Is Murder Against The Law? Or......

[PoliticalChic]

The first question.....is this a case of murder, or of killing?

Is Nausheen Rahman correctly charged?

Probably not, because it sounds like she was mentally ill.

kind of like someone who posts a bullet-pointed screed on a message board every day.

5. As so many on the other side of the aisle scurry to obfuscate and quibble to hide killing and murder, using terms such as 'pro-choice,' or 'abortion,' rather than murder,


...and even denying that we are discussing the end of a human life....a human with unique and individual DNA, fingerprints, and organs...

More smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.

...they are forced to using terms such as 'embryo,' or 'fetus,' or the so-very removed, 'cell mass.'

Ah, this is what you were getting at, another crazy anti-abortion screed. It took you two pages to get there, but you finally made it.

Hey, here's a nutty idea. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal. Prior to Roe v. Wade, you would find exactly two cases of women being charged with "murder" for having abortions- once in 1922, once in 1911.

As for the people who performed them, they were never charged with murder, either, unless one of their adult patients died.

99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology.

of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons.

Eureka!!!

You finally got around to attempting to respond to the thread!

1. "Probably not, because it sounds like she was mentally ill."
There is no such indication.

2. "another crazy anti-abortion screed."
You seem absorbed with mental illness.....the reason is obvious.

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one."
Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.


4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision.
You should be ashamed of yourself.


5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"
Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?


6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

a.The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.”

Convenience, as in having your groceries delivered rather than having to walk across the street to pick them up.....this level of effort in deciding to execute the child you've created.


b. In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

“Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing.The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries


A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were thathaving a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%);that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



["A study published in Guttmacher's International Family Planning Perspectivesin 1998 said risk to a woman's health was the main reason for 2.8% of U.S. abortions in 1987-88."]


Hardly solid medical reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate"

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.

Um. NO. People being robbed object to being robbed.
Fetuses don't object to being aborted because they aren't people.

4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I just point out the absurdity of your position of prosecuting people for having abortions. By your logic, every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Heck, you could even claim that "murder for hire" laws apply here, as they contract a third party to do the deed. I mean, holy shit, now that we can induce early abortions with pills, we need to put crime scene tape around every tampon as a potential murder investigation.

6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

You are being intentionally dishonest, as nothing in the screed you followed with addressed the issue of LATE abortion (or third trimester abortions).

True, the woman who aborts the first trimester fetus which is the size of a kidney bean is doing it as a form or birth control. But no one is going to get all worked up over something the size of a kidney bean.

No woman is pregnant for 20 weeks and decides, "Shit, I don't want to have a baby. I'm getting an abortion!"

5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"

22 Weeks. Not 20.

Even at 23 weeks, the odds are grim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only PC hurries to obfuscate and hide the truth: a fetus is not a human baby.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm perfectly happy to leave my answer in post # 21 to the judgment of readers of both of our posts. How about you?

Honey, the judgment of the readers is that you lost the discussion when you posted your OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate"

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.

Um. NO. People being robbed object to being robbed.
Fetuses don't object to being aborted because they aren't people.

4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I just point out the absurdity of your position of prosecuting people for having abortions. By your logic, every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Heck, you could even claim that "murder for hire" laws apply here, as they contract a third party to do the deed. I mean, holy shit, now that we can induce early abortions with pills, we need to put crime scene tape around every tampon as a potential murder investigation.

6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

You are being intentionally dishonest, as nothing in the screed you followed with addressed the issue of LATE abortion (or third trimester abortions).

True, the woman who aborts the first trimester fetus which is the size of a kidney bean is doing it as a form or birth control. But no one is going to get all worked up over something the size of a kidney bean.

No woman is pregnant for 20 weeks and decides, "Shit, I don't want to have a baby. I'm getting an abortion!"

5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"

22 Weeks. Not 20.

Even at 23 weeks, the odds are grim.

"Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate""

There is no debate.

I simply laid out the truth.

I'm perfectly happy to allow readers of our posts to judge them.

How about you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate""

There is no debate.

I simply laid out the truth.

I'm perfectly happy to allow readers of our posts to judge them.

How about you?

There is no debate; you are wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate"

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.

Um. NO. People being robbed object to being robbed.
Fetuses don't object to being aborted because they aren't people.

4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I just point out the absurdity of your position of prosecuting people for having abortions. By your logic, every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Heck, you could even claim that "murder for hire" laws apply here, as they contract a third party to do the deed. I mean, holy shit, now that we can induce early abortions with pills, we need to put crime scene tape around every tampon as a potential murder investigation.

6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

You are being intentionally dishonest, as nothing in the screed you followed with addressed the issue of LATE abortion (or third trimester abortions).

True, the woman who aborts the first trimester fetus which is the size of a kidney bean is doing it as a form or birth control. But no one is going to get all worked up over something the size of a kidney bean.

No woman is pregnant for 20 weeks and decides, "Shit, I don't want to have a baby. I'm getting an abortion!"

5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"

22 Weeks. Not 20.

Even at 23 weeks, the odds are grim.

"Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate""

There is no debate.

I simply laid out the truth.

I'm perfectly happy to allow readers of our posts to judge them.

How about you?

Here's a cut 'n' paste for ya:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

As a fact of Constitutional law you’re wrong, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby,’ an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and abortion is not ‘murder.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate"

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.

Um. NO. People being robbed object to being robbed.
Fetuses don't object to being aborted because they aren't people.

4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I just point out the absurdity of your position of prosecuting people for having abortions. By your logic, every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Heck, you could even claim that "murder for hire" laws apply here, as they contract a third party to do the deed. I mean, holy shit, now that we can induce early abortions with pills, we need to put crime scene tape around every tampon as a potential murder investigation.

6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

You are being intentionally dishonest, as nothing in the screed you followed with addressed the issue of LATE abortion (or third trimester abortions).

True, the woman who aborts the first trimester fetus which is the size of a kidney bean is doing it as a form or birth control. But no one is going to get all worked up over something the size of a kidney bean.

No woman is pregnant for 20 weeks and decides, "Shit, I don't want to have a baby. I'm getting an abortion!"

5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"

22 Weeks. Not 20.

Even at 23 weeks, the odds are grim.

"Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate""

There is no debate.

I simply laid out the truth.

I'm perfectly happy to allow readers of our posts to judge them.

How about you?

Here's a cut 'n' paste for ya:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

As a fact of Constitutional law you’re wrong, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby,’ an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and abortion is not ‘murder.’

Is it your view that Supreme Court decisions are always correct?

I dare you to answer that.

The answer to this question will obviate any validity your post suggests.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Abortion when pregnancy has put the life of the mother in jeopardy.

a. The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, and five women he had performed third-trimester abortions on appeared with President Clinton at his April 10, 1996, veto ceremony.

In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a “series” of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving “maternal [health] indications,” of which the most common was “depression.”
Hillary Supports Restrictions on Abortion at 'the Very End of 3rd Trimester' (Video)

Do you understand?
The reason for 'maternal health indications' is that the mother didn't feel like going though with the pregnancy.....




5. So......what is the reason for extinguishing the life of the incipient human baby in the vast.....vast.....majority of cases?

It is the very element that forms the pillar of Planned Parenthood's raison d'être...convenience.

Liberal governanceis all about making it easy to do what one "feels like"....even to the extent of killing an about-to-be human baby.





We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence



Just wondering....do you feel that 'convenience' is a suitable reason for killing?

I can't walk in the shoes of others, nor do I feel any need to control them or question their doctor. As a fascist / authoritarian you do. Thus we will never agree on any issue of liberty and justice.

I'll grade your spin as a D-, partly because as a narcissist it is impossible for you to ever admit you are wrong, and not a failure for once (and maybe for the first time ever) you did not default to your usual personal attack, name calling foolishness.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate"

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.

Um. NO. People being robbed object to being robbed.
Fetuses don't object to being aborted because they aren't people.

4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I just point out the absurdity of your position of prosecuting people for having abortions. By your logic, every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Heck, you could even claim that "murder for hire" laws apply here, as they contract a third party to do the deed. I mean, holy shit, now that we can induce early abortions with pills, we need to put crime scene tape around every tampon as a potential murder investigation.

6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

You are being intentionally dishonest, as nothing in the screed you followed with addressed the issue of LATE abortion (or third trimester abortions).

True, the woman who aborts the first trimester fetus which is the size of a kidney bean is doing it as a form or birth control. But no one is going to get all worked up over something the size of a kidney bean.

No woman is pregnant for 20 weeks and decides, "Shit, I don't want to have a baby. I'm getting an abortion!"

5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"

22 Weeks. Not 20.

Even at 23 weeks, the odds are grim.

"Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate""

There is no debate.

I simply laid out the truth.

I'm perfectly happy to allow readers of our posts to judge them.

How about you?

Here's a cut 'n' paste for ya:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

As a fact of Constitutional law you’re wrong, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby,’ an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and abortion is not ‘murder.’

Is it your view that Supreme Court decisions are always correct?

I dare you to answer that.

The answer to this question will obviate any validity your post suggests.

Like most conservatives you’re ignorant of the law, or have contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And like most conservatives you seek to compel conformity through force of law, in this case by violating a woman’s right to privacy, and increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

The social right is indeed the bane of the American Nation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate"

3. "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Speaking of mental illness....your solution would just as aptly apply to armed robbery.
If you ever do any actual thinking even you will recognize that an answer to criminal acts is simply to ignore them in others is .....simply insane.

Um. NO. People being robbed object to being robbed.
Fetuses don't object to being aborted because they aren't people.

4. "The law didn't see abortion as murder even when abortions were illegal."
The suggestion that 'the law' is always correct is also simply insane...I use that phrase because you seem so comfortable with it......must mean that you agree with Roger Taney in the Dred Scott Decision. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I just point out the absurdity of your position of prosecuting people for having abortions. By your logic, every woman who has an abortion is a murderer. Heck, you could even claim that "murder for hire" laws apply here, as they contract a third party to do the deed. I mean, holy shit, now that we can induce early abortions with pills, we need to put crime scene tape around every tampon as a potential murder investigation.

6. "of the 1% performed after, they are usually only performed for solid medical reasons."
Wrong again.
Almost every abortion is performed for convenience.

You are being intentionally dishonest, as nothing in the screed you followed with addressed the issue of LATE abortion (or third trimester abortions).

True, the woman who aborts the first trimester fetus which is the size of a kidney bean is doing it as a form or birth control. But no one is going to get all worked up over something the size of a kidney bean.

No woman is pregnant for 20 weeks and decides, "Shit, I don't want to have a baby. I'm getting an abortion!"

5. "99% of abortions are performed prior to 20 weeks, when the fetuses aren't viable even with the best medical technology."
Really?
"Some 22-Week-Old Fetuses Can Now Survive Outside The Womb. How Will This Affect The Abortion Debate?"

22 Weeks. Not 20.

Even at 23 weeks, the odds are grim.

"Ignoring your first two sophmoric attempts at 'debate""

There is no debate.

I simply laid out the truth.

I'm perfectly happy to allow readers of our posts to judge them.

How about you?

Here's a cut 'n' paste for ya:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

As a fact of Constitutional law you’re wrong, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘baby,’ an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and abortion is not ‘murder.’

Is it your view that Supreme Court decisions are always correct?

I dare you to answer that.

The answer to this question will obviate any validity your post suggests.

Like most conservatives you’re ignorant of the law, or have contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And like most conservatives you seek to compel conformity through force of law, in this case by violating a woman’s right to privacy, and increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

The social right is indeed the bane of the American Nation.

Are you gonna tap-dance, or answer the question?

Is it your view that Supreme Court decisions are always correct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion when pregnancy has put the life of the mother in jeopardy.

a. The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, and five women he had performed third-trimester abortions on appeared with President Clinton at his April 10, 1996, veto ceremony.

In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a “series” of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving “maternal [health] indications,” of which the most common was “depression.”
Hillary Supports Restrictions on Abortion at 'the Very End of 3rd Trimester' (Video)

Do you understand?
The reason for 'maternal health indications' is that the mother didn't feel like going though with the pregnancy.....




5. So......what is the reason for extinguishing the life of the incipient human baby in the vast.....vast.....majority of cases?

It is the very element that forms the pillar of Planned Parenthood's raison d'être...convenience.

Liberal governanceis all about making it easy to do what one "feels like"....even to the extent of killing an about-to-be human baby.





We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence



Just wondering....do you feel that 'convenience' is a suitable reason for killing?

I can't walk in the shoes of others, nor do I feel any need to control them or question their doctor. As a fascist / authoritarian you do. Thus we will never agree on any issue of liberty and justice.

I'll grade your spin as a D-, partly because as a narcissist it is impossible for you to ever admit you are wrong, and not a failure for once (and maybe for the first time ever) you did not default to your usual personal attack, name calling foolishness.

Simple question.......do you feel that 'convenience' is a suitable reason for killing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see....no one has commented on the murder charges brought against Ms. Rahman for murdering, killing, post-birth aborting her baby.

And the whiners don't care to face the fact that the vast majority of medical abortions are for simple convenience.....not for any medical reasons.....

And there is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court has been notoriously wrong in decisions...
...most get my drift, that they are incorrect in Roe.



So....back to this:
6. The OP posed these questions:

"... if a politician proposed a law to legalize murder.....would said politician be guilty of the act itself?


Should the lawmaker be charged as an accessory to any murders that accrued?

Would the legislator be guilty of suborning murder?

Telling constituents that such an act is legal and endorsed.....would that be covered by the office-holder's freedom of speech?

And....would you vote for such a civil servant?




The answer to these questions will identify one's character, the extent or limits of one's character and morality.....

...and the sort of society in which we reside.



I have my answer....do you, yours?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....bring together
a. The abhorrent killing by Ms. Rahman...who left her living baby to die
and
b. the questions about legislators who would endorse the act Ms. Rahman performed....and authorize the very same behavior.




7. We have an example of exactly the sort of 'statesman' described in this thread....one who would vote in favor of our society making it legal to do exactly what Nausheen Rahman did.....throw a living human baby in the trash.

If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, SenatorObama had no problem allowing that newborn to die,sans any medical attention.



a. "...Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providersduring his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask whyBarack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,"Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


n·fan·ti·cide/inˈfantiˌsīd/
Noun:
The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.


b "Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law,intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com

c. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported.Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’




It is my informed contention that Obama voters, the very same people who would condemn Nausheen Rahman for leaving a baby to die in the garbage, are fully aware that Obama endorsed the act of Ms. Rahman.....

.....yet they are willing to shrug, and move on.

True?

 

[JoeB131]

Now....bring together
a. The abhorrent killing by Ms. Rahman...who left her living baby to die
and
b. the questions about legislators who would endorse the act Ms. Rahman performed....and authorize the very same behavior.

Yawn....

Ms. Rahman will probably get off on an insanity plea. But to the point, fetuses still aren't people. Most abortions occur before viability. So you are continuing to make a discredited argument.

If you Religious Nuts were serious about their being less abortions, you'd support welfare, you'd support sex education, you'd support paid family leave and universal health care.

So maybe you should blame yourselves for all the abortions. Not the politicians who don't do anything about it after the courts have declared it a right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....bring together
a. The abhorrent killing by Ms. Rahman...who left her living baby to die
and
b. the questions about legislators who would endorse the act Ms. Rahman performed....and authorize the very same behavior.

Yawn....

Ms. Rahman will probably get off on an insanity plea. But to the point, fetuses still aren't people. Most abortions occur before viability. So you are continuing to make a discredited argument.

If you Religious Nuts were serious about their being less abortions, you'd support welfare, you'd support sex education, you'd support paid family leave and universal health care.

So maybe you should blame yourselves for all the abortions. Not the politicians who don't do anything about it after the courts have declared it a right.

1. The only evidence of insanity is from the author of post #35.

2. Let's review what I have documented, and which you cannot deny:

Ms. Rahman has been charged with leaving a new-born to die
and....
that is exactly what Barack Obama authored in the Illinois State Senate.



Therefore the impetus that led to this thread......

QED

 

[Moonglow]

Now....bring together
a. The abhorrent killing by Ms. Rahman...who left her living baby to die
and
b. the questions about legislators who would endorse the act Ms. Rahman performed....and authorize the very same behavior.




7. We have an example of exactly the sort of 'statesman' described in this thread....one who would vote in favor of our society making it legal to do exactly what Nausheen Rahman did.....throw a living human baby in the trash.

If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, SenatorObama had no problem allowing that newborn to die,sans any medical attention.



a. "...Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providersduring his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask whyBarack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,"Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


n·fan·ti·cide/inˈfantiˌsīd/
Noun:
The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.


b "Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law,intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com

c. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported.Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’




It is my informed contention that Obama voters, the very same people who would condemn Nausheen Rahman for leaving a baby to die in the garbage, are fully aware that Obama endorsed the act of Ms. Rahman.....

.....yet they are willing to shrug, and move on.

True?

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now....bring together
a. The abhorrent killing by Ms. Rahman...who left her living baby to die
and
b. the questions about legislators who would endorse the act Ms. Rahman performed....and authorize the very same behavior.




7. We have an example of exactly the sort of 'statesman' described in this thread....one who would vote in favor of our society making it legal to do exactly what Nausheen Rahman did.....throw a living human baby in the trash.

If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, SenatorObama had no problem allowing that newborn to die,sans any medical attention.



a. "...Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providersduring his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask whyBarack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,"Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


n·fan·ti·cide/inˈfantiˌsīd/
Noun:
The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.


b "Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law,intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com

c. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported.Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’




It is my informed contention that Obama voters, the very same people who would condemn Nausheen Rahman for leaving a baby to die in the garbage, are fully aware that Obama endorsed the act of Ms. Rahman.....

.....yet they are willing to shrug, and move on.

True?

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

Here are the facts:

Ms. Rahman has been charged with leaving a new-born to die
and....
that is exactly what Barack Obama authored in the Illinois State Senate.


Fact:
. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
fact


I'm not here to discuss why he did it...or why you'd support such an unfit individual to lead America.....
....I'm documenting that he endorsed leaving a baby already born, to die.
For doing that....Ms. Rahman was correctly charged with murder.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pay special attention to the vid @ :50
"...if a baby is born alive after a late term abortion, we can throw it away...Barack Obama approved that..."

2:01

2:40

3:55

5:28

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm......Drop-Draw ran off.

Seems I destroyed is attempt to shield Barack Obama from the second-degree murder charges he so correctly deserves.


Mission accomplished.