Alabama completely loses the plot in pro-life travesty. Watch

James2312
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by Ryandrummond)
Why is a manslaughter charge against someone, who by definition committed manslaughter, a ridiculous charge?
Because she isn't the one who pulled out a handgun and shot someone?
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
I don't think so since I wasn't the one who started it.
You went walking in the area that the mugger was operating in. You could have avoided it. For clarity's sake, you were aware that other people had been mugged in the area (news reports).
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by lionheart27)
So aborting a baby by scraping it out of the womb with a scalpel is ok
That doesn't happen.

but shooting one in the womb is bad? Morally, pro-killers haven't got a leg to stand on.
It is the anti-choicers who are saying the woman is guilty of manslaughter. Rational people would blame the person who shot the mother.

She started the fight while pregnant and was then shot. If she caused the argument and intended to kill and the other woman shot her back, legally it is also a non-issue.
The details of the fight are irrelevant (as well as unreported). The issue is charging the mother for the death of her foetus while the person who actually killed it escapes without punishment. Also the idea that shooting an unarmed person is ok if you "feel threatened".
3
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#84
Report 2 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by QE2)
The details of the fight are irrelevant (as well as unreported). The issue is charging the mother for the death of her foetus while the person who actually killed it escapes without punishment. Also the idea that shooting an unarmed person is ok if you "feel threatened".
The details are highly relevant as they convinced the grand jury to indict her on the grounds her own deliberate aggression amounted to wilfully endangering her foetus. It seems analogous to her carrying the child into a burning building.

You have to separate the two women involved here. One endangered her child (allegedly) while the other shot her (allegedly). The anomaly here seems to be that the shooter gets away with it because of blind adherence to ridiculous gun laws. I agree with you that feeling threatened is a long way from justifying the shooting of an unarmed woman (though the individual facts, unknown to us, may prove otherwise).

This has nothing whatever to do with abortion.
0
reply
James2312
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#85
Report 2 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by Good bloke)
The details are highly relevant as they convinced the grand jury to indict her on the grounds her own deliberate aggression amounted to wilfully endangering her foetus. It seems analogous to her carrying the child into a burning building.

You have to separate the two women involved here. One endangered her child (allegedly) while the other shot her (allegedly). The anomaly here seems to be that the shooter gets away with it because of blind adherence to ridiculous gun laws. I agree with you that feeling threatened is a long way from justifying the shooting of an unarmed woman (though the individual facts, unknown to us, may prove otherwise).

This has nothing whatever to do with abortion.
Obviously it does have to do with abortion because they have somehow ended up in a situation where a pregnany woman is charged with manslaughter for getting shot.This defies logic and to understand it you have to look at the context regarding the recent debate on abortion laws in certain states.Clearly in this situation the unborn foetus's life is prioritised over the mother's own which is why she is getting done for manslaughter.
Last edited by James2312; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#86
Report 2 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by James2312)
Obviously it does have to do with abortion because they have somehow ended up in a situation where a pregnany woman is charged with manslaughter for getting shot.
You'll have to spell it out for me. How exactly does a shooting relate to abortion (other than an unborn baby being involved, obviously)?
0
reply
James2312
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#87
Report 2 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Good bloke)
You'll have to spell it out for me. How exactly does a shooting relate to abortion (other than an unborn baby being involved, obviously)?
Not the shooting itself but the fact the law has been used to prosecute her.The child wasn't even born yet so how can it be manslaughter? You cannot kill something which never lived.

This only makes sense in the context of the pro-life advocates who think that life begins at conception.By their logic life begins at conception and hence if you abort a foetus then you have committed murder.They are arguing that since she got into a fight and accidentally "aborted" the foetus then she has committed murder/ manslaughter. This argument only works if you think of the foetus as a person in itself which republicans do.
0
reply
lionheart27
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#88
Report 2 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by QE2)
That doesn't happen.


It is the anti-choicers who are saying the woman is guilty of manslaughter. Rational people would blame the person who shot the mother.


The details of the fight are irrelevant (as well as unreported). The issue is charging the mother for the death of her foetus while the person who actually killed it escapes without punishment. Also the idea that shooting an unarmed person is ok if you "feel threatened".
That doesn't happen.

Well, instead of a scalpel they use a caliper that slowly crushes the fetus and then scrapes the little guy or gal out. My mistake.
[img=800x581]https://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/deabortion3.jpg[/img]

It is the anti-choicers who are saying the woman is guilty of manslaughter. Rational people would blame the person who shot the mother.

Hmm. It's almost as if the pregnant woman has a societal responsibility of protecting the baby, which you agree with. Yet you're ok with babies being crushed and scraped out of vaginas. Quite a lot of mental gymnastics there, buddy!

The details of the fight are irrelevant (as well as unreported).

Of course its relevant you simpleton, that's the whole basis of legality - plus it was very well reported, if you actually read the article.

The issue is charging the mother for the death of her foetus while the person who actually killed it escapes without punishment. Also the idea that shooting an unarmed person is ok if you "feel threatened".

You're ok with women aborting fetuses in grotesque ways, yet you feel for the fetus? I thought pro-killers thought that a fetus was apart of a woman? if so, then the baby has no legal standing - being, as feminists call them - parasites. Living off of the mother.

The woman who shot the pregnant woman felt threatened, therefore she shot her. You really should've read the article.

Make no mistake, abortion is a eugenics practice - which I thought liberals were against... you are not espusing any congruent belief system.
Last edited by lionheart27; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 2 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by James2312)
The child wasn't even born yet so how can it be manslaughter?
I believe most US states extend homicide laws to apply to unborn foetuses. The same applies in several Australian states. In England, Wales and NI we have the crime of foeticide, which is the homicide of an unborn that is over 28 weeks gestation.

As I said, this is nothing to do with abortion; rather it is aimed at the recklessness of the mother in getting herself so aggressively and deliberately involved in a situation where the unborn was at risk.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by lionheart27)
That doesn't happen.

Well, instead of a scalpel they use a caliper that slowly crushes the fetus and then scrapes the little guy or gal out. My mistake.
Yes, it was your mistake. And you still haven't got it right. If you are going to campaign on an issue, it is your responsibility to not chat ****, otherwise people won't take you seriously.


Hmm. It's almost as if the pregnant woman has a societal responsibility of protecting the baby, which you agree with.
Yes, but that doesn't extend to being responsible if someone else shoots her.

Yet you're ok with babies being crushed and scraped out of vaginas. Quite a lot of mental gymnastics there, buddy!
Yes, I'm fine with informed and approved abortions performed by medical professionals up to the legal time limit. No mental gymnastics required.

Of course its relevant you simpleton, that's the whole basis of legality - plus it was very well reported, if you actually read the article.
The article doesn't give details. Was the victim physically attacking the shooter? Did she have a weapon? Was the shooters life in danger?
Also, interesting how often religious apologists find it impossible to hold a discussion without resorting to personal insults. Why do you think that is?

You're ok with women aborting fetuses in grotesque ways, yet you feel for the fetus?
Neither is an accurate representation of my position. Please try and address only what I have said, not what you want me to have said. I understand that you feel angry about abortions, but that in itself doesn't make your position reasonable.

I thought pro-killers thought that a fetus was apart of a woman? if so, then the baby has no legal standing - being, as feminists call them - parasites. Living off of the mother.
You're just getting weird now.

The woman who shot the pregnant woman felt threatened, therefore she shot her. You really should've read the article.
So you think that "feeling threatened" is sufficient justification for shooting someone?

Make no mistake, abortion is a eugenics practice
erm, no it isn't. Perhaps you should check on the definition of eugenics. Simply implying the use of a word with negative connotations does not improve your argument if it is unconnected.

you are not espusing any congruent belief system.
I do not have a "belief system". I address each issue and situation on its own merits. You should try it.
0
reply
James2312
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#91
Report 2 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Good bloke)
I believe most US states extend homicide laws to apply to unborn foetuses. The same applies in several Australian states. In England, Wales and NI we have the crime of foeticide, which is the homicide of an unborn that is over 28 weeks gestation.

As I said, this is nothing to do with abortion; rather it is aimed at the recklessness of the mother in getting herself so aggressively and deliberately involved in a situation where the unborn was at risk.
The unborn was only at risk because somebody decided an appropriate response to a fight was murder.There is absolutely no grounds at all here for shooting someone.As a result the blame rests soley on the shooter.
1
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 2 weeks ago
#92
Pro-lifers have gone to a point where they exclude actual life

OoOps
4
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
Pro-lifers have gone to a point where they exclude actual life

OoOps
Indeed. This illustrates that they are not really "pro-life" but merely "anti-abortion".
It's OK to kill someone because you don't like the way they are looking at you, but if you fail to kill the intended victim and instead kill the foetus they are carrying, it is the mother who is the killer for failing to not get shot, not the person firing the shots.
The bewildering confluence of US gun nuts and US religious nuts.
1
reply
BulIish
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#94
Report 2 weeks ago
#94
Clown world

Being pro-life makes you a Nazi

Being anti-life makes you.. a good guy

Why doesn't Hollywood boycott filming in all those countries where abortion is illegal? oh thats why, because they're hypocrites and wouldn't have many places to shoot..

Just over the border, Mexico look at abortion there!
2
reply
lionheart27
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#95
Report 2 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by QE2)
Yes, it was your mistake. And you still haven't got it right. If you are going to campaign on an issue, it is your responsibility to not chat ****, otherwise people won't take you seriously.



Yes, but that doesn't extend to being responsible if someone else shoots her.


Yes, I'm fine with informed and approved abortions performed by medical professionals up to the legal time limit. No mental gymnastics required.


The article doesn't give details. Was the victim physically attacking the shooter? Did she have a weapon? Was the shooters life in danger?
Also, interesting how often religious apologists find it impossible to hold a discussion without resorting to personal insults. Why do you think that is?


Neither is an accurate representation of my position. Please try and address only what I have said, not what you want me to have said. I understand that you feel angry about abortions, but that in itself doesn't make your position reasonable.


You're just getting weird now.


So you think that "feeling threatened" is sufficient justification for shooting someone?


erm, no it isn't. Perhaps you should check on the definition of eugenics. Simply implying the use of a word with negative connotations does not improve your argument if it is unconnected.


I do not have a "belief system". I address each issue and situation on its own merits. You should try it.
I know you love abortions, I mean they look totally lovely and are in no-way a barbaric practice.

It's eugenics masquerading as women's rights - I think that any killing is wrong, regardless of the outcome. I suppose you're more of a "means to an end" man. Funny, there's a guy I think who'd be very proud of you - and his initials are A and H.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#96
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by lionheart27)
I know you love abortions, I mean they look totally lovely and are in no-way a barbaric practice.

It's eugenics masquerading as women's rights - I think that any killing is wrong, regardless of the outcome. I suppose you're more of a "means to an end" man. Funny, there's a guy I think who'd be very proud of you - and his initials are A and H.
You seem both angry and confused. Not a good combination under any circumstances, but add some irrational dogma into the mix and we have the recipe for violent extremism. Your username suggests you are British so I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies.
0
reply
lionheart27
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 week ago
#97
(Original post by QE2)
You seem both angry and confused. Not a good combination under any circumstances, but add some irrational dogma into the mix and we have the recipe for violent extremism. Your username suggests you are British so I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies.
Ah right - you are an "intelligent citizen of Europe" as judging by your profile picture of Chris Hitchens daubed with Euro stars. Do you honestly think they would all accept you as their own? If they all accept you as no different, then you all do not have a different identity. If you all posess no different identity, then why would you want to be accepted by each other? Why don't you go to Germany and see if you'll be accepted as a German, or Greece accepting you as Greek. People like you want to be accepted by everyone because you have no self-esteem and you have no trust in your own kin. You're probably an immigrant yourself which is why you are pro-EU and anti-UK. You do not feel kinship with British people, so you side with its antithesis.

"We have the recipe for violent extremism" - which Islamic extremism you seem to have forgotten. Do you know someone called Ebba Åkerlund? Lee Rigby? Why do liberals like you seem to bury your head in the sand and jump at the opportunity to point fingers at "British extremists" yet seem to ignore the Islamic rape gangs and terrorist attacks that have been commited across Europe over the last decade which are insurmountably worse?

Anywho, back to the topic at hand:

It is you that is confused as you don't seem to subscribe to any logical or congruent system of rational thought. You take each situation as relative, but they aren't. You allow this liquid model to pick and choose your beliefs, to make them fluid - e.g. easily mouldable by politics. You are a nothing, a stooge of the poltically correct. A passive, meek, victim "tolerating" his bully. Your views on abortion are sickening and will only hurt women in the long run. What gives people happiness is a family, not their right to **** without consequences. This is why women are so unhappy in equal societies and nothing seems to make them happy - they're told that being a skank and killing unborn babies is totally normal. This is also why Europe's birth rates are also rock-bottom and why problems are caused by mass-immigration.

Plus, liberals believe that fetuses are parasitic to the woman - they are "non-humans", "bundles of cells" as many feminists have said before, yet if they saw a microbe of life on Mars they would be celebrating.They are against the family unit, they are against "the patriarchy" (civillisation itself - there is no matriarchy) and they are for mass-immigration.

You are anti-dogma, yet you are so stupid you fail to see your own.

They are evil and so are you. Feel free to leave to you beloved EU - I'm sure Sweden is lovely this time of year.
Last edited by lionheart27; 1 week ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#98
(Original post by lionheart27)
Ah right - you are an "intelligent citizen of Europe" as judging by your profile picture of Chris Hitchens daubed with Euro stars. Do you honestly think they would all accept you as their own? If they all accept you as no different, then you all do not have a different identity. If you all posess no different identity, then why would you want to be accepted by each other? Why don't you go to Germany and see if you'll be accepted as a German, or Greece accepting you as Greek. People like you want to be accepted by everyone because you have no self-esteem and you have no trust in your own kin. You're probably an immigrant yourself which is why you are pro-EU and anti-UK. You do not feel kinship with British people, so you side with its antithesis.

"We have the recipe for violent extremism" - which Islamic extremism you seem to have forgotten. Do you know someone called Ebba Åkerlund? Lee Rigby? Why do liberals like you seem to bury your head in the sand and jump at the opportunity to point fingers at "British extremists" yet seem to ignore the Islamic rape gangs and terrorist attacks that have been commited across Europe over the last decade which are insurmountably worse?

Anywho, back to the topic at hand:

It is you that is confused as you don't seem to subscribe to any logical or congruent system of rational thought. You take each situation as relative, but they aren't. You allow this liquid model to pick and choose your beliefs, to make them fluid - e.g. easily mouldable by politics. You are a nothing, a stooge of the poltically correct. A passive, meek, victim "tolerating" his bully. Your views on abortion are sickening and will only hurt women in the long run. What gives people happiness is a family, not their right to **** without consequences. This is why women are so unhappy in equal societies and nothing seems to make them happy - they're told that being a skank and killing unborn babies is totally normal. This is also why Europe's birth rates are also rock-bottom and why problems are caused by mass-immigration.

Plus, liberals believe that fetuses are parasitic to the woman - they are "non-humans", "bundles of cells" as many feminists have said before, yet if they saw a microbe of life on Mars they would be celebrating.They are against the family unit, they are against "the patriarchy" (civillisation itself - there is no matriarchy) and they are for mass-immigration.

You are anti-dogma, yet you are so stupid you fail to see your own.

They are evil and so are you. Feel free to leave to you beloved EU - I'm sure Sweden is lovely this time of year.
I understand the meaning of all of those words, but not in the order you have used them. Were you addressing me or was that just a spittle-flecked, incoherent rant against "liberals" in general?
Please calm down and try again.
Thanks.
0
reply
lionheart27
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 week ago
#99
(Original post by QE2)
I understand the meaning of all of those words, but not in the order you have used them. Were you addressing me or was that just a spittle-flecked, incoherent rant against "liberals" in general?
Please calm down and try again.
Thanks.
Typical.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 week ago
#100
If she physically assaulted someone (unprovoked by another assault), in a state with a 'stand your ground law' then she wilfully put her child in a fatal situation and is fully responsible for the death of said child.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (122)
19.55%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.29%
No I am happy with my course choice (352)
56.41%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.74%

Watched Threads

View All