1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonI gave you a "coherent and informed response". That response was: So what?
The discussion changed to this when I asked you what the position of the Catholic church was on abortion. You could not give a coherent or informed response. Now you back pedal in typical form.
That's where we are at.
I haven't backpedaled at all; of course, I know what the official RCC position on abortion is. I and most American Catholics just don't care.
"Where we are at" is you trying to move the goalposts.
Originally posted by utherpendragonHere's the post from you I responded to.
red herring- An observation that draws attention away from the central issue in an argument or discussion.
Nice try. Now drop and give me 50 !
Originally posted by utherpendragon
For one, the woman is a host to a new life. A host.
Secondly, the baby is not hers. It is not her personal property to do a she wishes with it. Where is the child's "natural right" that you always cry about ? Does the Father not have no "natural right" to raise his child, as well ?[/quote]
So you claim the fetus is not hers to do with as she wishes, but you won't address whether you're for allowing rape victims to have abortions. The question is 100% relevant to your claim.
You could simply answer yes or no, but you're a wishy-washy "pro lifer" who won't answer the tough questions. Your "red herring" claim is a veil to hide your cowardice, and one that everyone can see through.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh. My bad .
I gave you a "coherent and informed response". That response was: So what?
I haven't backpedaled at all; of course, I know what the official RCC position on abortion is. I and most American Catholics just don't care.
"Where we are at" is you trying to move the goalposts.
You are a "American Catholic".
So, what the Pope says don't mean diddly squat to you then ? Or, is it just selective ?
If the Pope says something you agree with its cool, if not, let it fly ?
Is the "American Catholic church" separate from the Roman catholic church ? Does it have it's own Pope, Cardinals and Bishops ? Priest ? Who do they answer too ?
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonDepending on how you define it, I am at least officially an "American Catholic" (baptized and confirmed at a Church on a same block as Cagney's).
Oh. My bad .
You are a "American Catholic".
So, what the Pope says don't mean diddly squat to you then ? Or, is it just selective ?
If the Pope says something you agree with its cool, if not, let it fly ?
Is the "American Catholic church" separate from the Roman catholic church ? Does it have it's own Pope, Cardinals and Bishops ? Priest ? Who do they answer too ?
American Catholics, like everybody else, answer to their own consciences. I have shown you evidence (that you chose to ignore) that on certain matters they disagree with the official Church position. If you can't grasp that fairly obvious point, then you really are hopeless.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wasn't baptized at St. Patrick's; I don't have my Birth Certificate handy but I think I was baptized at Brady Hospital. But the rest of my post stands despite this minor correction.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperOoooo. 😲
Here's the post from you I responded to.
Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]For one, the woman is a host to a new life. A host.
Secondly, the baby is not hers. It is not her personal property to do a she wishes with it. Where is the child's "natural right" that you always cry about ? Does the Father not have no "natural right" to r ...[text shortened]... ng" claim is a veil to hide your cowardice, and one that everyone can see through.
'Words" like wishy washy and cowardice coming from USArmyParatrooper. If I didn't know better I would think you were trying to intimidate me troop.
I have discussed my position on those things ad nauseam. If you want to run off down that little rabbit trail do it with some one else. Or go back and look at my previous post on the matter.
I will say this though, thats a baby inside of the womb. A human being. Many of us here are fathers. And when you are looking at that ultrasound, picking out names with the mother, painting the room a certain color, buying the crib and all that good stuff, you know there is a little person in there. And you cant wait for her/him to come out and show themselves. They are not just some lump. They have eyes, fingernails, a brain, genes , etc. They respond to music, stress, happiness, etc. They are alive. And any real father knows this. You dont smoke around the mother, cause stress, you pamper her. Cause you want your baby safe.
Especially after the ultrasound, you dont refer to your new child as "it". You say, he or she. You might even have the name already. And thats how you refer to the baby.
One last thing that puzzles me about libtards. Maybe you could shed some light on this. I have read many criminal cases where someone kicks or punches a pregnant woman inorder to kill the unborn child. They are charged with infanticide or infant homocide. If they are not a human being inside of the womb how can they be charged with that ?
Originally posted by utherpendragonOh, you addressed whether rape victims should be forced to carry the fetus to term earlier in the thread? My bad, what page is it on?
Ooooo. 😲
'Words" like wishy washy and cowardice coming from USArmyParatrooper. If I didn't know better I would think you were trying to intimidate me troop.
I have discussed my position on those things ad nauseam. If you want to run off down that little rabbit trail do it with some one else. Or go back and look at my previous post on the matter.
...[text shortened]... ocide. If they are not a human being inside of the womb how can they be charged with that ?
I'm calling you a wishy-washy "pro-lifer" because that's what you are. How is that intimidation? Was there a threat in there somewhere?
There are many forms of cowardice. You act as though you're championing the anti-choice position but you lack the conviction in your beliefs to answer tough questions. That's wishy-washy. Making excuse after excuse to answer a yes-or-no question is cowardly.
I don't buy your excuses for a second.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIf you going to be ignorant, perhaps you shouldn't call people "libtards". To answer your last paragraph, most, but not all, States passed laws of fairly recent vintage criminalizing causing the death of a fetus in certain circumstances. Note if they were considered a "human being inside of the womb" these laws would be unnecessary; unlawfully causing their "death" would be murder under standard homicide laws in that case. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Ooooo. 😲
'Words" like wishy washy and cowardice coming from USArmyParatrooper. If I didn't know better I would think you were trying to intimidate me troop.
I have discussed my position on those things ad nauseam. If you want to run off down that little rabbit trail do it with some one else. Or go back and look at my previous post on the matter.
...[text shortened]... ocide. If they are not a human being inside of the womb how can they be charged with that ?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGo back and read my post then! I have been through this many times before ! Even with you, I am quite sure ! You know where I stand on this. I have no desire to banter the same old crap with some drunk staff sergeant.
Oh, you addressed whether rape victims should be forced to carry the fetus to term earlier in the thread? My bad, what page is it on?
I'm calling you a wishy-washy "pro-lifer" because that's what you are. How is that intimidation? Was there a threat in there somewhere?
There are many forms of cowardice. You act as though you're championing t ...[text shortened]... se to answer a yes-or-no question is cowardly.
I don't buy your excuses for a second.
I told you, the woman is a host to another life. And its a beautiful thing. Thats common sense.
I'm not gonna sit here and go through every hypothetical situation your inebriated brain can come up with so you can get your gotcha moment.
Get a life and learn how to play some chess while you are at it.
Originally posted by no1marauderThats not so. Infanticide is the killing of the child with in one year of its birth. But also I have seen case where people are charged with this while the baby is still in the womb. There are many examples. But here is one I found quickly,
If you going to be ignorant, perhaps you shouldn't call people "libtards". To answer your last paragraph, most, but not all, States passed laws of fairly recent vintage criminalizing causing the death of a fetus in certain circumstances. Note if they were considered a "human being inside of the womb" these laws would be unnecessary; unlawfully causing th ...[text shortened]... s in that case. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Mother 'killed unborn baby by swallowing rat poison in last week of pregnancy'
A woman has been charged with killing her unborn child by deliberately swallowing rat poison in the last week of her pregnancy.
[the mother] was arrested at her home in Indianapolis and charged with murder and infanticide.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366876/Mother-charged-murder-infanticide-swallowing-rat-poison-week-pregnancy.html#ixzz1lHFaxutb
So my question is was it a child or not ?
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt's certainly possible that there are some cases like that, but the most famous case I know of came to the opposite conclusion,
Maybe you could shed some light on this. I have read many criminal cases where someone kicks or punches a pregnant woman inorder to kill the unborn child. They are charged with infanticide or infant homocide. If they are not a human being inside of the womb how can they be charged with that ?
Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619 (Cal. 1970)
In this proceeding for writ of prohibition we are called upon to decide whether an unborn but viable fetus is a "human being" within the meaning of the California statute defining murder (Pen. Code, § 187). We conclude that the Legislature did not intend such a meaning, and that for us to construe the statute to the contrary and apply it to this petitioner would exceed our judicial power and deny petitioner due process of law.
-snip-
On February 23, 1969, Mrs. Keeler was driving on a narrow mountain road in Amador County after delivering the girls to their home. She met petitioner driving in the opposite direction; he blocked the road with his car, and she pulled over to the side. He walked to her vehicle and began speaking to her. He seemed calm, and she rolled down her window to hear him. He said, "I hear you're pregnant. If you are you had better stay away from the girls and from here." She did not reply, and he opened the car door; as she later testified, "He assisted me out of the car.... [I]t wasn't roughly at this time." Petitioner then looked at her abdomen and became "extremely upset." He said, "You sure are. I'm going to stomp it out of you." He pushed her against the car, shoved his knee into her abdomen, and struck her in the face with several blows. She fainted, and when she regained consciousness petitioner had departed.
Mrs. Keeler drove back to Stockton, and the police and medical assistance were summoned. She had suffered substantial facial injuries, as well as extensive bruising of the abdominal wall. A Caesarian section was performed and the fetus was examined in utero. Its head was found to be severely fractured, and it was delivered stillborn. The pathologist gave as his opinion that the cause of death was skull fracture with consequent cerebral hemorrhaging, that death would have been immediate, and that the injury could have been the result of force applied to the mother's abdomen. There was no air in the fetus' lungs, and the umbilical cord was intact.
-snip-
It is the policy of this state to construe a penal statute as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstances of its application may reasonably permit; just as in the case of a question of fact, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute. (Walsh v. Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 757, 764-765 [31 Cal.Rptr. 297, 382 P.2d 337], and cases cited.) [4b] We hold that in adopting the definition of murder in Penal Code section 187 the Legislature intended to exclude from its reach the act of killing an unborn fetus.
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal3d/2/619.html
It's a very interesting case that they had use read in our first week of law school in criminal law class. You should read it. You may find it interesting.
Originally posted by utherpendragonNo I don't know where you stand because you won't answer yes or no.
Go back and read my post then! I have been through this many times before ! Even with you, I am quite sure ! You know where I stand on this. I have no desire to banter the same old crap with some drunk staff sergeant.
I told you, the woman is a host to another life. And its a beautiful thing. Thats common sense.
I'm not gonna sit here and go thr ...[text shortened]... u can get your gotcha moment.
Get a life and learn how to play some chess while you are at it.
In the time it took you to write paragraph after paragraph dodging the question you could have given a hundred "yes" (three letters) or "no" (two letters) answers.
Rapists DO sometimes impregnate their victims so it's not hypothetical. Do you think the government should force them to carry the fetus to term, yes or no?
Obviously your next reply will contain more excuses not to answer. I thank you in advance for showing your lack of conviction.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIn the last week of pregnancy, yes it was a child.
Thats not so. Infanticide is the killing of the child with in one year of its birth. But also I have seen case where people are charged with this while the baby is still in the womb. There are many examples. But here is one I found quickly,Mother 'killed unborn baby by swallowing rat poison in last week of pregnancy'
A woman has been cha ...[text shortened]... ison-week-pregnancy.html#ixzz1lHFaxutb
So my question is was it a child or not ?
Unlike you I don't run away from the tough questions. In contrast you demand answers but make excuses not to answer when they're asked of you.
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou should read more carefully:
Thats not so. Infanticide is the killing of the child with in one year of its birth. But also I have seen case where people are charged with this while the baby is still in the womb. There are many examples. But here is one I found quickly,Mother 'killed unborn baby by swallowing rat poison in last week of pregnancy'
A woman has been cha ...[text shortened]... ison-week-pregnancy.html#ixzz1lHFaxutb
So my question is was it a child or not ?
ei Bei Shuai, 34, gave birth to a baby girl called Angel days after taking a lethal dose of the poison.
But despite efforts by doctors to save her life she died three days later from bleeding in her brain.
The child died after birth, so it wasn't "fetal homicide".
It is interesting that 12 States, including New York, have no laws making it a homicide to "kill" an unborn ZEF at any stage of its development.
Originally posted by no1marauderRight. But was the crime not committed before the child was born ? She drank the rat poison to terminate the life of the being inside her. She didnt harm it after it was born.
You should read more carefully:
ei Bei Shuai, 34, gave birth to a baby girl called Angel days after taking a lethal dose of the poison.
But despite efforts by doctors to save her life she died three days later from bleeding in her brain.
The child died after birth, so it wasn't "fetal homicide".
...[text shortened]... have no laws making it a homicide to "kill" an unborn ZEF at any stage of its development.
The authorities are saying in this case that the baby inside of her does have rights and is protected under the law. Therefore IT IS a baby human being even though still hooked to an umbilical cord.
To me it makes no sense. Either it is a child or it is not.
Originally posted by utherpendragonA dog is protected under the law from being mistreated; does that mean its a "human being"?
Right. But was the crime not committed before the child was born ? She drank the rat poison to terminate the life of the being inside her. She didnt harm it after it was born.
The authorities are saying in this case that the baby inside of her does have rights and is protected under the law. Therefore IT IS a baby human being even though still hooked to an umbilical cord.
To me it makes no sense. Either it is a child or it is not.