Abortion Ruled Legal & Constitutional! Murder Is Not!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by mascale, Dec 23, 2009.

  1. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    So in further exposing the lunacy and idiosyncracy of the anti-abortion fanaticism: A District Judge has ruled that a nutcase, who killed an abortion-performing doctor, will (1) have to go on trial for an actual murder, and that (2), a "necessity" defense will not be allowed. The case concerns Wichita, KS, defendent Scott Roeder who was observed shooting the doctor in the brain.

    Roeder wanted to claim that he was saving the lives of fetuses. That would open up the possibility of lesser charges, than Murder One.

    Anti-abortion activist can't use 'necessity defense' in slaying - CNN.com

    Apparently Kansas doesn't recognize the defense, but at any rate the defense can be used only to prevent someone from committing a crime. Abortion is both Constitutional, to the contrary, and is even legal!

    So anyone notices how idiosyncratic the anti-abortion position really is. The fellow in the case is easily regarded a fanatic.

    What is any judge going to ask, or rule, in any such matter?

    Civilizations generally do not have complex bureaucracies devoted to the recording of conceptions, of the unborn. Civilizations generally do not have filings of "certificates of live conceptions," or even filings of "certificates of natural death" in the event the conceptions do not attach to the womb. Rabbis do not bless kosher toilet bowls, and sewers, or sewage treatment plants, or even any dumpsters where the leavings may be placed. Priests and Protestant ministers do not spend inordinate amounts of time sprinkling holy water, or other incense, in those places. Last rites and burial ceremonies are not performed in those cases wherein the conceived do not attach.

    Anyone notices that in fact it is the mother, who is mainly in attendance--Something which the anti-abortionists apparently want to take away from humanity!

    Even famous Jesus Christ, in Luke 20, leaves science to the scientists in the matter of the seven-times woman who had no live births, for whatever reasons. Where the concept was regarded legal, then no further comment was necessary to make. Luke records no other comment, in the matter. The outcome is even expressly stated as creatures regarded angelic.

    So there can be alleged a theology, about abortion and other birth control: And even famous Jesus Christ was elsewhere inclined to allow the secular law to be the secular law.

    Fabricated out of lunacy, then in the case of the now dead doctor: There will be a trial for an actual murder. It will even be regarded in the usual way that murder in fact is regarded. The doctor was not engaged in a criminal act. The accused, however, will be on trial.

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Presumably the doctor even undrstood the concept of the medical waste, kind of like stuffing the adults into the body bags, even now!)
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009
  2. Immanuel
    Offline

    Immanuel Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16,823
    Thanks Received:
    2,210
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,224
    Good. He should go on trial. As to the "Necessity" defense, I do not think that he should be prevented from attempting such lunacy. Let him try that for a defense. Who knows maybe he can prove that killing another human being was necessary? He would be hard pressed to prove it to me and if that is his only defense, I can only tell him that I hope he likes steel bars.

    Immie
     
  3. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,035
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    In ordinary police activities, worldwide, special scrutiny is generally applied when the killing of an attempting criminal occurs. There is an "imminent" concept in the defense of necessity. The doctor was actually standing in a church. The assailant had no basis to allege that anything other than a usual conversation, or other ceremony, was under way. (Anyone might wonder if he had just repented, to understand the matter!)

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (For example, Al Qaeda with no clue about 9/11 were likely in Afghanistan, at the time of the event. The rational course was to let the Taliban bring in any alleged perpetrators, and set them to a local, Moslem trial. Instead, the United States, like the anti-abortionist, set about trying to kill anyone in the region, in at least two nations, even in their churches.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2009

Share This Page