Fetal homicide ruling mandates 'Roe exception' challenge, Alabama justice says

[SweetSue92]

But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!

Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.

But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.

Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.

Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!

There is absolutely no consensus as to "morals" ethics, and principles" with regard to the issue of abortion. The same is true with the gun issue, and many other things. A woman choosing to have an abortion may not subscribe to your brand of "morals" ethics, and principles." Big Government has no business imposing the beliefs of a certain group on everyone.

Big government gets to declare murder is murder.

Big government also didn't make the gal have sex.

(Personally I'm against outlawing abortion on my small government beliefs but I'll argue).

Government of any size does not have a right to impose a sectarian belief system of those currently in control of it, and in the process violate the rights of others.

"Gal"??? So WOMEN are supposed to explain to their husbands and boyfriends why they will not be getting any? So women have no right to exercise their own sexuality? Bizarre. What if a person is married to an abusive Duggar type who just screws and screws and screws and demands more because he is in a position to order her to spread her legs?

I take it that you would want all Americans to stick to masturbation and sleep in separate rooms? Yeah. Nobody loves anybody at all in the U.S. and nobody has any desire for emotional solace and intimacy. And, of course, nobody has a sexual nature that might inspire a straight guy to have some thoughts in response to seeing a beautiful, buxom actress and a straight woman to see a hunky shirtless actor and experience quite similar thoughts.

What planet are you from?

Tip for you, Greek non-goddess:

Read these posts outloud before posting. Ask yourself: does this accurately reflect anyone's reality, or maybe just the stuff that bizarrely goes on in my own head???

 

[Toronado3800]

But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!

Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.

But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.

Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.

Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!

There is absolutely no consensus as to "morals" ethics, and principles" with regard to the issue of abortion. The same is true with the gun issue, and many other things. A woman choosing to have an abortion may not subscribe to your brand of "morals" ethics, and principles." Big Government has no business imposing the beliefs of a certain group on everyone.

Big government gets to declare murder is murder.

Big government also didn't make the gal have sex.

(Personally I'm against outlawing abortion on my small government beliefs but I'll argue).

Government of any size does not have a right to impose a sectarian belief system of those currently in control of it, and in the process violate the rights of others.

"Gal"??? So WOMEN are supposed to explain to their husbands and boyfriends why they will not be getting any? So women have no right to exercise their own sexuality? Bizarre. What if a person is married to an abusive Duggar type who just screws and screws and screws and demands more because he is in a position to order her to spread her legs?

I take it that you would want all Americans to stick to masturbation and sleep in separate rooms? Yeah. Nobody loves anybody at all in the U.S. and nobody has any desire for emotional solace and intimacy. And, of course, nobody has a sexual nature that might inspire a straight guy to have some thoughts in response to seeing a beautiful, buxom actress and a straight woman to see a hunky shirtless actor and experience quite similar thoughts.

What planet are you from?

Thats a little off the hook. I'm real libertarian so I'm pro-choice.

So I want all Americans to sleep alone after watching porn? Nope.

Should a woman explain to the father what is going on? In all reasonable circumstances yup.

In my world if a woman is married to some nut who is effectively raping her, I say divorce him and file criminal charges.

At some level government gets to decide what murder is. Wanna change that? Can I shoot someone breaking intobmy home? My car? Someone beating my wife? Someone picking up a penny I dropped off the curb? This abortion thing is touchy. Its also very personal so since I'm against death panels I'm pro choice.

 

[Freiheit]

I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.

Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.


As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.

Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.

“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.

The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.

A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.

He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.

Read more at washingtontimes.com

(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. ​

https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

That's what I'm saying, illogical!.....Either kill them before born, or allowed to kill them after being born....after all it is the same thing except one is still inside the woman and the other is outside... same baby!

Nothing illogical about it. The woman is in control of her body. Anyone else messes with it, and they violate the law.

The baby IS NOT her body, she is simply the vessel.....as stated in the 2004 law. We simply need to do away with abortion!

Matters not that the baby's body is not her body. She has the right to end her pregnancy if she so wishes. And that's backed up by the law you referenced in your OP.

It was and is in some places legal to enslave a human being. Does the law make enslavement moral and ethical?

 

[Lysistrata]

Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance.

But yeah, your analogy is true. It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.

Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.

Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!

There is absolutely no consensus as to "morals" ethics, and principles" with regard to the issue of abortion. The same is true with the gun issue, and many other things. A woman choosing to have an abortion may not subscribe to your brand of "morals" ethics, and principles." Big Government has no business imposing the beliefs of a certain group on everyone.

Big government gets to declare murder is murder.

Big government also didn't make the gal have sex.

(Personally I'm against outlawing abortion on my small government beliefs but I'll argue).

Government of any size does not have a right to impose a sectarian belief system of those currently in control of it, and in the process violate the rights of others.

"Gal"??? So WOMEN are supposed to explain to their husbands and boyfriends why they will not be getting any? So women have no right to exercise their own sexuality? Bizarre. What if a person is married to an abusive Duggar type who just screws and screws and screws and demands more because he is in a position to order her to spread her legs?

I take it that you would want all Americans to stick to masturbation and sleep in separate rooms? Yeah. Nobody loves anybody at all in the U.S. and nobody has any desire for emotional solace and intimacy. And, of course, nobody has a sexual nature that might inspire a straight guy to have some thoughts in response to seeing a beautiful, buxom actress and a straight woman to see a hunky shirtless actor and experience quite similar thoughts.

What planet are you from?

Tip for you, Greek non-goddess:

Read these posts outloud before posting. Ask yourself: does this accurately reflect t anyone's reality, or maybe just the stuff that bizarrely goes on in my own head???

You sound like you need a massive dose of reality. Visit a women's shelter, young women with two little kids in tow trying to make a living for them as a waitress, websites for support groups for women fleeing groups like Quiverful or FLDS. emergency rooms. Watch some interviews with guys like this "southern baptist" boy, who bragged on TV that he won every disagreement with his wife because of what he had behind his zipper.

I can't see why the right-wingers keep portraying ordinary Americans as hookers and johns in the back of a Chevy at closing time. Healthy heterosexuality involves a combination of emotions and the sexuality of the partners, and I think that relationships between LGBTs involve the same things. It can be joyous and uplifting.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Apples And Oranges "

* Real Money Versus Big Government Fluff *

But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent!

Do you want the government to act like a private insurance company by collecting premiums to then make market investments and management decisions to offset potential losses ?

Do you believe it is okay for private individuals less inclined to purchase health insurance be able to do so such that when they do need treatment the federal government pays for them , even though government expenditures for medical costs need to be controlled ?

The aca was a decision by the government to mandate that those between 0% and 400% of the poverty line acquire private health insurance ; the government would subsidize the premiums and the CBO conjecture was that over the long term , the statistic of total costs to government for subsidizing premiums and letting private insurance providers manage patient records and payments to private claimants would be less than the statistic of total costs to government for direct management of patient claims and payments to private claimants by government .

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia

 

[The Purge]

" Apples And Oranges "

* Real Money Versus Big Government Fluff *

But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent!

Do you want the government to act like a private insurance company by collecting premiums to then make market investments and management decisions to offset potential losses ?

Do you believe it is okay for private individuals less inclined to purchase health insurance be able to do so such that when they do need treatment the federal government pays for them ?

The aca was a decision by the government to mandate that those between 0% and 400% of the poverty line acquire private health insurance ; the government would subsidize the premiums and the conjecture was that over the long term , the statistic of total costs for subsidizing premiums and letting private insurance providers manage patient records and payments to private claimants would be less than the statistic of total costs from government direct management of patient claims and payments to private claimants .

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia

For 200+ years WE had to rely on ourselves for our own care....I REFUSE to pay for someone else's care....either they find a way, or simply get out of the way!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Paying One Way Or Another "

* Step Up Do Something About It *

For 200+ years WE had to rely on ourselves for our own care....I REFUSE to pay for someone else's care....either they find a way, or simply get out of the way!

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia
The CBO has indicated that: "Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy." Further, the CBO also projects that "total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."[29]

 

[The Purge]

" Paying One Way Or Another "

* Step Up Do Something About It *

For 200+ years WE had to rely on ourselves for our own care....I REFUSE to pay for someone else's care....either they find a way, or simply get out of the way!

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia
The CBO has indicated that: "Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy." Further, the CBO also projects that "total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."[29]

Wikipedia is a truthful source....who wrote it?....lolol

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Factual Emphasis "

* Public Consortium With Policies And Guidelines *

Wikipedia is a truthful source....who wrote it?....lolol

From those of us with formal educations , references are included in reports ; and , as is the case for the 2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia , a number of references are from CBO reports provided at .gov addresses .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Could Have Phrased It Appropriately But Playing Invalid Semantic Games "

* Fabricating Court Cases Through Dumb Statutes *

Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
...
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.

For the most part , a faeiouys if private property of the mother and any conjectural offense against a faeioutys is technically in fact an offense against the mother , even though there is a separate charge .

The legislature of alabama could include in its list of egregious special circumstances , AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY STATE | Death Penalty Information Center , the willful murder of a woman known to be pregnant , which the language does not currently include .

For example , the following language is in the list of aggravating factors for capital punishment in arizona , " (13) The offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification. " .

As the supreme court of alabama is relying only on " (10) Murder wherein two or more persons are murdered by the defendant by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. " , the judgement if not technically valid according to constitution .

First , the faeioutys was only 8 weeks and not post viability of 26 weeks , which according to roe v wade , a state interest in protecting a a wright to life may begin such that states may proscribe abortion in the third trimester , from which one may deduce that a faeioutys would not be entitled to state interest based upon a criteria for birth for equal protection until that point .

Second , the term person when broken down into its root terms of " per " and " son " , means countable by census and male , hence born and the " sex " connotation will be ignored for now .

Unfortunately , in this case , the defendant would not qualify for capital punishment under the law of alabama , which means that if the citizens of alabama are more insightful they woul include language that is more indicative of those they see as deserving the death penalty .