Gosnell case

[racrguy]

Completely agreed; it is a double standard. The only variable seems to be the mother's culpability in terminating the pregnancy.

That's the reason why one is murder and the other is not. Choice.

[JP135]

I do have a question though:


Why is a fetus considered disposable, not alive, un-viable, etc when it's an abortion case but it's considered a living person when the mother dies also?




So violence at the hand of a vacuum and scissor wielding dr ≠ violence at the hand of a mugger with a knife or gun? Somehow a life is less valuable when a mother wishes to discard it?


Forgive any insinuation in the wording of my question... it's a serious question and a serious double standard that bothers me regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

Completely agreed; it is a double standard. The only variable seems to be the mother's culpability in terminating the pregnancy.

[exlude]

I can understand that. Both sides are always quick to take a tragedy and make it a political argument.

[Forever_frost]

During a HuffPost Live segment on Tuesday, host Marc Lamont Hill was honest about his take on the initial media blackout.

“For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights,” Hill said. “Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”

“Strong words from a host on a left-leaning outlet,” Washington Post columnist Erik Wemple writes, who appeared on HuffPost Live during the segment.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/huffpost-live-host-admits-i-do-think-that-those-of-us-on-the-left-have-made-a-decision-not-to-cover-gosnell-trial/

[racrguy]

Jay Carney stated yesterday, when questioned about the Gosnell case, that Obama could not comment on an ongoing murder case.

Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Trayvon case. Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Cambridge LEO for acting "stupidly." Yet, he cannot comment on babies necks being severed? Unreal. A modern-day Mengele is on trial, and he "cannot comment."

Politics, baby. No matter what he says about this he's going to piss off a good sized group of people. Whatever.

[Forever_frost]

That is because he voted 4 times for partial birth abortion. He can't come out against it

[Geor!]

Jay Carney stated yesterday, when questioned about the Gosnell case, that Obama could not comment on an ongoing murder case.

Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Trayvon case. Funny. He sure was quick to comment on the Cambridge LEO for acting "stupidly." Yet, he cannot comment on babies necks being severed? Unreal. A modern-day Mengele is on trial, and he "cannot comment."

[Aceman85turbo]

You just ignored everything he said....

this happens when you run out of yahoo articles to copy and paste. no substance.

[Forever_frost]

No, he went on about quite a few things that has nothing to do with law or what the law says or what establishes it. I ignore emotional diatribes as much as possible. If it is not an enumerated power, it's not a federal authority. You believe the document should 'live and breathe' and 'adapt to the time?' Cool. Amendment. Otherwise, it doesn't change.

[racrguy]

Which is why the constitution permits amendments. Failure to amend the constitution means a failure to provide the federal government with further powers. Anything other than amending the constitution to expand federal power is unconstitutional and thus, unlawful. According to the 10th amendment any power not expressly granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states belong to the states and the people respectively. I have explained there are things I'd love to see done but the federal government lacks authority to it so I must look to my state or community itself. Do I agree with DOMA? Yes. Does the federal government have authority to create and enforce it? No.

We're not under Sharia. We're a constitutional republic which means that the constitution is the end all of federal power. Don't like it? Call an Article 5 convention.

You just ignored everything he said....

[Forever_frost]

No dude, it really is not. Further, your argument is so infantile, it's baffling. Jefferson's suit of clothes argument comes to mind when you put your ridiculous theses forward. You seem to be supremely unconcerned about the practicalities of government function, and solely concerned with making all scenarios fit your own personal legal constructs that are as arbitrary as they are imaginary. We aren't under secular sharia, Nebuchadnezzar. The laws of this country were intended to change with the society they serve, and so they do. Don't like it? Nut the fuck up, and deal with your own bad self.

Which is why the constitution permits amendments. Failure to amend the constitution means a failure to provide the federal government with further powers. Anything other than amending the constitution to expand federal power is unconstitutional and thus, unlawful. According to the 10th amendment any power not expressly granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states belong to the states and the people respectively. I have explained there are things I'd love to see done but the federal government lacks authority to it so I must look to my state or community itself. Do I agree with DOMA? Yes. Does the federal government have authority to create and enforce it? No.

We're not under Sharia. We're a constitutional republic which means that the constitution is the end all of federal power. Don't like it? Call an Article 5 convention.

[Strychnine]

I have not read this entire thread. I'll catch up in the morning on the plane.

I do have a question though:


Why is a fetus considered disposable, not alive, un-viable, etc when it's an abortion case but it's considered a living person when the mother dies also?

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime." In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant.

So violence at the hand of a vacuum and scissor wielding dr ≠ violence at the hand of a mugger with a knife or gun? Somehow a life is less valuable when a mother wishes to discard it?


Forgive any insinuation in the wording of my question... it's a serious question and a serious double standard that bothers me regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

[YALE]

When it comes to the federal government, it really is. Question is, as it was in the founding, are you willing to pay the penalty for taking back the rights that have been stolen?

No dude, it really is not. Further, your argument is so infantile, it's baffling. Jefferson's suit of clothes argument comes to mind when you put your ridiculous theses forward. You seem to be supremely unconcerned about the practicalities of government function, and solely concerned with making all scenarios fit your own personal legal constructs that are as arbitrary as they are imaginary. We aren't under secular sharia, Nebuchadnezzar. The laws of this country were intended to change with the society they serve, and so they do. Don't like it? Nut the fuck up, and deal with your own bad self.

[Forever_frost]

When it comes to the federal government, it really is. Question is, as it was in the founding, are you willing to pay the penalty for taking back the rights that have been stolen?

[YALE]

Actually, no. I've said repeatedly that the FEDERAL government has no authority here just as it has no authority on marriage. Do I like DOMA's ideology? Sure. Does the constitution support it's authority? Hell no. Should it be repealed? Absolutely. Same with Roe v Wade. No authority to hear the case, no authority to rule on the case, no authority to say anything on abortion period no matter which way it went. That's the thing about federalism. I may agree with the premise but if the constitution doesn't spell it out, the fed can't do it.


Actually slow, you merely have to read the Constitution on authority. My answer is that document. If you can find the authority there, then the fed can legislate or make decisions on it. If it doesn't they have no say.

That is definitely not the sole body of text we have to contend with in America.