Constitutional Rights Have Limits

[BackAgain]

Once more, you're lying your ass off. That was the very heart of the argument you were making. And here's you post where you specifically said "convicted"



How are you going to argue you way out of that lie, except by posting another lie?

Once more you point to statements that aren’t even contradictions to make false claims that another has lied. You remain the liar. And you’re a retard. You can’t stop lying.

 

[meaner gene]

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Kansas case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Court of Appeals of Kansas decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Defendant convicted of conspiracy to commit murder of the fetus. Such a conviction could not be obtained unless it was possible to commit murder of the fetus. Accordingly, Kansas also legally accepts the legal principle that a fetus is a “person” for purposes of its homicide law.

Why did you omit this important FACT:

• Intentional first-degree murder for the miscarriage of Naomi's fetus. The jury returned a not guilty verdict

Aggravated battery of Naomi based on great bodily harm with lesser included offenses of both domestic battery and battery based on bodily harm for lacing the pancakes with an abortifacient. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Distribution of adulterated food for giving the pancakes to Naomi, a misdemeanor violation of K.S.A. 65-657. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Conspiring with Angel to commit intentional first-degree murder by causing Naomi to miscarry and identifying the online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol as the overt act furthering the conspiracy. The jury found Bollig guilty.


Conspiracy to commit murder is not murder. Just like conspiracy to commit insurrection isn't insurrection.

 

[BackAgain]

Here comes the lies again.

You required "convicted of murder of a fetus", now you're spinning like a top, that manslaughter is murder?

Stop lying.

No lie by me. Another lie by you. Feel obliged to cite the post where you claim I said I “required” the conviction of murder of a fetus.

it’s not my problem that you lack the mental ability to follow a conversation. Let me try to set you straight. The folks (people like you) who claim that a fetus is not a “person” within the legal meaning of person in the United States have been proved wrong.

As part of the conversation, schmucks like you insisted that nobody could be convicted of the murder of a fetus since a murder requires that the victim be a “person.” I challenged those who make the claim to prove it. They said it: it’s their burden.

Meanwhile, I have shown statutes that do make a fetus a “person;” and I have demonstrated prosecutions FOR the killing of a fetus because the law in those cases DOES define a “fetus” within the definition of “person.”

Next, I have further refined the point. You call it spinning, but you’re a dishonest stupid person you’re wrong. The POINT all along continues to be that at least in some states it is legally possible to commit a homicide on a fetus BECAUSE the law includes “fetus” within the definition of “person.”

In fact, I went so far as to demonstrate that there IS a Untied States law that includes a fetus within the definition of a “person” for purposes of criminal prosecution.

Youre quite stupid and amazingly dishonest.

 

[BackAgain]

Why did you omit this important FACT:

• Intentional first-degree murder for the miscarriage of Naomi's fetus. The jury returned a not guilty verdict

Aggravated battery of Naomi based on great bodily harm with lesser included offenses of both domestic battery and battery based on bodily harm for lacing the pancakes with an abortifacient. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Distribution of adulterated food for giving the pancakes to Naomi, a misdemeanor violation of K.S.A. 65-657. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Conspiring with Angel to commit intentional first-degree murder by causing Naomi to miscarry and identifying the online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol as the overt act furthering the conspiracy. The jury found Bollig guilty.


Conspiracy to commit murder is not murder. Just like conspiracy to commit insurrection isn't insurrection.

One cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder of a fetus IF it isn’t legally possible to murder a fetus. Keep swinging. Keep missing.

Also, I didn’t omit anything. I’m the one who provided the citation, you lying idiot.

“• Conspiring with Angel to commit intentional first-degree murder by causing Naomi to miscarry and identifying the online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol as the overt act furthering the conspiracy. The jury found Bollig guilty.”

Again, that verdict would be legally impossible if a fetus wasn’t legally a “person” for purposes of the homicide law.

 

[meaner gene]

No lie by me. Another lie by you. Feel obliged to cite the post where you claim I said I “required” the conviction of murder of a fetus.

Right here asshole.

Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.

convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus,

 

[BackAgain]

Right here asshole.


convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus,

“if” “your contention”. “Your burden.”
You lying idiot.

 

[meaner gene]

One cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder of a fetus IF it isn’t legally possible to murder a fetus. Keep swinging. Keep missing.

You're a complete asshole.

The kansas appellate court specifically said just that.

It said that Kansas specifically precluded conviction of the mother for murder by miscarriage.

But that they could convict a conspiracy to commit murder, even if the murder itself wasn't a crime.

 

[BackAgain]

You're a complete asshole.

The kansas appellate court specifically said just that.

It said that the Kansas specifically precluded conviction of the mother for murder by miscarriage.

But that they could convict a conspiracy to commit murder, even if the murder itself wasn't a crime.

You’re an asshole. That discusses what could be charged as against the mother. You fucking dishonest hack lying sack of stupid.

 

[meaner gene]

You’re an asshole. That discusses what could be charged as against the mother. You fucking dishonest hack lying sack of stupid.

Read the appellate decision asshole.

The statute, however, expressly excludes from prosecution “[a]ny act committed by the mother of the unborn child” and an abortion performed by a “licensed medical professional at the request of [a] pregnant woman.” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b).

 

[BackAgain]

Read the appellate decision asshole.

The statute, however, expressly excludes from prosecution “[a]ny act committed by the mother of the unborn child” and an abortion performed by a “licensed medical professional at the request of [a] pregnant woman.” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b).

By the mother, you absolute retard.

 

[meaner gene]

The statute, however, expressly excludes from prosecution “[a]ny act committed by the mother of the unborn child” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b).


Which means the mother committed no crime.

But others could be convicted of conspiracy to commit the crime.

The participants, therefore, may be convicted and punished for a conspiracy even though the object crime remains unrealized

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Kansas case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Court of Appeals of Kansas decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

 

[meaner gene]

Looks like backagain won't be back again

Constitutional Rights Have Limits
By the mother, you absolute retard.
BackAgain Post #210 45 minutes ago

45 minutes searching to find a conviction for fetus murder, and counting.

 

[BackAgain]

Fucking meager just can’t admit his mistake. Nobody is talking about prosecuting the mother or the abortion doctor, you complete blockhead. The question has been and still is whether a fetus is considered a person under (some) US laws (federal and/or any of the States). Yes. It is.

Next, can the snuffing-out of the life of a preborn human be considered a homicide? Yes. As I’ve shown.

Is abortion therefore considered a homicide under any current U.S. law? That depends on the various state laws but generally, no. Why not? Because abortion has been carefully carved-out as an exception to any criminal homicide definition. This is akin to declaring a case of self defense as not being a “crime,” in that it is a legislatively carved out exception. It is — definitionally — not a criminal homicide.

However, in other circumstances, as I have demonstrated it is a criminal homicide (in some jurisdictions) to snuff out the life of a preborn child.

Meager will remain stupidly insistent on pretending otherwise. But he’s already been proved to be a liar.

 

[meaner gene]

Fucking meager just can’t admit his mistake. Nobody is talking about prosecuting the mother or the abortion doctor, you complete blockhead. The question has been and still is whether a fetus is considered a person under (some) US laws (federal and/or any of the States). Yes. It is.

That wasn't your argument, so i'll repeat it before you spend another day where you keep lying about what the argument was about.

Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for
causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant
giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.

You've been trying to show a person convicted of the murder of a fetus, and so far it's nothing but page after page and post after post of EPIC FAIL

 

[meaner gene]

If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for
causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant
giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

Saying I disproved your false claim. proves what a terrible liar you are.
You've been flailing and twisting, and even changing the meaning of words to try and eek even an inkling of truth of a fetal murder conviction.

You claimed a manslaughter conviction was murder
You claimed a homicide conviction was murder
And the closest you could come, was a conspiracy to commit, being murder.

Yet none of them were a conviction for fetal murder. So your claim you disproved his claim, is nothing but another in the long string of lies you've been telling to try to convince people you aren't the biggest loser here.

But they see through you, which is why you keep running away and refusing to post a citation to back up ANYTHING you claim.

 

[Pellinore]

I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.

At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper government acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.

This is akin to the right to free speech. The Government isn’t allowed to deny us our right to free speech (with some very limited exceptions). But that doesn’t mean that the idiots at Twitter can’t deny you free speech on their service.

So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”)

Holy cow, I stepped away for one day and now this is six pages deep.

I agree completely. The Bill of Rights concerns limitations on the actions of the government; it does not itself place limitations on the actions of specific people. Your First Amendment free speech analogy is spot on, and it applies to the other rights as well.

Those are indeed separate from crimes, which are covered by the US, State, or various other jurisdictional Codes of Laws. (The Constitution is the highest law in the land, not the only one.) If the government bugs your phone, that's a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; if I do it, that's wiretapping, which is a felony in most states, and I'd probably do time for it. I also agree with what I take to be your next point, that our right to privacy does not give us carte blanche to commit any crime we like, as long as we have the door shut as we do it. Of course.

Everyone in this thread but me seems to be eager to relate this to Roe v Wade, the decision for which essentially stated that it is not the Supreme Court's job to state that a fetus is a person (with the associated right to survival) with such overwhelming surety that it overrides the other Constitutional rights involved, including the mother's right to privacy and right to make her own parenting decisions and so on, within parameters set by the States. Without making a personal statement on abortion one way or the other, I find it understandable how someone who can state without question that a fetus is a person as a matter of personal ethics, as you seem to be, can find this decision to be puzzling, if not abominable. I definitely get that.

The issue I objected to was the assertion that the Right to Privacy was "determined ... by SCOTUS" or a "bit [o]f fiction up until that point." It wasn't. It's been there the whole time.

 

[BackAgain]

That wasn't your argument, so i'll repeat it before you spend another day where you keep lying about what the argument was about.



You've been trying to show a person convicted of the murder of a fetus, and so far it's nothing but page after page and post after post of EPIC FAIL

You are incapable of honesty. I said it and tip quoted it, you total lying sack of stupid. I said,

If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden.

So once again, you are caught in one of your endless lies.

 

[meaner gene]

You are incapable of honesty. I said it and tip quoted it, you total lying sack of stupid. I said,


If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden.

There you go. Another lie by omission of the operative part of your post.

If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for
causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant
giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence. His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.

All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.

BUT YOU CAN'T

No matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of words.

 

[BackAgain]

Holy cow, I stepped away for one day and now this is six pages deep.

I agree completely. The Bill of Rights concerns limitations on the actions of the government; it does not itself place limitations on the actions of specific people. Your First Amendment free speech analogy is spot on, and it applies to the other rights as well.

Those are indeed separate from crimes, which are covered by the US, State, or various other jurisdictional Codes of Laws. (The Constitution is the highest law in the land, not the only one.) If the government bugs your phone, that's a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; if I do it, that's wiretapping, which is a felony in most states, and I'd probably do time for it. I also agree with what I take to be your next point, that our right to privacy does not give us carte blanche to commit any crime we like, as long as we have the door shut as we do it. Of course.

Everyone in this thread but me seems to be eager to relate this to Roe v Wade, the decision for which essentially stated that it is not the Supreme Court's job to state that a fetus is a person (with the associated right to survival) with such overwhelming surety that it overrides the other Constitutional rights involved, including the mother's right to privacy and right to make her own parenting decisions and so on, within parameters set by the States. Without making a personal statement on abortion one way or the other, I find it understandable how someone who can state without question that a fetus is a person as a matter of personal ethics, as you seem to be, can find this decision to be puzzling, if not abominable. I definitely get that.

The issue I objected to was the assertion that the Right to Privacy was "determined ... by SCOTUS" or a "bit [o]f fiction up until that point." It wasn't. It's been there the whole time.

I disagree that the alleged right to privacy has been there the whole time. I also disagree that it constitutes a valid juridical basis for Roe v. Wade. I do believe that there is a right to privacy but not that it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right (except to the extent that the Constitution says so in substance in places like the 4th Amendment).

I will also say this: I believe that you are at least partly right in your contention that the 9th Amendment is a lever by which the SCOTUS can address the abortion issue. I have looked again at the decision which did see fit to make reference to the 9th Amendment and I am reconsidering how pertinent it is to the ultimate decision in Roe v. Wade.

 

[BackAgain]

There you go. Another lie by omission of the operative part of your post.



The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence. His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.

All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.

BUT YOU CAN'T

No matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of words.

You insist on lying. I didn’t lie by omission either. As you knew when you just made that dishonest statement of yours. You have zero credibility. When you need to endlessly lie — as you do — to “make” your faux points, your “points” were never worth the effort in the first place.

Time for little meager intellect to face reality:

Just as a person can shoot another person intentionally (even planning to kill him) and yet not even be properly charged with a crime (if that shooting was “justified”), so too a doctor can perform an abortion on a woman fully intending to kill the little person in the mother’s womb and yet not be legally chargeable with a crime. In both cases, as I have noted, the law recognizes the victim as a person. In both cases the law, by definition, declares the killing of that person as non criminal.

Beyond that, you have no point. You can’t even cobble together an argument. You can deflect with your lies. You do that all the time. But you are forever incapable of just honestly addressing the actual argument. You’re a coward and you’re fully and deliberately dishonest — but you are entirely incapable of validly arguing the issues on the merits.