In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.

The Ohio statutes don't make any distinction the other way, either.
Again, if the fetus wasn't viable at the time the crime (and I use that
term lightly because I think the scumbag should die a horrible death no
matter the outcome on this) then how could it be murder? On the other
hand, if they can prove that the fetus would have been born alive and
remained alive, then he'd be a murderer.

On 5/10/13 3:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.

The Ohio statutes don't make any distinction the other way, either.
Again, if the fetus wasn't viable at the time the crime (and I use that
term lightly because I think the scumbag should die a horrible death no
matter the outcome on this) then how could it be murder? On the other
hand, if they can prove that the fetus would have been born alive and
remained alive, then he'd be a murderer.


If the perp is convicted of murder and sentenced to die, I suspect the
Supreme Court will overturn the law.

On 5/10/2013 3:26 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible that
so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with unwanted
pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.




That's right. Only the mother, if anyone, should have the right to
choose if the baby lives or dies, except in certain circumstances.

On 5/10/2013 3:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/10/13 3:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.

The Ohio statutes don't make any distinction the other way, either.
Again, if the fetus wasn't viable at the time the crime (and I use that
term lightly because I think the scumbag should die a horrible death no
matter the outcome on this) then how could it be murder? On the other
hand, if they can prove that the fetus would have been born alive and
remained alive, then he'd be a murderer.


If the perp is convicted of murder and sentenced to die, I suspect the
Supreme Court will overturn the law.

I suspect you suspect wrong.

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:26:58 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.


Does the baby get a say in the matter?

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 5/10/13 9:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making him
eligible for the death penalty if convicted.


I'm not a defense attorney, but if I were, I would advise Mr. Castro to
cop a plea that might get him life in prison without parole. The
prosecutor says he is going to try to get the death penalty for the
miscarriages, as you say, but I wonder if even the right-wingers on the
U.S. Supreme Court will uphold such a sentence.

-----------------------------------------------

Yeah. I am not a death penalty advocate because it bothers me to
think of how many innocent people may have been executed over the years.

In this case though, my initial thought was execution by the slowest
and most painful means possible. But it might be better for him to be
sentenced to life but with no provisions to be held in a separate
facility in protective confinement. Let him live with the rest of
the hard core inmates. They don't take too kindly to his kind of
criminal activity. I'd give him a year, at best, to survive.


Jeffrey Dahmer died in a state without the death penalty under similar
circumstances. It was a good day for Wisconsin.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:26:58 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.


Does the baby get a say in the matter?

John H.

That's such a stupid question on so many levels......

On 5/8/2013 1:12 PM, wrote:

Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within
50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.

Is that better?

I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.
Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?

Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.

That's complete bull****. If you read or listened to actual
progressive/left media (not corporate commercial media) you would know
better. I have personally contacted my representatives and expressed
strong discontent.