You have to be real real dumb to think that this is not a baby.

[YellowSnow51]

The pro abortion lobby has way too much power. It's quite obvious. When you can change the entire meaning of words and force people to become instant idiots, you have too much persuasion over our justice system.

A Colorado woman accused of cutting the gruesome attack that revived the highly charged debate over when a fetus can legally be considered a human being.
Prosecutors did not explain the decision on Thursday or reveal what charges will be filed in the attack that killed the unborn baby girl. The mother, who was about eight months pregnant, survived and left the hospital on Wednesday.
Dynel Lane, 34, lured Michelle Wilkins, 26, to her home 18 March with an ad on Craigslist selling baby clothes, investigators say. Inside, Lane stabbed Wilkins and removed the child, police say.

Pregnant Colorado woman stabbed in the stomach in 'tragic case'[/URL]


Read morehttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/19/pregnant-colorado-woman-stabbed-stomach
Lane had told her family she was pregnant, and when her husband came home early from work to meet her for a prenatal appointment, he found the infant in a bathtub, authorities said. Lane said she had a miscarriage, and he took them to the hospital, where the baby was pronounced dead.
Catherine Olguin, a spokeswoman for the Boulder County district attorney's office, said on Thursday night that prosecutors won't bring a murder charge in the baby's death.
District attorney Stan Garnett plans to give out more information on Friday, and the coroner's office is expected to release the findings of an autopsy performed on the baby.
The case renewed the nationwide debate over bringing murder charges in the violent deaths of unborn children.
Even though the baby girl died, legal experts say the case is complicated by the fact that Colorado is one of 12 states that do not have a fetal homicide law. State lawmakers in 2013 voted down such a measure over fears it would interfere with abortion rights, and voters overwhelmingly agreed when they rejected a similar ballot measure in 2014.
Colorado legislators did pass a measure that makes it a felony to violently cause the death of a mother's fetus. The maximum punishment under that provision is 32 years in prison, whereas a person convicted of homicide in Colorado could face the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Advocates say the attack shows the need for a fetal homicide law.
Legal experts say a person can still be charged with homicide for an unborn child's death under existing Colorado law if the baby was alive outside the mother's body and the act that led to the death also occurred there.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/27/col

 

[fredjr82]

We covered this last week

Pepsi

 

[hawkboy76]

Sorry Yellow. The libs are too busy throwing a hissy fit because its possible that a Christian photographer can't be compelled to photograph a gay wedding. Really important stuff.

 

[yiana]

We have real issues in the country. Stop letting them distract you.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BABiscuit]

State rights.

 

[timinatoria]

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Just curious, do you think it's a baby or not?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SCHawkFan]

That was certainly the murder of a baby, but with no fetal homicide law, no way to charge the woman with murder. She will be held accountable and will be spending decades in prison if convicted.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Just curious, do you think it's a baby or not?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

The word "baby" has a definition. It isn't us pro-choice folks who are trying to change that definition.

You can call a fetus an "unborn baby" if you want. Nobody has any trouble understanding what you mean. You can also call an acorn an ungrown oak if you want. Or a caterpillar an undeveloped butterfly. Or a pile of parts an unbuilt car.

So, no, it's not a baby. But that doesn't mean you can't charge the perp with killing it.

Its status as a person is similar to the quantum problem illustrated by the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. For a while during the development of the fetus, it's the woman's choice whether to bring the fetus to term. If she chooses to do so, or even if she hasn't chosen otherwise, it's legitimate to bring charges against the perp for killing the fetus. Still not a baby, but the act is an unlawful taking of life.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Because, as we all know, rights should depend on geography.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Because, as we all know, rights should depend on geography.

They almost always are, right?

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Because, as we all know, rights should depend on geography.

They almost always are, right?

Best retort in a while.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Just curious, do you think it's a baby or not?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

The word "baby" has a definition. It isn't us pro-choice folks who are trying to change that definition.

You can call a fetus an "unborn baby" if you want. Nobody has any trouble understanding what you mean. You can also call an acorn an ungrown oak if you want. Or a caterpillar an undeveloped butterfly. Or a pile of parts an unbuilt car.

So, no, it's not a baby. But that doesn't mean you can't charge the perp with killing it.

Its status as a person is similar to the quantum problem illustrated by the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. For a while during the development of the fetus, it's the woman's choice whether to bring the fetus to term. If she chooses to do so, or even if she hasn't chosen otherwise, it's legitimate to bring charges against the perp for killing the fetus. Still not a baby, but the act is an unlawful taking of life.

Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

 

[BABiscuit]

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Just curious, do you think it's a baby or not?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Legally, that is not my call. In real life, I have no problem calling a fetus a baby. I don't tell my kids a lady has a fetus in their belly.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Now, technically, all terms are developed by man. While I agree that a fetus at these later stages resembles a baby more than a clump of cells, I still don't think of it, or refer to it, as a baby. It's technically "life" from the time the sperm and egg meet. I do not condone, endorse or want to engage in abortion as birth control. Technically, I can't because I lack a uterus. I'm also not one who likes euphemistic language to be used to conceal crimes. I don't think that is in-play here, however. Although, it could be argued otherwise. I do believe people are very conscious of when they are murdering a fetus for convenience and when it's for saving the life of the mother. This is one of those complex issues that, for me at least, is not so easily ruled upon.

 

[ANYCHawk]

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:


Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Now, technically, all terms are developed by man. While I agree that a fetus at these later stages resembles a baby more than a clump of cells, I still don't think of it, or refer to it, as a baby. It's technically "life" from the time the sperm and egg meet. I do not condone, endorse or want to engage in abortion as birth control. Technically, I can't because I lack a uterus. I'm also not one who likes euphemistic language to be used to conceal crimes. I don't think that is in-play here, however. Although, it could be argued otherwise. I do believe people are very conscious of when they are murdering a fetus for convenience and when it's for saving the life of the mother. This is one of those complex issues that, for me at least, is not so easily ruled upon.

It is complex, and it does definitely warrant much discussion. I agree with what you've said also. Do you or does anyone know though how pregnant this woman was? I've looked around and haven't been able to find anything on it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

The words and their definitions are completely inert without context. Are you sure you understand context? You insist you do, but you display the exact opposite. Using words "correctly" is vital, but understanding HOW to use them correctly is not your strong suit! Your fixation and rigidity of words and definitions is almost dangerous because you clearly lack the fundamental importance of distinguishing definitions and how that depends completely upon how it being used in certain contexts. You lack that more than anyone I have ever seen on these boards.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

The words and their definitions are completely inert without context. Are you sure you understand context? You insist you do, but you display the exact opposite. Using words "correctly" is vital, but understanding HOW to use them correctly is not your strong suit! Your fixation and rigidity of words and definitions is almost dangerous because you clearly lack the fundamental importance of distinguishing definitions and how that depends completely upon how it being used in certain contexts. You lack that more than anyone I have ever seen on these boards.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:


Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

Life is a definition Natural. Can we just simplify it down to that? If not, why not?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:


Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

Life is a definition Natural. Can we just simplify it down to that? If not, why not?

I answered this question for you last night.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:


Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

Life is a definition Natural. Can we just simplify it down to that? If not, why not?

And, in his defense, I absolutely do not believe that Naturalmwa is even remotely endorsing, or suggesting, that life be maliciously taken (murdered, killed, or whatever is used in the proper context). He's not that kind of person. Very few of us are. Most that truly are that malicious would never spend their time typing on internet message boards! They'd be preoccupied with the next victim.

I think natural just wants as many of us as possible to be on the same page on this issue. No one is remotely suggesting that murdering babies (whether they are in or out of a human body) should ever be allowed, under any circumstance. Personally, I'm much more offended by state executions (murders) of people with birth certificates and a whole back-story than I am with abortions. I guess I feel like there's just less being lost, I dunno. I know that I could not maliciously, take a human life- regardless of it's form. Ideally, we all should try to capture that instinct in ourselves as best we can. I guess it's better to argue over the intricacies than being primal and murdering at will with NO consequence of any kind.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by strummingram:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:



Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god? Did you grow up in Texas?

Baby is just another term for that ever precious commodity called life. I don't know who this god is you speak of. Never met him. No, I grew up in Iowa.

Good, so now that we have established that both terms were "developed by man" how about we use the terms correctly according to their definitions?

Life is a definition Natural. Can we just simplify it down to that? If not, why not?

And, in his defense, I absolutely do not believe that Naturalmwa is even remotely endorsing, or suggesting, that life be maliciously taken (murdered, killed, or whatever is used in the proper context). He's not that kind of person. Very few of us are. Most that truly are that malicious would never spend their time typing on internet message boards! They'd be preoccupied with the next victim.

I think natural just wants as many of us as possible to be on the same page on this issue. No one is remotely suggesting that murdering babies (whether they are in or out of a human body) should ever be allowed, under any circumstance. Personally, I'm much more offended by state executions (murders) of people with birth certificates and a whole back-story than I am with abortions. I guess I feel like there's just less being lost, I dunno. I know that I could not maliciously, take a human life- regardless of it's form. Ideally, we all should try to capture that instinct in ourselves as best we can. I guess it's better to argue over the intricacies than being primal and murdering at will with NO consequence of any kind.

Dangit Strumm, there you go being all sensible and all. This is a very complicated situation, despite my insistence on wanting to simplify it down a bit. I just like to make sure, that people not look at life as statistics, and more at what it is, life.

 

[strummingram]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
I just like to make sure, that people not look at life as statistics, and more at what it is, life.

Especially in the present-tense.

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
Fetus is a term developed by man. The pile of parts of an unbuilt car does not even come close to matching that. Humanity has a problem with using technicality to justify immorality.

Does this mean you think "baby" is a term developed by god?  Did you grow up in Texas? 

Of course it was not but we know from WWJD that a fetus is not a baby. As another poster has asked... What do you call when talking an expectant mother? A baby or fetus? I bet it's an odd conversation when WWJD starts it with a pregnant mom by saying like..... Congratulations on your fetus...
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Because, as we all know, rights should depend on geography.

They almost always are, right?

That's the difference between "should" and "do" (or "are"). I trust you aren't saying that the status quo ought to trump the ideal just because it often does. Whither progress?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Because, as we all know, rights should depend on geography.

They almost always are, right?

That's the difference between "should" and "do" (or "are"). I trust you aren't saying that the status quo ought to trump the ideal just because it often does. Whither progress?

Rights IMO are simply actionable legal constructs. As such they exist within whatever jurisdiction recognizes them. Jurisdictions are usually defined by geography. Hence your rights do depend on where you are. I have different rights in Iowa than I would in Indiana as an example.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by BABiscuit:
State rights.

Because, as we all know, rights should depend on geography.

They almost always are, right?

That's the difference between "should" and "do" (or "are"). I trust you aren't saying that the status quo ought to trump the ideal just because it often does. Whither progress?

Rights IMO are simply actionable legal constructs. As such they exist within whatever jurisdiction recognizes them. Jurisdictions are usually defined by geography. Hence your rights do depend on where you are. I have different rights in Iowa than I would in Indiana as an example.

Yes they "DO" but should they.

You and I tend to agree on the source of rights. But this is a single nation. We may have different rights compared to folks in other nations, but should we have different rights based on what US state we live in? How about by city or town within states? How about by which side of the street you live on?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Yes they "DO" but should they.

You and I tend to agree on the source of rights. But this is a single nation. We may have different rights compared to folks in other nations, but should we have different rights based on what US state we live in? How about by city or town within states? How about by which side of the street you live on?

In a limited way I think so, especially for positive rights. I think there should be a guaranteed floor for all nationally, something we currently lack to my satisfaction, but after that I see no problem with localities expanding on the menu.

The main issue with this current religious rights law isn't that they are allowing conscientious objections to be a defense against serving gays. The main issue is they have yet to grant gays that basic civil rights floor and they are prioritizing conscientious objections over civil rights should they conflict. In most (all?) other states this is not the circumstance. In states like Texas the law is bared as a defence in civil rights disputes. In other states sexual orientation is a protected class. In still other states it's a law that only applies to real people or to government action, not individual vs. individual. Indiana hasn't taken any of these safe guards. Hopefully that will change. I think the desire for that floor is the reason such a stink is being made. This is an opportunity to expand both religious and gay rights, I wonder if it will work out that way.