# Fetal homicide ruling mandates 'Roe exception' challenge, Alabama justice says



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.

Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.


As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.

Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.

“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.

The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.

A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.

He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.

Read more at washingtontimes.com


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Oct 31, 2018)

The Purge said:


> I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> 
> Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
> 
> ...


*Alabama this election the State has a law on this subject and that is that State funds will not be used to abort a child.  Its a little long but no more money.*


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 31, 2018)

The Purge said:


> I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> 
> Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
> 
> ...



Do you think that this case has any value? This was the court presided over by roy moore, a known ideologue and asshole, as well as a pedophile. And eight months is nowhere near "moment of conception."


----------



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

The *Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004* (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species _Homo sapiens_, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".


----------



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> ...


Now how did I know a known "BABY KILLER" would show her ugly, immoral face... bait taken!


----------



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

We can thank President Trump for a NEW AWAKENING in American ethics,  morals  and principles .....and all it took was for a reality show astar to show the way back to our cultural norms of 70 years ago that had been part of us since BEFORE the founding.....Amazing man!


----------



## Lysistrata (Oct 31, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...





The Purge said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Stop with the "baby killer" rhetoric. You know that it isn't true except for your cult.


----------



## Faun (Oct 31, 2018)

The Purge said:


> I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> 
> Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
> 
> ...



(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— 
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; 
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or 
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.​
https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf


----------



## Faun (Oct 31, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


If they don't post rhetoric, they'll be out of argument.


----------



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Oh, that's  right, you who reject the fact that a fetus is just like a lump of cancer, but believes in MMGW which has no scientific proof, is still a BABY KILLER....Come on ABNORMAL, admit your illogical, live with the fact you have no ethics, morals, or principles when it comes to another helpless human, and move on!


----------



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

Faun said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Ah, baby dear, who has less morals and ethics than most BABY KILLERS is throwing in his 2 cents...perfect!


----------



## The Purge (Oct 31, 2018)

Faun said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> ...


That's what I'm saying, illogical!.....Either kill them before born, or allowed to kill them after being born....after all it is the same thing except one is still inside the woman  and the other is outside... same baby!


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Nothing illogical about it. The woman is in control of her body. Anyone else messes with it, and they violate the law.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 1, 2018)

Faun said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The baby IS NOT her body, she is simply the vessel.....as stated in the 2004 law. We simply need to do away with abortion!


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Matters not that the baby's body is not her body. She has the right to end her pregnancy if she so wishes. And that's backed up by the law you referenced in your OP.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 1, 2018)

Faun said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Currently she does.... doesn't make it moral, or ethical! For the life of me, I can't understand that if a woman wants sex, but not the consequences of such, she should take proper precautions. Laws are NOT written in stone, after all man writes them. He can also rewrite or alter same. You and I both know, morally killing another being is wrong, and killing a completely innocent being is truly the worst. Is a penalty of some sort needed to drive morality home? It might be worth a try.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 1, 2018)

These male baboons have no idea of what it is like to go through a pregnancy, much less a pregnancy that the woman does not want to experience. I sincerely doubt that any of these male baboons who have children were there to care for the woman bearing their child, to make sure that she eats well, comfort her when she fells uncomfortable, rub her back as her physical body experiences the stresses of increasing weight on her abdomen and her internal organs or develops health problems, not to mention being there in the labor room to comfort this woman and be there with their hands stretched out ready to receive the infant that is their daughter or son as it emerges from the woman's body and carry it through its first experiences in the world as she finally relaxes and recovers from the pain.

Twits. You are talking about women's blood on the floor. And where are you?


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> ...


Well. #1 baby killer, ANYTHING we can do to prevent young blacks from being murdered is a good thing, as I see you are also a racist bitch. #2 EVERYTHING you said about good judge Moore EXCEPT HIS IDEOLOGY, which is RIGHT, is a lie...but you as one of the head ABNOR!ALS in here knew that!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> 
> Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
> 
> ...



Your opinions on the issue are consistent and I can't argue against them.

They are pretty liberal in a way. You want to use big government to tell ppl what THEY believe on the issue though.

Funny, some conservatives don't even like big government setting a minimum wage gor corporations big government helped create.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> These male baboons have no idea of what it is like to go through a pregnancy, much less a pregnancy that the woman does not want to experience. I sincerely doubt that any of these male baboons who have children were there to care for the woman bearing their child, to make sure that she eats well, comfort her when she fells uncomfortable, rub her back as her physical body experiences the stresses of increasing weight on her abdomen and her internal organs or develops health problems, not to mention being there in the labor room to comfort this woman and be there with their hands stretched out ready to receive the infant that is their daughter or son as it emerges from the woman's body and carry it through its first experiences in the world as she finally relaxes and recovers from the pain.
> 
> Twits. You are talking about women's blood on the floor. And where are you?


Then she should NOT FUCK, or do it responsibility, as rape is NOT a leading factor in abortion!

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions - The New York Times
The New York Times ›
Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions ... said that while estimates vary, ''I don't think there is any evidence for a number higher than 1 ...


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> ...


But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent! But every scientist admits conception is the beginning of a new person, and because of this, a woman has NO RIGHT to kill another, especially an innocent being!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Yup, the government got tired of the economic freeloaders and tried to make them buy insurance. 

But yeah, your analogy is true.  It is very easy to make arguments against abortion. Go have a big government run at changing abortion policy.

Just don't say nuttin about being conservative or Libertarian or for small government ever again.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


Has nothing to do with big government, has everything to do with morals, ethics, and principles....see NO RELIGIOUS bias in what you were supposedly taught when you were a child!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Yup, no bias like you say.

Big government is imposing no bias towards those in this questionable situation. If you don't wanna have an abortion that's fine.

Now the decision not to have an abortion is also supported. You don't HAVE TO have one. 

In my opinion abortion might just be wrong. I'm not gonna open that door and let government into your body.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> 
> Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
> 
> ...


Yer gettin' all tweaked over nothing.  This isn't going anywhere for various reasons not the least of whitch is who the judge is.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


The door had been opened, now to see just how far the morally superior can push back!


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
> ...


And here I thought this was an opinion dominated board!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


So your position is "since liberals are liberal, conservatives are liberal"?

That's close to the truth I see.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


If that works in your mind...run with it!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Really I'm thanking you. Not too many folks abandon an ideology for what they believe is correct.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


It has always bothered me, the down right hatred of the unborn that a woman causes!


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



There is absolutely no consensus as to "morals" ethics, and principles" with regard to the issue of abortion. The same is true with the gun issue, and many other things. A woman choosing to have an abortion may not subscribe to your brand of "morals" ethics, and principles." Big Government has no business imposing the beliefs of a certain group on everyone.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Not sure I'd go that far.

How about we tie mandatory paternity tests for everyone the woman can reasonably claim was the father to this? That baby is 18 years of financial costs. 

Remember I like Obamacare because it made the freeloaders pay SOMETHING. This will make the abandoners (I need a better word..) pay for the kid they've fathered.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 22, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Big government gets to declare murder is murder.

Big government also didn't make the gal have sex.

(Personally I'm against outlawing abortion on my small government beliefs but I'll argue).


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Which is why I gave you my opinion.

Duh.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


And I gave you mine....Duh!


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


How nice for you.

So why were pissing and moaning about mine?


----------



## The Purge (Nov 22, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Because I can!


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 22, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Ah, so basically just text-based masturbation then.

Knock yourself out kid.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 22, 2018)

Toronado3800 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Government of any size does not have a right to impose a sectarian belief system of those currently in control of it, and in the process violate the rights of others.

"Gal"??? So WOMEN are supposed to explain to their husbands and boyfriends why they will not be getting any? So women have no right to exercise their own sexuality? Bizarre.  What if a person is married to an abusive Duggar type who just screws and screws and screws and demands more because he is in a position to order her to spread her legs?

I take it that you would want all Americans to stick to masturbation and sleep in separate rooms? Yeah. Nobody loves anybody at all in the U.S. and nobody has any desire for emotional solace and intimacy. And, of course, nobody has a sexual nature that might inspire a straight guy to have some thoughts in response to seeing a beautiful, buxom actress and a straight woman to see a hunky shirtless actor and experience quite similar thoughts.

What planet are you from?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Nov 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Tip for you, Greek non-goddess:

Read these posts outloud before posting. Ask yourself: does this accurately reflect anyone's reality, or maybe just the stuff that bizarrely goes on in my own head???


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 23, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Thats a little off the hook. I'm real libertarian so I'm pro-choice. 

So I want all Americans to sleep alone after watching porn? Nope.

Should a woman explain to the father what is going on? In all reasonable circumstances yup.

In my world if a woman is married to some nut who is effectively raping her, I say divorce him and file criminal charges.

At some level government gets to decide what murder is. Wanna change that?  Can I shoot someone breaking intobmy home? My car? Someone beating my wife? Someone picking up a penny I dropped off the curb? This abortion thing is touchy. Its also very personal so since I'm against death panels I'm pro choice.


----------



## Freiheit (Nov 23, 2018)

Faun said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It was and is in some places legal to enslave a human being. Does the law make enslavement moral and ethical?


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 23, 2018)

SweetSue92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



You sound like you need a massive dose of reality. Visit a women's shelter, young women with two little kids in tow trying to make a living for them as a waitress, websites for support groups for women fleeing groups like Quiverful or FLDS. emergency rooms. Watch some interviews with guys like this "southern baptist" boy, who bragged on TV that he won every disagreement with his wife because of what he had behind his zipper.

I can't see why the right-wingers keep portraying ordinary Americans as hookers and johns in the back of a Chevy at closing time. Healthy heterosexuality involves a combination of emotions and the sexuality of the partners, and I think that relationships between LGBTs involve the same things. It can be joyous and uplifting.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 24, 2018)

*" Apples And Oranges "*

** Real Money Versus Big Government Fluff **


The Purge said:


> But the government FORCED US TO BUY OBAMACARE....at least be consistent!


Do you want the government to act like a private insurance company by collecting premiums to then make market investments and management decisions to offset potential losses ?

Do you believe it is okay for private individuals less inclined to purchase health insurance be able to do so such that when they do need treatment the federal government pays for them , even though government expenditures for medical costs need to be controlled ?

The aca was a decision by the government to mandate that those between 0% and 400% of the poverty line acquire private health insurance ; the government would subsidize the premiums and the CBO conjecture was that over the long term , the statistic of total costs to government for subsidizing premiums and letting private insurance providers manage patient records and payments to private claimants would be less than the statistic of total costs to government for direct management of patient claims and payments to private claimants by government .

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia


----------



## The Purge (Nov 24, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Apples And Oranges "*
> 
> ** Real Money Versus Big Government Fluff **
> 
> ...


For 200+ years WE had to rely on ourselves for our own care....I REFUSE to pay for someone else's care....either they find a way, or simply get out of the way!


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 24, 2018)

*" Paying One Way Or Another "*

** Step Up Do Something About It **


The Purge said:


> For 200+ years WE had to rely on ourselves for our own care....*I REFUSE to pay for someone else's care*....either they find a way, or simply get out of the way!


Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia
_The CBO has indicated that: "Future growth in spending per beneficiary for *Medicare and Medicaid*—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be *the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. *Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal policy." Further, the CBO also projects that "total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."[29]_


----------



## The Purge (Nov 24, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Paying One Way Or Another "*
> 
> ** Step Up Do Something About It **
> 
> ...


Wikipedia is a truthful source....who wrote it?....lolol


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 24, 2018)

*" Factual Emphasis "*

** Public Consortium With Policies And Guidelines **


The Purge said:


> Wikipedia is a truthful source....who wrote it?....lolol


From those of us with formal educations , references are included in reports ; and , as is the case for the 2012 United States federal budget - Wikipedia , a number of references are from CBO reports provided at .gov addresses .


----------



## Monk-Eye (Nov 25, 2018)

*" Could Have Phrased It Appropriately But Playing Invalid Semantic Games "*

** Fabricating Court Cases Through Dumb Statutes **


The Purge said:


> Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
> ...
> A jury found him guilty of murder of “*two or more persons” by one act*, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.


For the most part , a faeiouys if private property of the mother and any conjectural offense against a faeioutys is technically in fact an offense against the mother , even though there is a separate charge .

The legislature of alabama could include in its list of egregious special circumstances , AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY STATE | Death Penalty Information Center , the willful murder of a woman known to be pregnant , which the language does not currently include .

For example , the following language is in the list of aggravating factors for capital punishment in arizona , " (13) The offense was committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification. " .

As the supreme court of alabama is relying only on " (10) Murder wherein two or more persons are murdered by the defendant by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. " , the judgement if not technically valid according to constitution .

First , the faeioutys was only 8 weeks and not post viability of 26 weeks , which according to roe v wade , a state interest in protecting a a wright to life may begin such that states may proscribe abortion in the third trimester , from which one may deduce that a faeioutys would not be entitled to state interest based upon a criteria for birth for equal protection until that point .

Second , the term person when broken down into its root terms of " per " and " son " , means countable by census and male , hence born and the " sex " connotation will be ignored for now .

Unfortunately , in this case , the defendant would not qualify for capital punishment under the law of alabama , which means that if the citizens of alabama are more insightful they woul include language that is more indicative of those they see as deserving the death penalty .


----------

