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

[PoliticalChic]

No one able to defend Obama against the charge of supporting infanticide?
Excellent.


8. There is no way to argue that Barack Obama didn't support exactly the same act that Nausheen Rahman performed.

Fact is, the aspect of Liberalism that appeals to many is that- no matter the act- one can never judge what someone else does.

Right up to and including infanticide.





But wait....perhaps Obama changed!


Maybe the Illinois State Senator was so honored by all the good Americans who voted for him as President, that he as infused with a new, better, more honorable outlook.

Perhaps he recovered from the savagery of infant-slaughter, and developed a new respect for human life!

Could be?


Not hardly.


If he had...would he select a man who proposed the right of a mother to kill her suckling toddler if the whim moved her?

Well....Obama did just that.




9. Now, lest anyone believe that there is a nuanced explanation that would be acceptable to normal people....consider the fact that PresidentObama appointed Professor Peter Singeras his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

"I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer"

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people arehuman does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals."He not only advocates abortion but alsokilling disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born.In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed....Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



So...did Obama have a cavalier attitude about killing infants?


Seems undeniable that, for Barack Hussein Obama, murder is not against the law.

How is it possible that America has fallen so very far?



It never has been for Leftists:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

 

[Tennyson]

To understand the American law and killing or murder, it origination is needed. Killings are broken down into two primary categories: justified and not justified. These come directly from Sixth Commandment and Exodus and Numbers in the Bible. The Sixth Commandment distinguishes between the two by the use of the Hebrew word ratsakh, which meant applied to illegal killing such as murder. The Hebrew word muth covered war, self-defense, the administration of justice, etc.

Regarding the laws, these were codified in English common law and became part of the common law of the colonies and after the ratification of the Constitution became statutory law. One example of the common law use of the Bible was the Capital Laws of New England with the actual Bible verse in the law:

If any person shall commit any wilfull murther, which is Man slaughter, committed upon premeditate malice, hatred, or crueltie not in a mans necessary and just defence, nor by meer casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Exodus 21. 12. 13. Number 35. 31.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

To understand the American law and killing or murder, it origination is needed. Killings are broken down into two primary categories: justified and not justified. These come directly from Sixth Commandment and Exodus and Numbers in the Bible. The Sixth Commandment distinguishes between the two by the use of the Hebrew word ratsakh, which meant applied to illegal killing such as murder. The Hebrew word muth covered war, self-defense, the administration of justice, etc.

Regarding the laws, these were codified in English common law and became part of the common law of the colonies and after the ratification of the Constitution became statutory law. One example of the common law use of the Bible was the Capital Laws of New England with the actual Bible verse in the law:

If any person shall commit any wilfull murther, which is Man slaughter, committed upon premeditate malice, hatred, or crueltie not in a mans necessary and just defence, nor by meer casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Exodus 21. 12. 13. Number 35. 31.​

I believe you missed the point of the thread....it's long, so let me summarize....A young woman gave birth, and tossed the new born into the trash.
It was alive when she did so....and she has been charged with second degree murder.

Barack Obama voted in against a bill that would have mandated care given to any baby born as a result of a botched abortion.
He was endorsing throwing a newborn in the trash.
Why isn't he susceptible to the same charge?

 

[Tennyson]

To understand the American law and killing or murder, it origination is needed. Killings are broken down into two primary categories: justified and not justified. These come directly from Sixth Commandment and Exodus and Numbers in the Bible. The Sixth Commandment distinguishes between the two by the use of the Hebrew word ratsakh, which meant applied to illegal killing such as murder. The Hebrew word muth covered war, self-defense, the administration of justice, etc.

Regarding the laws, these were codified in English common law and became part of the common law of the colonies and after the ratification of the Constitution became statutory law. One example of the common law use of the Bible was the Capital Laws of New England with the actual Bible verse in the law:

If any person shall commit any wilfull murther, which is Man slaughter, committed upon premeditate malice, hatred, or crueltie not in a mans necessary and just defence, nor by meer casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Exodus 21. 12. 13. Number 35. 31.​

I believe you missed the point of the thread....it's long, so let me summarize....A young woman gave birth, and tossed the new born into the trash.
It was alive when she did so....and she has been charged with second degree murder.

Barack Obama voted in against a bill that would have mandated care given to any baby born as a result of a botched abortion.
He was endorsing throwing a newborn in the trash.
Why isn't he susceptible to the same charge?

I do not think I missed the point. My point substantiated your point with fifteen hundred years of common law and statutory law background.