Is Ariel Castro a Murderer?

[Asclepias]

absolutely possible, especially at >20 weeks gestational age

are you that uninformed?

The baby is not a part of the woman's body. Period.

So how many babies are you personally caring for that fit that scenario? My guess would be none correct?

none is an answer of yours.
I, counting on the amount of the taxes I pay, care, probably for 3

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

 

[Asclepias]

you are a perfect example of the hypocrites

Is that really the best you can do? At least defend your post. I understand you really have nothing left to say but really?

you want somebody to respond to the bolded nonsense?

No I want you to tell me how being charged for double murder for killing a pregnant mother and what AC did is the same thing? You said it was hypocrisy. Wouldnt they have to be the same thing at least kind of?

 

[Vox]

So how many babies are you personally caring for that fit that scenario? My guess would be none correct?

none is an answer of yours.
I, counting on the amount of the taxes I pay, care, probably for 3

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

 

[Vox]

Is that really the best you can do? At least defend your post. I understand you really have nothing left to say but really?

you want somebody to respond to the bolded nonsense?

No I want you to tell me how being charged for double murder for killing a pregnant mother and what AC did is the same thing? You said it was hypocrisy. Wouldnt they have to be the same thing at least kind of?

it IS hypocrisy. Killing a baby in one instance is a punishable crime, in the other - it is a "choice".

proaborts are known hypocrites, though.

 

[Asclepias]

you want somebody to respond to the bolded nonsense?

No I want you to tell me how being charged for double murder for killing a pregnant mother and what AC did is the same thing? You said it was hypocrisy. Wouldnt they have to be the same thing at least kind of?

it IS hypocrisy. Killing a baby in one instance is a punishable crime, in the other - it is a "choice".

proaborts are known hypocrites, though.

All the factors have to be the same to make your argument valid. It has to be apples to apples otherwise you are just picking what suits you to make your argument. Hypocrisy would be letting one person off for the exact same crime. Since abortion is not a crime that pretty much seals it. Since the mother gives consent in an abortion the pretty much shuts it down.

 

[tubig]

Castro is of course a sick twisted oxygen thief. I'm not defending anything he did and he deserves any punishment man and G-d can mete out to him.
But part of his conviction was for doing something abortion doctors do every day. If so, doesn't that make those doctors murderers too?

Here we go again from the extremists.

 

[Asclepias]

none is an answer of yours.
I, counting on the amount of the taxes I pay, care, probably for 3

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OK,so merely not being able to consent is not a standard to decide whether someone can be killed or not. So your first point is refuted.

Now, let's try again: Castro pleaded guilty to something that abortion doctors do every day. Isn't a crime a crime? If he can be chaged with murder for killing an unborn baby then isn't every instance also murder?

I never said that was the only consideration. I said the fetus could not give consent. That along with the fact that it is inside another living human being called the mom makes it her decision. I know you think you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body but you dont. So lets try again to make some sense ok?

So is it the fact that is inside another person's body? That's silly. In both the abortion doctor's case and Castro's case the fetus was inside the woman's body.
I dont think I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. If she wants to have her tubes tied, it's her decision. If she wants tattoos, it's her decision. But I do have a right and responsibility to keep people from killing those unable to fend for themselves. The fetus is not her body, it belongs to someone else.

Incorrect.

Prior to viability abortion is legal, and consequently cannot be ‘murder.’ That you perceive the embryo/fetus as ‘potentially human’ is subjective and legally irrelevant.

Prior to birth the woman’s privacy rights are paramount. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

In civil law, substantive due process protects one’s right to privacy, to be free from unwarranted interference by the state in matters both personal and private, such as whether to have a child or not.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘murder,’ then don’t have an abortion. But neither you nor the state has the authority to dictate to a woman concerning personal, private matters.

A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in accordance with her state’s laws, the doctor who performs the abortion does so with her consent, which was not the case with regard to Castro’s actions – hence the murder charge in the context of criminal law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

So it's up to you? There is no hypocrisy.

 

[The Rabbi]

I never said that was the only consideration. I said the fetus could not give consent. That along with the fact that it is inside another living human being called the mom makes it her decision. I know you think you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body but you dont. So lets try again to make some sense ok?

So is it the fact that is inside another person's body? That's silly. In both the abortion doctor's case and Castro's case the fetus was inside the woman's body.
I dont think I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. If she wants to have her tubes tied, it's her decision. If she wants tattoos, it's her decision. But I do have a right and responsibility to keep people from killing those unable to fend for themselves. The fetus is not her body, it belongs to someone else.

Incorrect.

Prior to viability abortion is legal, and consequently cannot be ‘murder.’ That you perceive the embryo/fetus as ‘potentially human’ is subjective and legally irrelevant.

Prior to birth the woman’s privacy rights are paramount. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

In civil law, substantive due process protects one’s right to privacy, to be free from unwarranted interference by the state in matters both personal and private, such as whether to have a child or not.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘murder,’ then don’t have an abortion. But neither you nor the state has the authority to dictate to a woman concerning personal, private matters.

A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in accordance with her state’s laws, the doctor who performs the abortion does so with her consent, which was not the case with regard to Castro’s actions – hence the murder charge in the context of criminal law.

OK, so prior to viability it is not murder.
Then why was Castro charged with murder?

 

[Asclepias]

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

So it's up to you? There is no hypocrisy.

Not up to me either. I mind my own business and worry about my body. You would be less stressed if you concentrated on yours.

 

[Vox]

No I want you to tell me how being charged for double murder for killing a pregnant mother and what AC did is the same thing? You said it was hypocrisy. Wouldnt they have to be the same thing at least kind of?

it IS hypocrisy. Killing a baby in one instance is a punishable crime, in the other - it is a "choice".

proaborts are known hypocrites, though.

All the factors have to be the same to make your argument valid. It has to be apples to apples otherwise you are just picking what suits you to make your argument. Hypocrisy would be letting one person off for the exact same crime. Since abortion is not a crime that pretty much seals it. Since the mother gives consent in an abortion the pretty much shuts it down.

No, they do NOT.

the result is the same - a murdered baby.

the baby did not consent to the murder either way.

so consent ( as if there is a possibility of consent to a murder - an idiotic recourse) is IRRELEVANT.

hypocrite proaborts would punish for the murdered baby in one instance and will turn heaven and earth in order to allow the murder in the other.
That is why they are HYPOCRITES.

 

[The Rabbi]

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

So it's up to you? There is no hypocrisy.

Not up to me either. I mind my own business and worry about my body. You would be less stressed if you concentrated on yours.

I can't shut my eyes to murder. I am sure Germans in the 1930s felt better about themlseves minding their own business.

 

[Vox]

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

it is not another person's body.

it is a different body. separate, unique and their own.

and yes, it is up to me to decide.

 

[Zona]

Is abortion legal? Is commiting one without a women's permission legal?

Hopefully this ends this dumb thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

none is an answer of yours.
I, counting on the amount of the taxes I pay, care, probably for 3

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

But the Constitution and its case law do.

And the law clearly states that abortion is not ‘murder.’

Indeed, the Constitution exists to protect citizens from the arrogance and ignorance you exhibit, where your attempt to codify subjective moral doctrine and religious dogma into secular law is offensive to the Founding Document, and thankfully prohibited.

 

[PixieStix]

yes, he is a murderer

 

[Vox]

I never said that was the only consideration. I said the fetus could not give consent. That along with the fact that it is inside another living human being called the mom makes it her decision. I know you think you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body but you dont. So lets try again to make some sense ok?

So is it the fact that is inside another person's body? That's silly. In both the abortion doctor's case and Castro's case the fetus was inside the woman's body.
I dont think I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. If she wants to have her tubes tied, it's her decision. If she wants tattoos, it's her decision. But I do have a right and responsibility to keep people from killing those unable to fend for themselves. The fetus is not her body, it belongs to someone else.

Incorrect.

Prior to viability abortion is legal, and consequently cannot be ‘murder.’ That you perceive the embryo/fetus as ‘potentially human’ is subjective and legally irrelevant.

Prior to birth the woman’s privacy rights are paramount. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

In civil law, substantive due process protects one’s right to privacy, to be free from unwarranted interference by the state in matters both personal and private, such as whether to have a child or not.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘murder,’ then don’t have an abortion. But neither you nor the state has the authority to dictate to a woman concerning personal, private matters.

A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in accordance with her state’s laws, the doctor who performs the abortion does so with her consent, which was not the case with regard to Castro’s actions – hence the murder charge in the context of criminal law.

legality of abortion does not make it less murder.

Nazis murdered Jews in concentration camps absolutely legally - according to their laws.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If a woman decides to kill her unborn fetus it is ok because the law says so.

If a stranger decides to kill an unborn fetus it is not ok because the woman did not consent.

Either way, the fetus still ends up intentionally dead.

The pro-choice pov is that they want to be able to choose to kill an unborn fetus.

 

[Vox]

Contributing money to taxes has very little to do with caring for a child that has been removed from a mother. Unless you are personally caring for a child that is from that scenario then you have no moral superiority here and you only want to stick your nose in someone elses business.

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

But the Constitution and its case law do.

And the law clearly states that abortion is not ‘murder.’

Indeed, the Constitution exists to protect citizens from the arrogance and ignorance you exhibit, where your attempt to codify subjective moral doctrine and religious dogma into secular law is offensive to the Founding Document, and thankfully prohibited.

Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Abortion IS a murder.

or you consider murdering 6 million Jews by Nazis also not a murder?

It was legal by their standards.