View Full Version : Just when you think the Republicans can't lose....Abortion bill
Bitter Clinger
03-12-2014, 11:37
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25322862/colorado-house-bill-banning-abortions-defeated-committee
Not gonna paste the text its too long, I hate abortion, I belive it is murder. But we lost this battle, can we just focus on wining for fucks sakes?
hghclsswhitetrsh
03-12-2014, 11:41
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
They need to let it go for just 1 campaign season and work on things they can change.
This is specifically why I expect there will not be a majority for either side after November.
Agree with the OP. You can not fight a battle when you die in a skirmish.
Take out foot.... Aim..... FIRE!!!!
buffalobo
03-12-2014, 13:28
You guys in district 48 need to talk to this Humphrey character, kick him and Ryan Call in the nads.
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain
You guys in district 48 need to talk to this Humphrey character, kick him and Ryan Call in the nads.
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain
:) Ryan Call has a mangina...he's a sackless wonder.
The righteous right issues keep the conservatives from winning. Gay marriage, abortion and weed are lost battles on the current generation. They need to focus on jobs, the economy and repressive government.
The ass-clown that puts forth a bill like this has no business in office. Unfortunately, he should have eliminated himself before he ever ran in the first place.
Sometimes I honestly think there are people in the party that are actively trying to do it harm. Its the only explanation that makes any sense.
Madeinhb
03-13-2014, 00:10
I don't believe in abortion but it's over. It's legal. So nothing to say. We get mad at Dems for wanting more gun laws or to repeal 2nd amendment. But Reps do the same thing to them. Reps need to move on.
Bitter Clinger
03-14-2014, 09:56
I don't believe in abortion but it's over. It's legal. So nothing to say. We get mad at Dems for wanting more gun laws or to repeal 2nd amendment. But Reps do the same thing to them. Reps need to move on.
I agree, the smartest thing we could do now is support abortion, support fags, and support weed. And absolutely hammer on gun rights and smaller .gov
I agree, the smartest thing we could do now is support abortion, support fags, and support weed. And absolutely hammer on gun rights and smaller .gov
Agree 100% but there are too many hypocrites out there that want to force religious/moral beliefs onto others. I hate abortion and can't imagine ever making that choice but to force that belief on someone else is wrong and goes against a person's freedoms. Besides, the less dems that have offspring, the better.
I agree, the smartest thing we could do now is support abortion, support fags, and support weed. And absolutely hammer on gun rights and smaller .gov
getting close to the libertarian mindset there. :)
getting close to the libertarian mindset there. :)
Smartest thing the Republicans could do would be to embrace the libertarian mindset -- while acting as a reasonable backstop to some of the more extreme libertarian crazieness.
buffalobo
03-14-2014, 14:02
Smartest thing the Republicans could do would be to embrace the libertarian mindset -- while acting as a reasonable backstop to some of the more extreme libertarian crazieness.
Can't do that. Then they would have no one to blame next time they lose at the ballot box. :what:
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain
RblDiver
03-14-2014, 14:51
Sorry, going to disagree with you all here. Saying "It's legal, support it and move on" is a bunch of crap. Slavery and Jim Crow was legal, and hell abortion itself was illegal at one time, but people fought against them and got them switched around.
Do we give up on things like this and repealing Obamacare? I mean, we've been told "The law is settled."
If a platform is costing the party elections it is time to revisit the platform. You can bet that if every single gun owner (wont happen, not a cohesive group) stopped voting for politicians that supported gun control it would drop off the D party platform.
The other option is dropping to irreverence or at best a speed bump. Minority party has no power in this state, that makes it hard to attain speed bump status.
Bailey Guns
03-14-2014, 15:41
Some of the arguments in this thread against the bill are laughable, especially coming from some of you "I won't compromise my values" types or those constantly railing against a "choice of two evils".
I'll say this to ALL politicians: STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BEDROOM, MAILBOX, COMPUTER, DOCTOR'S OFFICE, AND PERSONAL FINANCES. UNLESS MY ACTIONS ADVERSELY AFFECT ANOTHER, THEY ARE NO ONE'S CONCERN BUT MY OWN!
Zundfolge
03-14-2014, 16:05
Y'all know me, I'm not one of these people that believes that social conservatives should just shut up and become Godless libertines to win elections. I believe that strongly conservative candidates that oppose infanticide can still get elected because at best the country is 50/50 divided on the issue and we're actually trending TOWARD the pro-life position (that and becoming "Democrat Lite" won't gain you a single vote ... people that would be turned toward you for that will still vote Democrat).
But for the love of God people you still have to think tactically ... proposing such a thing when you know you can't even get it out of committee but just enough time before the election that it will motivate the pro-abortion folk to come out in force is just asinine.
I'll say this to ALL politicians: STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BEDROOM, MAILBOX, COMPUTER, DOCTOR'S OFFICE, AND PERSONAL FINANCES. UNLESS MY ACTIONS ADVERSELY AFFECT ANOTHER, THEY ARE NO ONE'S CONCERN BUT MY OWN!
Yeah, like killing them?
:p
I'll say this to ALL politicians: STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BEDROOM, MAILBOX, COMPUTER, DOCTOR'S OFFICE, AND PERSONAL FINANCES. UNLESS MY ACTIONS ADVERSELY AFFECT ANOTHER, THEY ARE NO ONE'S CONCERN BUT MY OWN!
+1000
SvenJorgensen
03-17-2014, 22:12
I hate abortion and can't imagine ever making that choice but to force that belief on someone else is wrong and goes against a person's freedoms.
One of the follies in the attempt to criminalize abortion is that it limits the freedom of a group on the basis of the moral and religious convictions of another group. The purpose of government should be to provide and protect freedoms, not limit them. Another is that law and government is not supposed to chose sides, nor does religious doctrine validate or have any dictation over what is "right" and "wrong." If the pro-choice argument ever wanted to stand on it's own two feet it needs to distance itself from the religious wackos and feel-gooders.
Bailey Guns
03-18-2014, 05:49
^^ "Pro choice"? That's a laugh. A perfect example of how liberals lie and twist an argument to benefit their agenda. Liberals believe in "choice" about as much as I believe in little green men from Mars. Gov't shouldn't be in the abortion morality debate one way or the other, as you stated.
On the other hand, someone who believes abortion is morally wrong should be free to voice that opinion without being vilified just like someone who believes it's a "choice" should be free to voice that opinion. And that's the problem with the abortion debate. The left won't allow a politician to hold a contrary opinion on the issue, regardless of whether or not that opinion would affect the way that person would govern. When someone on the right does voice that contrary opinion the left uses any means necessary, including lies and character assassination, to destroy that person. And people on the "right" usually take the bait.
Sometimes I wonder if people who call themselves conservative even know what that term means.
^^ "Pro choice"? That's a laugh. A perfect example of how liberals lie and twist an argument to benefit their agenda. Liberals believe in "choice" about as much as I believe in little green men from Mars. Gov't shouldn't be in the abortion morality debate one way or the other, as you stated.
On the other hand, someone who believes abortion is morally wrong should be free to voice that opinion without being vilified just like someone who believes it's a "choice" should be free to voice that opinion. And that's the problem with the abortion debate. The left won't allow a politician to hold a contrary opinion on the issue, regardless of whether or not that opinion would affect the way that person would govern. When someone on the right does voice that contrary opinion the left uses any means necessary, including lies and character assassination, to destroy that person. And people on the "right" usually take the bait.
Sometimes I wonder if people who call themselves conservative even know what that term means.
The "choice" in this issue is that one side says "Don't want an abortion, don't have one" and the other side says "Abortion is wrong. You may not have one." One side allows a choice and one side makes the government dictate action.
When someone on the right tries to influence by words they are free to do so. When that same person introduces legislation to force the decision they deserve to be torn apart (verbally).
In this specific issue the left is saying it is an individual decision and the right is for more government control.
Bitter Clinger
03-18-2014, 09:54
Can anyone here explain to me why abortion, in and of itself,is not murder. But when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with double homicide?
Can anyone here explain to me why abortion, in and of itself,is not murder. But when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with double homicide?
Sure, it can be explained. Would you be open to ANY answer different than you want to hear?
Sure, it can be explained. Would you be open to ANY answer different than you want to hear?
+100
Zundfolge
03-18-2014, 10:14
One of the follies in the attempt to criminalize abortion is that it limits the freedom of a group on the basis of the moral and religious convictions of another group. The purpose of government should be to provide and protect freedoms, not limit them. Another is that law and government is not supposed to chose sides, nor does religious doctrine validate or have any dictation over what is "right" and "wrong." If the pro-choice argument ever wanted to stand on it's own two feet it needs to distance itself from the religious wackos and feel-gooders.
Using that logic then any criminalization of murder is wrong. This myopic notion that opposition to abortion is nothing more than theocracy is just foolishness.
There are many reasons that have nothing to do with religious convictions to oppose abortion (I'd argue that there's even a Libertarian argument against it as its a violation of the non-aggression principal).
I think we as a culture can have an honest debate about the issue (probably not here though because this is a gun forum) but we need to be honest about what both sides want and don't want and what actually motivates them.
No, pro lifers aren't using the law to shove Christian doctrine down your throat and force women to be barefoot and pregnant any more than pro choicers are gouls that want all those dead baby jokes they told in grade school to come true.
Two words: Kermit Gosnell.
Bitter Clinger
03-19-2014, 04:34
Sure, it can be explained. Would you be open to ANY answer different than you want to hear?
Yes I would. I actually want to know the logic behind it.
SvenJorgensen
03-19-2014, 23:02
^^ "Pro choice"?
Thanks for the catch. I fucked that up and I meant to type pro-life.
Not trying to vilify anyone here. The attack on religious wackos wasn't mean to be personal, but rather a general statement. I just strongly disagree that moral and religious issues should be determined by the government, and too often this topic is wrongly argued in that fashion.
Most people on this forum do not want the government telling them what they may or may not do about their guns no matter how many people think they are dangerous and immoral. I feel the same way about the abortion issue.
And you're right about some conservatives.
Like most of these kind of hot button issues, there is generally a disconnect between what each side feels, and how the other side perceives the feelings of the opposition. For example, for someone who calls the self "pro-choice," the situation in their head is closer to a woman saying, "I just found out I'm 3 weeks pregnant. I know I don't want a baby so I better get this taken care of right away while it is still a bundle of cells."
While on the other hand, someone who considers abortion to be outright murder will be more likely to cite cases like Kermit Gosnell that would extract live fetuses and kill them in his hands.
Each side doesn't have to make much of a leap from the example they favor and their belief. Unfortnately, abortion encompasses both of those scenarios.
SvenJorgensen
03-19-2014, 23:42
I think we as a culture can have an honest debate about the issue (probably not here though because this is a gun forum) but we need to be honest about what both sides want and don't want and what actually motivates them.
I do not believe that a fetus is sentient being and therefore I do not believe it is entitled to any legal rights as a person. Because of this, I dismiss that by terminating a pregnancy through an abortion, administered professionally, one is committing an act of homicide.
I also believe that in certain situations, for the greater good of the community, and for the greater good of the mother or individuals involved, it should be an option to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. Consider violent rape cases especially those on teenage girls. Consider children who will be born to drug addict mothers and dependent on drugs themselves. Consider those situations of extreme poverty where the financial burden of raising that child would fall onto the taxpayers through the funding of overwhelmed social institutions
On this matter, I follow a pretty utilitarian school of thought. What action provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your opinion may be that it is selfish to terminate a pregnancy based upon these utilitarian ethics, but this idea is nothing new. We already protect the greater good of the society through capital punishment. One the the primary purposes for capital punishment is incapacitation. Our society regularly kills (incapacitates) people, not actually as punishment or retribution, but to protect the greater good of the society and to make it more productive as a whole. I am not arguing that a fetus deserves to be killed (if you would call it that), but in certain situations for abortion to be an option it may allow for a better and more productive society.
Really though, I don't care that much about the issue.
The level of the violence of the rape, or if rape occured at all is not a related issue to the decision to carry out an abortion. In my opinion anyway. I realize that in the case of rape, one will not be able to separate the emotions, but from a pure debate prespective, they are unrelated issues. You don't treat cancer different ways depending on how you got it. I'm of course not comparing a fetus to cancer either, it is just the best comparision I could think of.
Aloha_Shooter
03-20-2014, 11:15
I do not believe that MichaelMoore is sentient being and therefore I do not believe it is entitled to any legal rights as a person. Because of this, I dismiss that by terminating MichaelMoore, administered professionally, one is committing an act of homicide.
At what point do you judge sentience has occurred and how did you make that assessment? Do you need positive proof (i.e., subject has to say or write something intelligent) or will negative proof (subject hasn't said or written any of the monumentally stupid things MichaelMoore has) of sentience work?
On this matter, I follow a pretty utilitarian school of thought. What action provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your opinion may be that it is selfish to terminate MichaelMoore based upon these utilitarian ethics, but this idea is nothing new. We already protect the greater good of the society through capital punishment. One the the primary purposes for capital punishment is incapacitation. Our society regularly kills (incapacitates) people, not actually as punishment or retribution, but to protect the greater good of the society and to make it more productive as a whole. I am not arguing that MichaelMoore deserves to be killed (if you would call it that), but in certain situations for abortion to be an option it may allow for a better and more productive society.
Again, the slippery slope prevails here. At what point do you draw the line for "greater good of the society"? At least with capital punishment, the legal lines are drawn pretty clearly. Any random fetus -- including those of a drug addict -- is likely to consume fewer resources and be more productive than MichaelMoore so ...
Obviously, you can substitute whatever and whoever you want for the red text -- a lot of liberals would probably substitute in George Bush or Dick Cheney without batting an eye but be horrified to find Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, or any other left-wing extremist in text like the above.
NOTA BENE: Obviously the text above is provided as an intellectual exercise on the folly of blanket sentence construction and no actual harm is intended or implied toward Michael Moore or any other living being.
Zundfolge
03-20-2014, 11:25
I do not believe that a fetus is sentient being and therefore I do not believe it is entitled to any legal rights as a person. Because of this, I dismiss that by terminating a pregnancy through an abortion, administered professionally, one is committing an act of homicide.
I also believe that in certain situations, for the greater good of the community, and for the greater good of the mother or individuals involved, it should be an option to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. Consider violent rape cases especially those on teenage girls. Consider children who will be born to drug addict mothers and dependent on drugs themselves. Consider those situations of extreme poverty where the financial burden of raising that child would fall onto the taxpayers through the funding of overwhelmed social institutions
On this matter, I follow a pretty utilitarian school of thought. What action provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Your opinion may be that it is selfish to terminate a pregnancy based upon these utilitarian ethics, but this idea is nothing new. We already protect the greater good of the society through capital punishment. One the the primary purposes for capital punishment is incapacitation. Our society regularly kills (incapacitates) people, not actually as punishment or retribution, but to protect the greater good of the society and to make it more productive as a whole. I am not arguing that a fetus deserves to be killed (if you would call it that), but in certain situations for abortion to be an option it may allow for a better and more productive society.
Really though, I don't care that much about the issue.
See, if you started there then we could have had an honest debate. But you didn't, you lashed out at people with religious beliefs and tied their religious beliefs (and your disdain for them and their beliefs) as your reason for supporting abortion. THIS is why this debate never goes anywhere and always ends in anger, division and locked forum threads.
While I typically don't like to debate with pithy sayings... This really does sum it up:
42439
hghclsswhitetrsh
03-20-2014, 11:43
^^^. Yup.
If you guys want to make it a little easier to accept, it is typically liberals/democrats that will have abortions. So we got that going for us!
but I'm with asmo don't like it, don't have one. As long as my tax dollars aren't paying for them. They are going to be performed whether they are legal or not. Might as well get over it.
Of course the major crux of the argument is at what point is something alive? Is it when there is an independent heart beat? How about brain functions? Sure fetal development is reliant upon the mother while developing in the womb, but what about 24, 25, and 26 week born alive abortions? Had they not been "terminated" (such a callous and cold word) they might have had a chance to survive, even that premature. Is it murder if the child is aborted and lives outside the mother? What about the sick and depraved and inhuman things done at the Gosnell clinic? The real question is, where do we draw the line? Granted, I don't agree with abortion, I do not approve of it, and while I inwardly judge women who have abortions unfavorably (x10 for those who constantly use it as a method of contraception) it is also not my decision to make, nor is it my place to say what a person can and can't do. HOWEVER, my morals and beliefs dictate that I believe a child is alive somewhere between heartbeat and brain function, and is their own individual in the early stages of pregnancy- well into the threshold that many states allow an abortion to take place. We don't need more laws, but my personal beliefs, despite what the law on this states (and only in this instance, so don't go building straw men or diverting from my point), abortion is, without question, murder. The unjustified termination of another's right to live. Just because the child hasn't fully developed yet, doesn't make it any less ugly, in my opinion. Of course, what they're doing in Europe to the elderly is quite a similar instance.
kawiracer14
03-20-2014, 16:11
The original point is that you aren't winning over any moderates or undecideds by bringing up these bills. You're pushing them to the other party. Republican's ain't winning elections with this bullshit.
mountainjenny
03-20-2014, 19:36
For most women I know abortion is thier single issue vote. They will not even consider a candidate if they are not pro-choice.
This would be the women in my family as I don't really have any female friends. [LOL]If I did they would probably vote gun rights as a single issue, like me.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-21-2014, 05:42
Of course the major crux of the argument is at what point is something alive? Is it when there is an independent heart beat? How about brain functions? Sure fetal development is reliant upon the mother while developing in the womb, but what about 24, 25, and 26 week born alive abortions? Had they not been "terminated" (such a callous and cold word) they might have had a chance to survive, even that premature.
Even younger than that, Ronin, when I was working in a NICU, and that was > 10 years ago. I think ~22 was what I saw as the extreme cases surviving. Almost half of gestation only. We're going to keep moving that "threshold" forward as medicine advances. And this is why I don't like some sort of a gestational threshold. So, yeah, where do we draw the line.
It is either right or wrong. But that's not what matters to those in favor of it.
buffalobo
03-21-2014, 06:13
The original point is that you aren't winning over any moderates or undecideds by bringing up these bills. You're pushing them to the other party. Republican's ain't winning elections with this bullshit.
Back on topic.
So has anybody called Rep Humphreys or Colorado GOP to ask about the strategy of introducing a bill the Rep knew was going no where?
In interview Humphreys stated he was acting in his constituents best interest, but not at their direction and that he did not even ask his constituents thoughts about the bill.
Maybe GOP should spend more time talking to constituents and put forth legislation that the constituency is aware of, supports and would be willing to act upon.
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain.
Aloha_Shooter
03-21-2014, 07:28
My intellectual sympathies lie with preserving innocent life except in extreme cases but bills like this are so stupid politically that I wonder if they aren't being prompted by Democrats undercover, knowing this is exactly the kind of issue they need to bring their base back to the polls. Would Obama really have squeaked out Colorado in 2012 without Amendment 64 also on the books or the phony "war against women" campaign? Would Hickenlooper have won in 2010 without a similar anti-abortion amendment on the same ballot?
I wonder how the state GOP can be such a monolithic power structure as claimed and seen by many people but not shut down stupid legislative maneuvers that can only hurt them at the polls.
Zundfolge
03-21-2014, 09:14
I agree that the timing of this bill was stupid. But frankly Republicans could never bring up Abortion ever again and it would still be brought up by Democrats and used as a bludgeon every election.
Just look at the recall election. The ads running against Bernie Herpin and George Rivera basically said these two were all hot to trot to outlaw all forms of contraception despite the fact that neither had made any statements about abortion.
I would also argue that its not as cut and dried as many here would have you believe ... most folk act like the pro-life position is only 20% of the people and the pro-abortion position is 80%. Reality is its a lot closer.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3v-w8idaiewwzqsgkkjpfq.gif
http://youtu.be/M0aNxzF7MAk
SvenJorgensen
03-21-2014, 23:02
MichaelMoore MichaelMoore Michael Moore
The definition of sentience is subjective on your own personal or religious beliefs. Buddhists, Christians, and non-believers like Micheal Moore are bound to have a different opinion. And you're right about how do you "draw the line," or quantify, what the greatest good actually is. Quantifying it is a tough one because methods can be disputed, and this dissention is common against theories based upon utilitarian ethics. This specific topic though could be quantified on tax burden for example. Does an abortion-less society place a higher tax burden on it's citizens due to social institutions caring for children?
I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. Swaying someone's opinion on abortion certainly isn't going to happen here, but perhaps you can give me an honest perspective of where you're coming from without personal attacks.
Mahalo.
HOWEVER, my morals and beliefs dictate that I believe a child is alive somewhere between heartbeat and brain function, and is their own individual in the early stages of pregnancy- well into the threshold that many states allow an abortion to take place.
I totally agree with that definition of "alive," and I think that is one of the best method to possibly determine when an abortion becomes something more heinous. Perhaps I'm less sensitive though? I can justify it because we kill people every day, maybe not directly, but someone or something must subside for you to thrive. I'm definitely not for the careless or thoughtless use of abortion. If someone has had multiple abortions flags should be raised. Hell, I'd even be for a law limiting the number of abortions someone can have, but if it came down to something horrible like my daughter having a rapists baby or me having to pay for some crack-head's child, then I can justify an abortion without question. Religious beliefs and moral convictions out the window go out the window then. Not being able to have that choice because of an overbearing government is a scary prospect.
Bailey Guns
03-22-2014, 06:43
I agree that the timing of this bill was stupid. But frankly Republicans could never bring up Abortion ever again and it would still be brought up by Democrats and used as a bludgeon every election.
Just look at the recall election. The ads running against Bernie Herpin and George Rivera basically said these two were all hot to trot to outlaw all forms of contraception despite the fact that neither had made any statements about abortion.
I would also argue that its not as cut and dried as many here would have you believe ... most folk act like the pro-life position is only 20% of the people and the pro-abortion position is 80%. Reality is its a lot closer.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/3v-w8idaiewwzqsgkkjpfq.gif
Thank you. My point exactly but you made it better. Too many people fall for the lies and character assassinations perpetrated by liberals without really thinking about what they're saying.
I would like to see a tougher strategy that involves defunding. Legislators should put a stranglehold on the coin purse to stop any shred of government funding to any group involved in any way with abortion. The morality battle is not winnable in the current climate and my only be seen with a strong rightward shift in our SC justices.
Aloha_Shooter
03-23-2014, 09:24
I'm confused by what you're saying bogie. On the one hand, you say the morality battle is not winnable but you want to start new battles by actively targeting groups linked to abortion for defunding. You do know that the Democrats will use anything like that as fodder for riling up their base? Heck, they make things up like this even when it's not true just so they can stir up the low-information voters. Neither financial nor social conservatives will be able to do anything as long as the Democrats retain a stranglehold on the Senate or Oval Office ... and for that matter, Hollywood and the mass media. Either do battle starting with "morality" in the public or win offices by not giving them ammunition to work with but starting legislative battles without having a solid core of the public behind you is political suicide.
I'm confused by what you're saying bogie. On the one hand, you say the morality battle is not winnable but you want to start new battles by actively targeting groups linked to abortion for defunding. You do know that the Democrats will use anything like that as fodder for riling up their base? Heck, they make things up like this even when it's not true just so they can stir up the low-information voters. Neither financial nor social conservatives will be able to do anything as long as the Democrats retain a stranglehold on the Senate or Oval Office ... and for that matter, Hollywood and the mass media. Either do battle starting with "morality" in the public or win offices by not giving them ammunition to work with but starting legislative battles without having a solid core of the public behind you is political suicide.
I agree with you that morality is a basis of defunding bills. However, many people in this society don't want to hear a "right-wing Christian" voice their morality over them during the elections. They are better uniting in the congress and sending a bill forth, when the timing is right. You pointed out that the problem lies in blockage by the senate and president. The conservative strategy should be just like what Obama did with healthcare, pass a bill when the majority of both houses are held. Pence put this through in the house a few years ago and it won with a majority and even garnered D votes. The timing was just off. If this bill were to pass in the future, defunding Planned parenthood would be a major victory in a single battle. Now victory in the war will only be won in the SC. Maybe that's a better description of my stance.
Can anyone here explain to me why abortion, in and of itself,is not murder. But when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with double homicide?
You cnnot be charged with double homicide.. where do you get this from? Reps tried to pass the "personhood" bill a couple years ago so that someone could be charged with murder, the flip side was that this also meant abortion would be an act of murder.
sent from a soup can and some string..
You cnnot be charged with double homicide.. where do you get this from? Reps tried to pass the "personhood" bill a couple years ago so that someone could be charged with murder, the flip side was that this also meant abortion would be an act of murder.
sent from a soup can and some string..
Scott Peterson was convicted of double homocide. Pretty ironic in the most liberal state of the union, I know... This led to the Laci act which was signed by Bush into law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.