
The idea of a dead child was merely a prop even though they are content to murder millions of children every year.
Proglodytes are more than happy to use dead children as puppets.
-
Not nearly as important as the fact the Proglodytes lie.
They lie when they claim to have been outraged at the idea a pregnant woman was shot. They lie when they say they are outraged an unborn child was killed.
It was a cynical ploy to push their anti-gun agenda.
The idea of a dead child was merely a prop even though they are content to murder millions of children every year.
Proglodytes are more than happy to use dead children as puppets.
What we forget is females do not get pregnant by themselves. When the sperm hits the egg, and pregnancy happens it is now the product of 2 people. If a female can stop the progression of the human growing inside her, why can't the male not demand she have an abortion or demand she carry the baby to term.
This may be her body but once a third party comes into the picture, and the party is human--- far as I know no females give birth to rabbits-------DNA on a evolving and growing human will show both sides of the parents DNA, not Bugs Bunny.
So why do the sperm parent get no say in in what their child will become, why is the child, growing and maturing in the hands of just one parent ?
Life may be cheap but until both parents together are held responcible for the death of a growing human with the ability to just walk away from the future life, what are they going to do to the born children that they decide they no longer want ??
-
DUmmie logic isn't.
Cindie