Is Ariel Castro a Murderer?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

it is not another person's body.

it is a different body. separate, unique and their own.

and yes, it is up to me to decide.

Confirmation of the arrogance of the authoritarian right.

 

[Vox]

If a woman decides to kill her unborn fetus it is ok because the law says so.

If a stranger decides to kill an unborn fetus it is not ok because the woman did not consent.

Either way, the fetus still ends up intentionally dead.

The pro-choice pov is that they want to be able to choose to kill an unborn fetus.

correct.

and they cringe when somebody shoves it up their face - a murder is still a murder, no matter is it legal, or not.

Hypocrites.

 

[Asclepias]

it IS hypocrisy. Killing a baby in one instance is a punishable crime, in the other - it is a "choice".

proaborts are known hypocrites, though.

All the factors have to be the same to make your argument valid. It has to be apples to apples otherwise you are just picking what suits you to make your argument. Hypocrisy would be letting one person off for the exact same crime. Since abortion is not a crime that pretty much seals it. Since the mother gives consent in an abortion the pretty much shuts it down.

No, they do NOT.

the result is the same - a murdered baby.

the baby did not consent to the murder either way.

so consent ( as if there is a possibility of consent to a murder - an idiotic recourse) is IRRELEVANT.

hypocrite proaborts would punish for the murdered baby in one instance and will turn heaven and earth in order to allow the murder in the other.
That is why they are HYPOCRITES.

I see you just want to be right so OK.

 

[Vox]

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

it is not another person's body.

it is a different body. separate, unique and their own.

and yes, it is up to me to decide.

Confirmation of the arrogance of the authoritarian right.

so you confirm, that you consider Nazis had the right to murder people in concentration camps, because it was legal?

Confirmation of the arrogance of the totalitarian left

 

[The T]

Is abortion legal? Is commiting one without a women's permission legal?

Hopefully this ends this dumb thread.

Good luck dumbass. Look at the subsequent posts that have topedoded your hope.

Don't cry now.

Just go away.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is abortion legal? Is commiting one without a women's permission legal?

Hopefully this ends this dumb thread.

What law is violated? If you want to say that is assault on the women, yes.
If you want to say it is murder, then who was murdered? The fetus? The left tells us the fetus is not a person. So it cannot be murder.
But Castro was charged with murder.
Something cannot be murder sometimes and not murder other times.

 

[Asclepias]

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

it is not another person's body.

it is a different body. separate, unique and their own.

and yes, it is up to me to decide.

Lets see how far what you think you have the right to do gets you.

 

[Vox]

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

it is not another person's body.

it is a different body. separate, unique and their own.

and yes, it is up to me to decide.

Lets see how far what you think you have the right to do gets you.

exactly to the point which I started with -

libtards are the obnoxious hypocrites, who will allow to murder a baby in one instance and will choose to punish the SAME murder of the baby in the other.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Is abortion legal? Is commiting one without a women's permission legal?

Hopefully this ends this dumb thread.

What law is violated? If you want to say that is assault on the women, yes.
If you want to say it is murder, then who was murdered? The fetus? The left tells us the fetus is not a person. So it cannot be murder.
But Castro was charged with murder.
Something cannot be murder sometimes and not murder other times.

The memo reads that if the fetus is wanted, it is a person; if the fetus is unwanted it is a blob of cells that can be disposed of, with an okay from the law, into the nearest trash can.

 

[The Rabbi]

And its not up to you to decide what goes on inside another persons body. That is hypocrisy defined.

it is not another person's body.

it is a different body. separate, unique and their own.

and yes, it is up to me to decide.

Lets see how far what you think you have the right to do gets you.

I dont even know what that means.

It is the Left pro-abortionists that talk about "rights". The conservative pro life talk about murder. You dont have the right to murder anyone. Maybe that is authoritarian. If people aren't free to murder do we truly have freedom?

 

[Vox]

Is abortion legal? Is commiting one without a women's permission legal?

Hopefully this ends this dumb thread.

What law is violated? If you want to say that is assault on the women, yes.
If you want to say it is murder, then who was murdered? The fetus? The left tells us the fetus is not a person. So it cannot be murder.
But Castro was charged with murder.
Something cannot be murder sometimes and not murder other times.

The memo reads that if the fetus is wanted, it is a person; if the fetus is unwanted it is a blob of cells that can be disposed of, with an okay from the law, into the nearest trash can.

which is also a confirmation of the left-wing hypocrisy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a woman decides to kill her unborn fetus it is ok because the law says so.

If a stranger decides to kill an unborn fetus it is not ok because the woman did not consent.

Either way, the fetus still ends up intentionally dead.

The pro-choice pov is that they want to be able to choose to kill an unborn fetus.

Incorrect.

Advocates of privacy rights understand that the Constitution forbids the state from interfering in matters both personal and private.

One is at liberty to believe abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘murder’ in the context of his own right to privacy, and act accordingly in his own good conscience with regard to how he conducts his life – but he may not use the power and authority of the state to compel others to abide by that subjective belief.

 

[Zona]

it is not up to you to decide whose moral superiority is defending the unborn child's rights. proaborts do not have a say in this being murderers by definition

But the Constitution and its case law do.

And the law clearly states that abortion is not ‘murder.’

Indeed, the Constitution exists to protect citizens from the arrogance and ignorance you exhibit, where your attempt to codify subjective moral doctrine and religious dogma into secular law is offensive to the Founding Document, and thankfully prohibited.

Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Abortion IS a murder.

or you consider murdering 6 million Jews by Nazis also not a murder?

It was legal by their standards.

There was a time when inter racial marriages were illegal here. There was a time here when abortions were illegal here. There was a time when when couldn't vote here. Laws evolve.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is abortion legal? Is commiting one without a women's permission legal?

Hopefully this ends this dumb thread.

What law is violated? If you want to say that is assault on the women, yes.
If you want to say it is murder, then who was murdered? The fetus? The left tells us the fetus is not a person. So it cannot be murder.
But Castro was charged with murder.
Something cannot be murder sometimes and not murder other times.

The memo reads that if the fetus is wanted, it is a person; if the fetus is unwanted it is a blob of cells that can be disposed of, with an okay from the law, into the nearest trash can.

Remind me of an old joke. When is a fetus viable? To the Jewish mother when the fetus graduates from medical school.

 

[Vox]

But the Constitution and its case law do.

And the law clearly states that abortion is not ‘murder.’

Indeed, the Constitution exists to protect citizens from the arrogance and ignorance you exhibit, where your attempt to codify subjective moral doctrine and religious dogma into secular law is offensive to the Founding Document, and thankfully prohibited.

Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Abortion IS a murder.

or you consider murdering 6 million Jews by Nazis also not a murder?

It was legal by their standards.

There was a time when inter racial marriages were illegal here. There was a time here when abortions were illegal here. There was a time when when couldn't vote here. Laws evolve.

and there were also times when killing 6 million Jews was legal.

still was is and will be a murder.

As is murdering an unborn baby by abortion.

 

[Vox]

Remind me of an old joke. When is a fetus viable? To the Jewish mother when the fetus graduates from medical school.

that's a good one

 

[beagle9]

Castro is of course a sick twisted oxygen thief. I'm not defending anything he did and he deserves any punishment man and G-d can mete out to him.
But part of his conviction was for doing something abortion doctors do every day. If so, doesn't that make those doctors murderers too?

Here we go again from the extremists.

As abortions had been expanded, and were being done at many levels over the years, they were being done under broad interpreted definitions by many who try and use such broad interpretations in which were never intended as such to be interpreted in these ways, yet they were using the interpretations in which constantly moved the goal post in order to then stretch the boundaries of what is deemed as an immoral act to be committed, all in hopes to make it somehow a moral or lawful act when it was being committed. However, no matter how hard they try, it still doesn't make it so in the end, and even they know this but push on regardless of.

There is a chance that some abortions or the methods used to perform abortions, can cross over paths with what could be determined as unlawful or actually murderous activities being found in accordance with other acts that are defined as crimes against another human being as well under the laws in which address these activities as crimes, and this regardless of where that human being is living at in the time of it's murder when and if it does occur as a crime against them.

 

[The T]

If a woman decides to kill her unborn fetus it is ok because the law says so.

If a stranger decides to kill an unborn fetus it is not ok because the woman did not consent.

Either way, the fetus still ends up intentionally dead.

The pro-choice pov is that they want to be able to choose to kill an unborn fetus.

Incorrect.

Advocates of privacy rights understand that the Constitution forbids the state from interfering in matters both personal and private.

One is at liberty to believe abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘murder’ in the context of his own right to privacy, and act accordingly in his own good conscience with regard to how he conducts his life – but he may not use the power and authority of the state to compel others to abide by that subjective belief.

But yet they still do intrude, don't they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What law is violated? If you want to say that is assault on the women, yes.
If you want to say it is murder, then who was murdered? The fetus? The left tells us the fetus is not a person. So it cannot be murder.
But Castro was charged with murder.
Something cannot be murder sometimes and not murder other times.

The memo reads that if the fetus is wanted, it is a person; if the fetus is unwanted it is a blob of cells that can be disposed of, with an okay from the law, into the nearest trash can.

which is also a confirmation of the left-wing hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy belongs solely to the right.

Conservative dogma dictates ‘less government’ and ‘individual liberty,’ where conservative opposition to privacy rights seeks more government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If a woman decides to kill her unborn fetus it is ok because the law says so.

If a stranger decides to kill an unborn fetus it is not ok because the woman did not consent.

Either way, the fetus still ends up intentionally dead.

The pro-choice pov is that they want to be able to choose to kill an unborn fetus.

Incorrect.

Advocates of privacy rights understand that the Constitution forbids the state from interfering in matters both personal and private.

One is at liberty to believe abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘murder’ in the context of his own right to privacy, and act accordingly in his own good conscience with regard to how he conducts his life – but he may not use the power and authority of the state to compel others to abide by that subjective belief.

The pro-choice pov wants to be able to have the choice to legally terminate the life of the unborn via abortion. There is nothing incorrect about that statement.