Dubayoo Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 If you have a dumber one than this, let's hear it: In any case, it's nice to see how the is-ought problem, circular reason, and consequentialism can be demonstrated to be nonsensical. Quote My Avie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senna/ Shortened versions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qZu7h5ys0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVqSpS65VE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Thoroughly stupid. I'm Pro-Choice and not a fan of abortion. If the fetus can't live outside the womb and without an umbilical cord it's not a person, but a part of a woman's body. It's their choice if they continue to allow the fetus to develop to its human form and fine if they decide to have the tissue removed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 (edited) So if someone accidentally causes harm to the fetus and death of the fetus occurs, should it be considered manslaughter in a court of law? Edited August 13, 2017 by Edgar Allen Poe Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 From what I've read it's the same standard of development used by women's health clinics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 12 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: From what I've read it's the same standard of development used by women's health clinics. And this answers my question how? Court cases have gone in favor of manslaughter towards the unborn in almost every case. If it is just tissue, why would this be? Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 5 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: And this answers my question how? You asked the criteria and I offered some. If you don't want to read what I post why are you doing so? Court cases have gone in favor of manslaughter towards the unborn in almost every case. If it is just tissue, why would this be? Prosecutorial zeal. In every case abortion is legal so lower cases where prosecutors go too far it looks different, but it's not. Prosecutors sometimes abuse laws. In around 2003 a prosecutor in NC or SC tried to use the prohibition on chemical weapons against someone caught cooking meth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterbake Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 22 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: So if someone accidentally causes harm to the fetus and death of the fetus occurs, should it be considered manslaughter in a court of law? No and courts have consistently ruled only intentional harm in cases related to the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 are considered manslaughter. SO if you fall down a flight of stairs and lose your fetus then it not a crime. Your husband or boyfriend punches you in the stomach and you lose the fetus then it is a crime. Automobile accident where the driver of the car was insanely drunk manslaughter (drinking and driving is an intentional act), automobile accident where someone inadvertently runs a red light not manslaughter (to the fetus, it could be involuntary manslaughter for passengers or driver). 1 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 And since that's so far not been completely decided the previous definition for a fetus stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Masterbake said: No and courts have consistently ruled only intentional harm in cases related to the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 are considered manslaughter. SO if you fall down a flight of stairs and lose your fetus then it not a crime. Your husband or boyfriend punches you in the stomach and you lose the fetus then it is a crime. Automobile accident where the driver of the car was insanely drunk manslaughter (drinking and driving is an intentional act), automobile accident where someone inadvertently runs a red light not manslaughter (to the fetus, it could be involuntary manslaughter for passengers or driver). So basically it is given rights as a human, accidents notwithstanding. And yes, I am ignoring ComradeMilton finally. He never answers posts with actual, direct answers and calls it answering the question. Telling me the answer is the same standards of development in health clinics is not answering the question posed like you did. Respect to you, not that other guy. Edited August 14, 2017 by Edgar Allen Poe Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterbake Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 10 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: So basically it is given rights as a human, accidents notwithstanding. And yes, I am ignoring ComradeMilton finally. He never answers posts with actual, direct answers and calls it answering the question. Telling me the answer is the same standards of development in health clinics is not answering the question posed like you did. Respect to you, not that other guy. The issue is still clouded as the law reads differently from state to state. The Supreme Court has consistently said that before a certain point in gestation that a fetus is indeed just tissue in regards to rights and can be considered tissue even after that point if the life of the host is at risk. I tend to agree with that legal definition. A fetus at 1 month for example has less sentience than an ant and is only the size of a grain of rice. The laws put in place stood scrutiny because it added the enhanced penalties for illegal terminations as assaults on the pregnant woman much like enhancements for killing a peace officer. They did not technically give rights to the fetus. A very gray area and an area where I think the courts got it right. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 14, 2017 Share Posted August 14, 2017 13 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said: So basically it is given rights as a human, accidents notwithstanding. Not at all. It lets the prosecutor pile more onto the charges. Doing so hasn't been settled thus far from the Supreme Court. Abortion remains legal and to be honest will continue even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. And yes, I am ignoring ComradeMilton finally. He never answers posts with actual, direct answers and calls it answering the question. Telling me the answer is the same standards of development in health clinics is not answering the question posed like you did. Respect to you, not that other guy. lol. Good job. 2 hours ago, Masterbake said: The issue is still clouded as the law reads differently from state to state. The Supreme Court has consistently said that before a certain point in gestation that a fetus is indeed just tissue in regards to rights and can be considered tissue even after that point if the life of the host is at risk. I tend to agree with that legal definition. A fetus at 1 month for example has less sentience than an ant and is only the size of a grain of rice. The laws put in place stood scrutiny because it added the enhanced penalties for illegal terminations as assaults on the pregnant woman much like enhancements for killing a peace officer. They did not technically give rights to the fetus. A very gray area and an area where I think the courts got it right. Many, if not most states, will also be able to wreck a defendant under the officer enhancement if their dogs are harmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masterbake Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 On 8/14/2017 at 0:07 PM, ComradeMilton said: Many, if not most states, will also be able to wreck a defendant under the officer enhancement if their dogs are harmed. This is correct reading of what I was saying. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 That puppy fetuses, once born, are dogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 On 8/13/2017 at 6:38 PM, Masterbake said: No and courts have consistently ruled only intentional harm in cases related to the The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 are considered manslaughter. SO if you fall down a flight of stairs and lose your fetus then it not a crime. Your husband or boyfriend punches you in the stomach and you lose the fetus then it is a crime. Automobile accident where the driver of the car was insanely drunk manslaughter (drinking and driving is an intentional act), automobile accident where someone inadvertently runs a red light not manslaughter (to the fetus, it could be involuntary manslaughter for passengers or driver). Just to correct you on this, even the latter example would result in involuntary manslaughter to the fetus. The rest you're correct on though. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 On 8/13/2017 at 5:11 PM, ComradeMilton said: In around 2003 a prosecutor in NC or SC tried to use the prohibition on chemical weapons against someone caught cooking meth. In around 2003 a prosecutor in NC or SC tried to use the prohibition on chemical weapons against someone caught cooking meth. I remember someone in a bar telling me that right after I moved to NC and I thought he was just drunk. I guess not lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Nope. Prosecutors will !@#$ you over in any possible way to force a plea bargain; there aren't enough courts or judges to actually let everyone get a fair trial so by stacking the charges it makes people think a plea bargain is more acceptable than the trial they're promised. Plus trials take time and aren't always victories which harms the prosecutor's ability to get promotions by having a better conviction rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 I hope he doesn't try to charge me for genocide if I run over protesters on a highway. (Actually legal in NC, but w/e) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 I'm in favor of very late term abortions, in cases of rape, incest or tiki torches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 26, 2017 Share Posted August 26, 2017 A right-wing guy killed one of the three people in the US that did them. George Tiller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.