Author Topic: Witchhunt? (Read 6991 times)

Leverdude · « **Reply #60 on:** March 04, 2005, 02:05:53 PM »

If its Iraq your talking about I believe that to be a punitive action.
We had a war before, we left him be on the condition he let us & the world do weapons inspections. He renegged, we straightened it out.

IMO we're done now, we have no responsability to the people of Iraq & are now involved in nation building for the sole reason of making sure everyone thinks we're the good guys.
Dont much matter as when we leave, in 6 mos or 6 years, they'll kill the guy we leave in charge & things will return to normal. Caos is normal for their culture.

jh45gun · « **Reply #61 on:** March 04, 2005, 02:55:14 PM »

Since I did not get a answer on this I still would like to know what you guys think about this. If a woman gets a abortion the law considers it legal and the fetus is not considered a baby??? Yet if one of us killed a woman who was pregnant the law would charge us with a double murder and considers the fetus as a living person?

So how do you explain that? Sure as heck is a double standard if you ask me!!!!!!! :x

MGMorden · « **Reply #62 on:** March 04, 2005, 03:17:22 PM »

Quote from: Leverdude

done now, we have no responsability to the people of Iraq & are now involved in nation building for the sole reason of making sure everyone thinks we're the good guys.
Dont much matter as when we leave, in 6 mos or 6 years, they'll kill the guy we leave in charge & things will return to normal. Caos is normal for their culture.

We can change that culture to better coexist with ourselves. It's called assimilation. Japan is one of the best possible examples. 64 years ago Japan and the US were bitter enemies. I don't think I need to go into the hostilities that went on during WW2. After the war however, we rebuilt Japan and molded them into a culture that though still unquestionably Japanese in nature, is heavily influenced by our own ideals and culture. The result is that Japan is now an immensly useful trading partner and ally, loyal to the US in almost every way. I personally don't think that we really needed to invade Iraq when we did, but since we're already in there we should make the best of it. I don't have a problem with keeping it occupied for as long as it takes.

powderman · « **Reply #63 on:** March 04, 2005, 03:39:02 PM »

FE352v8. With capitol punishment, these people have done deeds that are deserving of death, a baby has done nothing wrong and should be allowed to live. I also firmly believe in preemptive strikes if it is deemed that another nation, or group of people means to do us harm. If my neighbor tells me he intends to kill me as soon as he has finished building a rifle, you can rest assured that I will do everything necessary to make sure he never finishes the job.
I equate abortion to murder beccause it is the intentional takeing of a human life. That, I believe is the definition of murder, and I also believe that a baby is still human, even though it has never seen daylight.
I'm trying to stand up and fight for the ones that can't. A baby can't fight an adult, it always loses. I've seen film of babies in the womb trying to get away from the butchers instruments of death, they always lose. POWDERMAN.

MGMorden · « **Reply #64 on:** March 04, 2005, 04:53:00 PM »

Quote from: jh45gun

Since I did not get a answer on this I still would like to know what you guys think about this. If a woman gets a abortion the law considers it legal and the fetus is not considered a baby??? Yet if one of us killed a woman who was pregnant the law would charge us with a double murder and considers the fetus as a living person? So how do you explain that? Sure as heck is a double standard if you ask me!!!!!!! :x

Well in all fairness most of the people who support legal abortion are absolutely against considering murdering a pregnant woman a double homicide, as it could set a precedent that an unborn baby is considered a person.

It's a double standard, but it's not caused by hypocrasy, but rather by two groups wanting opposite things, and neither has gotten the laws exactly where they wanted them.

jh45gun · « **Reply #65 on:** March 04, 2005, 05:35:49 PM »

Correct me if I am wrong MG but there allready is precidents about this:

HOMICIDE BASED ON KILLING OF UNBORN CHILD

Alan S. Wasserstrom, J.D.

Whether the slayer of an unborn child or fetus can be convicted of a homicide has been the subject of controversy among state and federal courts. While under the common law a conviction was only possible if the child was born alive that is no longer a universal rule under state and federal statutes. Accordingly, convictions may be won where death of the child occurs before birth where the courts consider the child to be viable or a person or human being under the governing statute. For example, in the case of State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286, 64 ALR5th 901 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997), the court held that an unborn child is a "person" for the purposes of the first degree murder statute and the fact that a mother of a pre-born child may have been granted certain legal rights to terminate the pregnancy did not preclude the prosecution of a third party for murder in the case of a killing of a child not consented to by the mother. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his actions in killing the child, accomplished by a savage beating of the mother, should be considered equivalent to conduct under the state's misdemeanor abortion statute. The court, instead, determined that the state legislature never intended to treat the unconsented (by the mother) killing of a pre-born infant, in the context of a physical assault on the mother, as anything other than a murder of the infant. This annotation examines all cases addressing the homicides of unborn children under statutory provisions, but does not consider the myriad cases decided under common law.

Latest is the Scott Peterson Case:
In Peterson's case, the fetal murder statute could lead to a capital case.
Under California law, anyone charged with multiple murders is eligible
for the death penalty. Prosecutors must prove that the perpetrator had the
intent to kill the fetus or at least knew that the death would result from
the mother's killing. It seems unlikely that anyone could not know that
Laci Peterson, less than two months from full-term, was pregnant.
***************************

MGMorden · « **Reply #66 on:** March 05, 2005, 01:45:17 AM »

You are correct, but what I was saying as that most pro-choice/pro-abortion groups are in favor are not including the second murder charge based on the death of the unborn child. Most of the people supporting this are pro-lifers. So as I said, it's not that they're being two-faced about it, but rather than the pro-life group seems to be winning on one issue as far as laws go (double homicide for deaths of pregnant women), and the the pro-choice groups are winning on another legal issue (legalization of abortion). If either group got their way we'd have either legal abortions AND only a single homicide charge in the case of pregnant women, or we'd have abortions illegal and it be a double homicide.

You're right in that the law does conflict, but that's the case with a lot of laws these days. Eventually one or the other of them will likely go to the Supreme Court and we'll get a firm ruling one way or another.

Quote from: jh45gun

Correct me if I am wrong MG but there allready is precidents about this:

HOMICIDE BASED ON KILLING OF UNBORN CHILD

Alan S. Wasserstrom, J.D.

Whether the slayer of an unborn child or fetus can be convicted of a homicide has been the subject of controversy among state and federal courts. While under the common law a conviction was only possible if the child was born alive that is no longer a universal rule under state and federal statutes. Accordingly, convictions may be won where death of the child occurs before birth where the courts consider the child to be viable or a person or human being under the governing statute. For example, in the case of State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286, 64 ALR5th 901 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997), the court held that an unborn child is a "person" for the purposes of the first degree murder statute and the fact that a mother of a pre-born child may have been granted certain legal rights to terminate the pregnancy did not preclude the prosecution of a third party for murder in the case of a killing of a child not consented to by the mother. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his actions in killing the child, accomplished by a savage beating of the mother, should be considered equivalent to conduct under the state's misdemeanor abortion statute. The court, instead, determined that the state legislature never intended to treat the unconsented (by the mother) killing of a pre-born infant, in the context of a physical assault on the mother, as anything other than a murder of the infant. This annotation examines all cases addressing the homicides of unborn children under statutory provisions, but does not consider the myriad cases decided under common law.

Latest is the Scott Peterson Case:
In Peterson's case, the fetal murder statute could lead to a capital case.
Under California law, anyone charged with multiple murders is eligible
for the death penalty. Prosecutors must prove that the perpetrator had the
intent to kill the fetus or at least knew that the death would result from
the mother's killing. It seems unlikely that anyone could not know that
Laci Peterson, less than two months from full-term, was pregnant.
***************************

Leverdude · « **Reply #67 on:** March 05, 2005, 06:46:22 AM »

Jim,

In one case we're talking about a vicious murderer taking anothers life with malice.

In the other we're talking about a woman making what must be a very hard decision based on personal things that we cannot possibly know in
the manner that she deems best.

That said I dont think the double murder thing is right either in all cases.
If the murderer was unaware of the womans condition then its not murder of the child but maybe negligent homicide.

A priest at my church once told me that abstinance is the only acceptable way to avoid pregnancy. Its his view that birth control is the same as abortion in a religious sense because your blocking a potential life that God wanted to see happen.

Is a fertalized egg a chiken?

This is one reason that I personally think viability of the fetus outside the womb is the best option for deciding when a fetus becomes a person in the legal sense.
I have no idea what God wants in this matter.

It to me is a personal matter.
I wouldnt go that route myself & hope my children learn enuff of my values that they wont either.

If the woman down the street wants to thats her buisness & if it turns out that God views it as murder then I guess she wont have a real nice afterlife.

JPSaxMan · « **Reply #68 on:** March 05, 2005, 07:34:06 AM »

Not to get off topic, but Powderman...what did you do to that neighbor who destroyed your crop? Ida at least called the cops :twisted: ...just curious

jh45gun · « **Reply #69 on:** March 05, 2005, 10:17:24 AM »

LeverDude, Gotto to say when a woman looks like she swallowed a bowling ball or a watermelon or in some cases a small bus :eek: :eek: :eek: I would say even the dumbest criminal would consider her to be pregnant. :wink: Bottom line is even if she does not look pregnant the persons action still killed 2 persons and if the law can use that to strenghten their case against the perp I see no problems with that at all! Jim

powderman · « **Reply #70 on:** March 05, 2005, 03:35:41 PM »

FISHMAN029. THe crop of corn was just an example, not real. In reality I have wonderful neighbors. I used that as an example, sprouting corn, fertilized egg. I appologize for not being clearer about that.
JH45GUN. In Ky If a person attacks a pregnant woman, and her baby dies, that person can be charged with murder. The so called mother though, can kill her baby if she chooses, with the blessing of the law. I believe that The law allowing legal murder will be changed in my lifetime. At least I hope and pray so. POWDERMAN.

JPSaxMan · « **Reply #71 on:** March 05, 2005, 04:11:38 PM »

OK, I'm going to give you fellas a scenario that I don't think you can deny.

Suppose you're a mother who just found out she was pregnant. You're going along good and you're in your second trimester when the doctor brings you terrible news. Your child is severely deformed, missing it's right arm and left leg, and will be born this way and along with severe retardation. At this point, is it fair, to the child, to subject him/her to a lifetime of hospitals, surgeries, and ridicule from the general public? Would you do that to your own child? Or would you rather spare it?

I think this is a tough call because people live with limbs missing and being mentally challenged, of course. But do they really live? Do they like life? Do they live it to the fullest? You make the call here.

jh45gun · « **Reply #72 on:** March 05, 2005, 04:31:37 PM »

Weeeellllllll I know some pro abortion people use that for a excuse but I have to say I worked for 10 years Driving a bus and van and general maintenance for a DayCenter that had severely handicapped folks ( Mentally or Mentally and Physically) and they were some of the happiest folks I knew. Yea their life may not be up to our standards but they knew no different and were happy. Some folks used to kill the runt of the litter too yet some of the runts turned out to be the best dogs! :wink:

powderman · « **Reply #73 on:** March 05, 2005, 05:26:44 PM »

FISHMAN029. Yes, a tough call, but I agree with Jim. People like you describe tend to be happy. They tend to be dependent on someone else and know no other life. A lady who runs a mental facility used to bring several of her charges to church to sing. All were adults, they were called the A team. None of them could carry a tune in a bathtub, and were rarely singing the same song, but they put their heart into it, and were extremely proud of their performance. I believe that if I were a woman in the condition you described I would have to ask myself a question. If I decided to take the life of that child, would it be because I thought it would be better for the child not to live that way?, or for me, because of the hardships it would involve careing for it? Would I want the responsibility of raising a child like that? No, Sir, I would not, but I could not kill it, I'd have to accept that responsibility myself.
A good question, glad you asked it, but I had to think about that one. POWDERMAN.

jh45gun · « **Reply #74 on:** March 05, 2005, 07:31:00 PM »

I suppose some one will come up with the song and dance about such a person being a burden on society. Yea maybe so to some but is that worth taking a life over? Maybe at one time these types of folks were teased and tormented but these days I even see pre teens and teens volunteer to help out these folks. Society has came a long way to help these folks live a more comfortable and meaningful life no matter how insignificant some may think it is. Jim

BamBams · « **Reply #75 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:34:47 AM »

Jim,

Are you familiar with this issue? It's going on right now.

http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/letter-from-terri-schiavos-father.htm

JPSaxMan · « **Reply #76 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:58:30 AM »

Wow... :shock: . I'm pretty speechless... :eek:

MGMorden · « **Reply #77 on:** March 06, 2005, 04:00:27 PM »

Quote from: BamBams

Jim,

Are you familiar with this issue? It's going on right now.

http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/letter-from-terri-schiavos-father.htm

Have any more links on this? It sounds an awful lot like a scam to me. Not saying it is, but without some hard proof I'd never give money to these people.

BamBams · « **Reply #78 on:** March 06, 2005, 04:13:28 PM »

Here's several hundred links on this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terry+Schiavo&btnG=Google+Search

jh45gun · « **Reply #79 on:** March 06, 2005, 05:22:22 PM »

My take on that whole scene and I have been following it for a while is that the parents want here alive and the husband wants here dead. He has a girlfriend and has had kids with here and while a money situation was claimed that he would get a insurance settlement also. Though some claim the money would be ate up by her bills after she dies and he would not get anything. Still there is the girlfriend angle. Personally I think the guy is scum and I stand with the parents. The last few months of my mothers life she was not the person I remember either. She quit basically eating and she was wasting away. Yet the Nursing home folks kept here comfortable and she was as happy as she could be considering she knew old age was claiming her. Still the hardest thing I had to do is have her sign a do not recesitate order as the nursing home and doctor claimed as frail as she was it would be a bad deal, Broken Ribs and internal injury. At 89 they claimed even if they did bring here back she could wind up in a vegetative state also. So she passed peacefully in here sleep and no way during that time even though her quality of life was diminished did I want to see her go. It was up to God as far as I was concerned when she would pass. So I know where her parents are coming from. I have seen Videos of this woman and yea she is not in the best of shape at all but she does not look brain dead or in a coma either. I think the Husband wants her dead period, so he can carry on with his girlfriend. I think the promise of a fat insurance check if he could collect it and keep it keeps him from divorcing her also if that is allowed since she cannot give her consent. Jim

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #80 on:** March 09, 2005, 12:48:40 PM »

It's a scam. Like most good scams, it has a kernel of truth in it. There is a Terri Schiavo; her body is kept alive by a feeding tube surgically implanted into her stomach and has been for 15 years; her husband does want to remove the tube.

The rest is lies and edited videotape. Four and a half hours of video tape have been edited down to a few minutes to make the normal twitchings of bodies in this state appear to be conscious action, much as raisins are made to dance for a commercial.

Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack apparently induced by potassium deficiency and her brain was without oxygen for at least seven minutes. Her cerbral cortex (the part of the brain that controls thinking and voluntary actions, including swallowing) has rotted away and been replaced by liquid. Her brain stem (the part that controls breathing, blinking, and other involuntary actions) remains functioning.

Here are some links to official records and some non partisan sites.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo_project.htm
http://floridahealthinfo.hsc.usf.edu/TheresaSchiavoFinalReport1December2003.pdf

And here is a link to the husband's side of the story

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/27/lkl.00.html

jh45gun · « **Reply #81 on:** March 10, 2005, 04:58:27 PM »

Lefty I did not even bother with the links as I would not believe the husband if he spoke on a stack of bibles and 2. The Network news did not say it was fabricated and they would jump on a story like that. For all the real info you see on the net there is a lot of fabricated crap also. Jim

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #82 on:** March 10, 2005, 06:20:24 PM »

I can't make you inform yourself, JH.

The links are there if you want to follow them, and I clearly separated the official and non partisan sites from Michael's version.

powderman · « **Reply #83 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:24:42 AM »

LODJ. I didn't read themeither. I have no interest in hearing from an admitted adulterer who wants to kill his wife. It's all about the money as far as he is concerned. POWDERMAN.

Leverdude · « **Reply #84 on:** March 11, 2005, 04:58:23 AM »

Dont see how people can form an opinion without reading all the supposed facts.

I'd have to say that in this case, from what I'v seen she shoulda passed on a long time ago.
Why is it when its a persons time to go we have such a hard time with it if we can get them to live (if thats what you call it) thru machines.
Now, I can see resucitation & life support within reason but 14 years is beyond reason IMO.
Isn't it as much in defiance of Gods will to keep one alive who's time has come as it is to prevent the birth of one who's time is coming?
God may have a plan for this woman in heaven, does anyone have the right to deprive her of that?

Its easy to say its all about money & take it out on the husband. How can we know that the parents arent just interested in the money as well?
We cant, regardless of what we see on the news or read on here know what really motivates people but I ask this, Is she any better off today than if she'd a died 14 years ago? I think not & everyone involved is acting in ther own self interest, weather its for money or just to be able to see their daughter or wife when they want.
IMO The only unselfish thing to do is let nature take its course.

BamBams · « **Reply #85 on:** March 11, 2005, 05:57:08 AM »

I read all your links, and honestly, they really got me to thinking. I feel I have a better understanding of the issue now. It still all does boil down to what "she" would have wanted. I do see money and greed as factors in this matter.

The whole problem was she got to this point without leaving a written will. Now everyone has to decide if the husband really knew what she wanted. This is weak part of the whole chain of events.

I am writing myself a living will this weekend. I do not wish to kept alive. I would never want my children to go through this with me.

I know that if it was me, I would want my plug pulled. In fact, if I even had any clue that I was going to wind up like her, I'd jump out of an airplane without a parachute or something similar.

Thanks for sharing all the info with us.

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #86 on:** March 11, 2005, 06:19:38 AM »

Quote from: BamBams

Now everyone has to decide if the husband really knew what she wanted. This is weak part of the whole chain of events.

I am writing myself a living will this weekend. I do not wish to kept alive. I would never want my children to go through this with me.

I know that if it was me, I would want my plug pulled. In fact, if I even had any clue that I was going to wind up like her, I'd jump out of an airplane without a parachute or something similar.

Thanks for sharing all the info with us.

BamBams, thanks for following the links. Written instructions help and I have them myself.

If you follow the links within those links, you will find that there were two more witnesses to Terri's wish. The decision did not rest solely on Michael's testimony. That's in one of the early court decisions.

jh45gun · « **Reply #87 on:** March 11, 2005, 10:00:58 AM »

Quote from: Leftoverdj

I can't make you inform yourself, JH.

The links are there if you want to follow them, and I clearly separated the official and non partisan sites from Michael's version.

Your right and I have the right to decide what and what I do not want to inform myself about also. Just as you do. Read this morning that the husband refused 1 mil to walk away and let the parents take dare of her. Some may interpert that as see he is not in it for the money. I think he is not that dumb as the then most folks would see him for the sleeze he is.

FWiedner · « **Reply #88 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:15:54 AM »

Quote from: jh45gun

Quote from: Leftoverdj
I can't make you inform yourself, JH.

The links are there if you want to follow them, and I clearly separated the official and non partisan sites from Michael's version.

Your right and I have the right to decide what and what I do not want to inform myself about also. Just as you do. Read this morning that the husband refused 1 mil to walk away and let the parents take dare of her. Some may interpert that as see he is not in it for the money. I think he is not that dumb as the then most folks would see him for the sleeze he is.

He could take the money and then give it to her parents.

:?

jh45gun · « **Reply #89 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:47:37 PM »

Can't see that happening :roll: