Woman Charged With First Degree Murder Of Fetus In California

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not going to get into your "abortion up to birth" squawk.

I'm quite sure you're not.

After all, if you did then it would make you look like a partisan hack about the topic.

a reply to: Lumenari

I can't take you seriously on this topic. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats get abortions, and some of them are a wretched and tragic choice a family has to make when they get dire prognosis.

Health problems don't discriminate between political hacks and patriots.

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well, if anything, she should have been sterilized, after giving birth to three children with meth in their system. She cared more about her "high" than the health and well being of her babies. I say lock her up!
Becker's aunt said the 25-year-old's three other children were born with meth in their system.

Should be sterilized? Next will you be advocating of the termination of the infirm, the elderly and morons, shades of Nazi Germany

At what point do you say enough is enough? How many child addicts does this waste of oxygen need to birth before the state takes away her right to put more mouths on the welfare rolls. While I don't usually agree with this stance, in certain circumstances it's for the greater good.

Human fetuses don't develope into cats...

And it IS alive.

Eradicating the stage in a human's life.

Sorry to say I haven't read all 4 pages of the thread.
It looks like a clear case of prosecutorial over-reach in order to obtain a verdict with social backlash.
Why aim so high? Chances of failure are high. Chances of wide media coverage are absolute!
If acquitted, the news could be used to demonize any prosecution of fetal death.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that this case is a "trigger" for backlash effects, wedge issue for the new election, influencing some issue coming to SCOTUS - there's a reason WHY this is happening now, we just don't know what it is.

ganjoa

This has nothing to do with abortion. It's got everything to do with shocking stupidity and inconsideration to an unborn child.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Apparently the mother decided her lump of cells was a human life....

It wasn't a lump of cells.

Becker was about eight and a half months pregnant when she experienced a stillbirth

Nor is it a lump of cells in any abortion done after 4 weeks. I think you missed the point of the post, which is that it is called a lump of cells to make abortion more palatable ... it's just a lie though.

originally posted by: paraphi
This has nothing to do with abortion. It's got everything to do with shocking stupidity and inconsideration to an unborn child.

It does though. You can't say it's a child in one case and not a child in another. It's hypocrisy. For the record I am glad CA is doing something sane for once.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What does that have to do with abortions done when neither the health of the baby or mother is at risk?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nothing.

What do legal and elective abortions have to do with this story?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nothing.

What do legal and elective abortions have to do with this story?

Is a fetus in the womb a human being or not? That's what it has to do with it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Neither did slaves before 1865.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Neither did slaves before 1865.

Incorrect, technically. Each slave counted as 3/5ths of a person.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nothing.

What do legal and elective abortions have to do with this story?

Is a fetus in the womb a human being or not? That's what it has to do with it.

When the fetus is viable is the current legal measure. I believe you know that. Are you asking a philosophical question?

When do any of us truly become human? What does it mean to be human? If a human has committed murder, do we as a society have the right to murder them in return? Do we have the right to kill citizens of other countries if our government declares war on them?

All sorts of important questions.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I’m not sure there’s any better legislation possible.

Sure there is, make it against the law to kill babies. See how easy that was?

Dorian Soran

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Neither did slaves before 1865.

Incorrect, technically. Each slave counted as 3/5ths of a person.

Point taken, slaves actually had more rights than the unborn.

I stand corrected.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Neither did slaves before 1865.

Great comparison! You know, because a developing fetus in the womb is just like a cotton picking slave on a grand southern plantation!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Neither did slaves before 1865.

Great comparison! You know, because a developing fetus in the womb is just like a cotton picking slave on a grand southern plantation!

I know, both could be killed at the whim of their "owners".

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This again?

A human fetus doesn't have autonomous constitutional "personhood" rights, according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Neither did slaves before 1865.

Incorrect, technically. Each slave counted as 3/5ths of a person.

Point taken, slaves actually had more rights than the unborn.

I stand corrected.

The unborn is a turn-of-phrase that has no legal standing. It’s also an argument from emotion.

Besides that, aren’t you one of those folks that believe it’s okay to kill the unborn baby if you think the circumstances warrant?