Posted on 06/28/2022 2:54:19 PM PDT by whitney69
Gotcha. Fair enough.
Too often women use abortions as birth control. Very Soviet of them
Dr Bernard Nathanson co-founded NARAL... and later came to realize the truth of what he was doing. He discusses how they just made up numbers before Roe v Wade:
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/confessions-of-an-ex-abortionist.html
Here is a little bio of him:
https://denvercatholic.org/mission-aborted-the-conversion-of-ex-abortionist-dr-bernard-nathanson/
>> When the baby moves it’s alive... that’s the quickening.
Quickening is not when the baby starts to move; it’s when the baby is big enough that the mother can feel his or her movements. The baby begins to move long before that.
These same people are apoplectic about kids beimg shot in schools.
Their idiotic commercials falsely state that guns are the #1 killer of kids in america today.
Thats so dam false.
Guns dont kill 800,000+ kids a year.
ABPRTION IS THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF KIDS IN AMERICA EACH YEAR.
Nothing else comes close, the next cause of death is light years away from this massive number.
Fixed this sentence anyway.
Or a 3 year old kid for that matter.
Re "viability standard is BS". Exactly! A good standard would work regardless of the location and regardless of the time period. Viability is neither.
I’m curious, in states that forbid abortion, what is the penalty for having one, both for the mother and the aborter?
Also, it would be interesting to know how many abortions are performed at various months into the pregnancy. Any one know?
Abortion is 99% about convenience and avoiding the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
“It seems to me women who have unintended pregnancies are to clueless or stupid to prevent getting pregnant and are the ones guilty of infanticide.”
The mothers may be part of it, but there is a whole lot of people that have misused Roe for many years and sold the public a used car. Every time one of these events happens, the state, the doctors, the hospitals and many more are made aware of it. They are all part of the process.
An example of the failure of it is euthanasia. As of June 2021, the only jurisdictions that allow this procedure are Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont. That makes up nine of fifty states that will allow a person of age, with the mental facilities to make that decision, to determine their wish to die, in their time, place, and procedure in most cases. Eighteen percent of the states.
Yet abortion prior to this change was legal in every state without the only person being killed having no say in it. This makes no sense and without the Roe ruling that twists the availability of a “right”, which it isn’t and never has been, for young teenagers to make decisions to take the life of an unborn or partially born child while refusing “right” of a sane person to take his/her own life is absolutely ignorant. And without that right, it more than borders over the line of criminal. States are not heaven with the governor playing the part of God.
wy69
Teach your sons. Never marry a woman who has had an abortion. Lock them out of a normal life because they honestly don’t deserve it. Teach your sons at an early stage that women and abortion is murder and they need to keep their pants on. I will tell you women will lie about abortion but eventually the need to confess the sin. Hopefully before the wedding. In that case divorce is biblically acceptable in my opinion. I would like to hear other interpretations of scripture.
I am sad for young men these days. I’m sad for the youth in general.
“...in the 10 years before abortion was legalized there, a grand total of 11 women died in “back alley” procedures.”
And that’s a major part of the lie. Abortion will still be available in the US for the mothers or children that have been placed in a position of danger medically or rape/forced impregnation using professional medical facilities. It isn’t going into the alleys unless the mothers take it there and they don’t have to.
The problem is that the couple involved should now have to be responsible for their recreation and pay a steep price for it. It takes two to tango when they are both dancing. You can’t stop people from being self centered or self important enough to withdraw from intelligent decision. This is why law enforcement can’t arrest murders before they kill on the streets. They can only gas them or put them away for life after they catch them.
Wish there was a way to stop the problem considering the unborn children. Maybe someday the answer will be there...but not yet. So the price needs to be substantial enough to make people think before they put their head in the lions mouth. We ain’t got anything else.
wy69
“where was the moral sense of responsbiity”
I have watched the changing of the morals for many years. So many things have become not only acceptable, but encouraged. Having children out of wedlock was a practice until the first marriage contract about 2500 years before Christ. In the old west, if you stole cattle, the posse found you and hung you. No problem.
I believe the first of the major changing happened right after the first depression years for our current society when they learned that it takes more than a pretty face to get food and housing. And then the major attack against morals happened in the mid 1050’s by Madeline O’hare who was instrumental in taking prayer out of schools and started the domino effect of schools taking the responsibility of sculpturing students until something went wrong and them it was the parent’s fault.
True morals are dying off with the passing of those that came in before Woodstock, the wars we shouldn’t have got into, the destructive dismantling (and politicalizing) of religion, and the legalizing of harming your neighbor because someone came up with a way to make it sound legal or make the punishment minute and not threatening enough if at all. Start somewhere and see where it takes you. The rode is long even though it is right in front of us.
wy69
RETHINKING ABORTION Black's Law Dictionary ^Posted on 6/28/2022, 4:54:19 PM by whitney69
[excerpt]
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human creature without malice, either express or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation whatever; which may be voluntary, upon a sudden heat of passion, or involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Murder two is the term for a homicide that is not associated with malice or any premeditation but is still from a result of causing harm. It is a more serious crime than manslaughter. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Murder one term that is the describes the killing of a person that has been planned and carried out with malice. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Attribution of the term human creature to Black's Law Dictionary is premeditated bullshit. Nobody vaguely familiar with Black's would believe that is what is in Black's Law Dictionary, any edition.
Manslaughter, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1990
The unjustifiable, inexcusable and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation and malice. State v. Bannister, Mo.App., 512 S.W.2d 843, 845. The unlawful killing of a human without malice, without any mixture of deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful without due caution and circumspection. Wallace by U.S., 162 U.S. 466, 16 S. Ct. 859, 40 L.Ed. 1039.
You appear to have chosen a common law definition of manslaughter, perhaps unknowingly and unintentionally. In any case, the term is not human creature but human being or living human being.
Citing Wallace v. United States, 162 U.S. 466 (1896)
In Wallace we find the Court at 476 was actually paraphrasing Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51. . . . Manslaughter at common law was defined to be the unlawful and felonious killing of another without any malice, either express or implied. Whart. Am. Or. L. (8th ed.) sec. 304. Whether there be what is termed express malice or only implied malice, the proof to show either is of the same nature, viz., the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the killing. The definition of the crime given by section 5341 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is substantially the same. The proof of homicide, as necessarily involving malice, must show the facts under which the killing was effected, and from the whole facts and circumstances surrounding the killing the jury infers malice or its absence. Malice in connection with the crime of killing is but another name for a certain condition of a man's heart or mind, and as no one can look into the heart or mind of another, the only way to decide upon its condition at the time of a killing is to infer it from the surrounding facts, and that inference is one of fact for a jury. The presence or absence of this malice or mental condition marks the, boundary which separates the two crimes of murder and manslaughter."
In Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) at 59-60,
In its charge to the jury the court, among other things., said "What, then, is murder There are only two kinds of felonious homicide known to the laws of the United States. One is murder and the other is manslaughter. There are no degrees of murder." "There is no definition of murder by any United States statute. We resort to the common law for that. By the common law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the peace of the State, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. Malice, then, is an element in the offence and discriminates it from the other crime of felonious homicide which I have mentioned, to wit, manslaughter, that is, malice express or implied, discriminates murder from the offence of manslaughter." "Express malice exists when one, by deliberate premeditation and design, formed in advance, to kill or to do bodily harm, the premeditation and design being implied from external circumstances capable of proof, such as lying in wait, antecedent threats, and concerted schemes against a victim. Implied malice is an inference of the law from any deliberate and cruel act committed by one person against another. The two kinds of malice, therefore, to repeat, indicate but one state of mind, established in different ways, the one by circumstances showing premeditation of the homicide, the other by an inference of the law from the act committed, that is, malice is inferred when one kills another without provocation, or when the provocation is not great. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either expressed or implied.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. 2019
manslaughter, n. (15c) The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. — Also termed (in some jurisdictions) culpable homicide. Cf. murder. —manslaughter, vb. “[Manslaughter is very difficult to define precisely, because it includes so many different types of culpability. The main line of division is between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, the first occurring where there is an intention to do some illegal harm to a person, the second where there is no such intention. . . . Manslaughter . . . may not be the result of intent at all. It may be the consequence of negligence. This, indeed, is one of the principal causes of involuntary manslaughter, and it has long been clear that a different degree of negligence, sometimes termed ‘gross,’ ‘criminal,’ or ‘complete,’ is a necessary prerequisite of criminal liability, but these epithets have not added much from the standpoint of legal clarity.” G.W. Keeton, The Elementary Principles of Jurisprudence 315-16 (2d ed. 1949).
I seriously doubt any edition of Black's has ever used the term human creature.
Criminal Law, 4th Ed., Wayne R. LaFave, West Publishing, 2003, at 733
(f) Elements of Murder. It may be useful to summarize briefly here the required elements of murder: (1) There must be some conduct (affirmative act, or omission to act where there is a duty to act) on the part of the defendant. (2) He must have an accompanying “malicious” state of mind (intent to kill or do serious bodily injury; a depraved heart; an intent to commit a felony). (3) His conduct must “legally cause” the death of a living-human-being victim. And (4), in many jurisdictions, this death must occur within a year and a day after the defendant’s conduct thus caused the victim’s fatal injury.
Criminal Investigation, 8th Ed., Wayne W. Bennett and Karen M. Hess, Thomson Wadsworth, 2007, at 236,
Elements of the CrimeLaws on criminal homicide vary significantly from state to state, but certain common elements are usually found in each, as summarized in Table 8.1.
The degree eventually charged is decided by the prosecuting attorney based on the available evidence. For example, the only difference between first- and second-degree murder is the element of premeditation. If thorough investigation does not yield proof of premeditation, a charge of second-degree murder is made.
Causing the Death of Another Human Usually the death of a human is not difficult to prove; a death certificate completed by a physician, coroner, or medical examiner suffices. If a death certificate is not available, the investigator must locate witnesses to testify that they saw the body of the person allegedly killed by the suspect. When insufficient remains exist to identify the body positively, death is proven by circumstantial evidence such as examination by a qualified pathologist or by other experts and their expert testimony regarding dental work, bone structure, and the like.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019
first-degree murder. (1895) Murder that is willful, deliberate, or premeditated, or that is committed during the course of another dangerous felony. • All murder perpetrated by poisoning or by lying in wait is considered first-degree murder. All types of murder not involving willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing are usu. considered second-degree murder. — Also termed murder in the first degree; murder one.second-degree murder. (1909) Murder that is not aggravated by any of the circumstances of first-degree murder. — Also termed murder in the second degree; murder two.
- - - - - - - - - -
abortion. n. (16c) 1. An artificaially induced termination of a pregnancy for the purpose of destroying an embryo or fetus. In Roe v. Wade ....
“The word ‘abortion,’ in the dictionary sense, means no more than the expulsion of a fetus before it is capable of living. In this sense it is a synonym of ‘miscarriage.’ With respect to human beings, however, it has long been used to refer to an intentionally induced miscarriage as distinguished from one resulting naturally or by accident. There has been some tendency to use the word to mean a criminal miscarriage, and there would be distinct advantages in assigning this meaning to it; but there are so many references to lawful abortion or justification for abortion that it is necessary to speak of ‘criminal abortion’ or the ‘crime of abortion’ to emphasize the element of culpability.” Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 186-87 (3d ed. 1982).
“Modern legal historians dispute whether, and to what extent, abortion constituted a crime at English common law. One view finds that, at most, abortion was an ecclesiastical crime, and concludes that the common law allowed a woman and her abortionist to terminate a pregnancy at all stages of gestation without secular penalties. Another claims that all abortions are at least secular wrongs to the fetus and that only the problems of proving a causal relationship between some abortions and fetal death prevented the punishment of all abortions. Substantial authority exists, however, for a middle ground: although no penalties attached to abortions before the fetus had quickened, performing a postquickening abortion was a common-law crime, most likely a misdemeanor.” Susan Frelich Appleton, “Abortion,” in 1 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 1, 1 (Sanford H. Kadish ed., 1983).
Abortion as a crime would likely be charged as a statutory offense, not a common law crime. Trying to define the aborted child/fetus as a human creature appears to be an attempt to evade the complications of defining it/him/her as a human being, or living human being. It would probably be best if the state define the crime as abortion, the artificially induced termination of a pregnancy for the purpose of destroying an embryo or fetus. That would avoid the argument of when an egg becomes a chicken.
If left to the states, the offense (if any), the statutory definition, and the penalty would vary by state. California may consider abortion from conception up to birth to be legal. Arkansas provides that abortion is a crime, except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. The penalty of performing an abortion is up to 10 years and up to $100,000 fine. I doubt any state will eliminate that exception, but it could be done.
If a Federal statute law is passed, and upheld, it would return to the most recent expression of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Attribution of the term human creature to Black’s Law Dictionary is premeditated bullshit”
https://thelawdictionary.org/manslaughter/
Unless the law dictionary.org is lying, I gave you a copy/paste situation just like I did for the rest using the same organization. I’ll offer to you a suggestion:
Find out where the information came from at the site used then you can discuss the wording. I don’t disagree with all you are saying in your entry. But I don’t discuss anything with people calling me a liar with the term bullshit. And your opinion throughout your entry holds just as much water as mine does.
Wy69
“Attribution of the term human creature to Black’s Law Dictionary is premeditated bullshit”https://thelawdictionary.org/manslaughter/
Unless the law dictionary.org is lying, I gave you a copy/paste situation just like I did for the rest using the same organization. I’ll offer to you a suggestion:
Find out where the information came from at the site used then you can discuss the wording. I don’t disagree with all you are saying in your entry. But I don’t discuss anything with people calling me a liar with the term bullshit. And your opinion throughout your entry holds just as much water as mine does.
https://thelawdictionary.org/manslaughter/
MANSLAUGHTER Definition & Legal MeaningDefinition & Citations:
In criminal law. The unlawful killing of another without malice, either express or implied; which may be either voluntarily, upon a sudden heat, or involuntarily, but in the commission ofsomo unlawful act 1 Hale, P. C. 400 ; 4 Bl. Comm. 191. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human creature without malice, either express or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation whatever; which may be voluntary, upon a sudden heat of passion, or involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. Code Ga. 1882.
You listed your article source as "Black's Law Dictionary". Three times in your text, in your definitions of Manslaughter, Murder 1 and Murder 2, you explicitly listed your source as "Black's Law Dictionary." You did not cite or link to thelawdictionary website. Unfortunately you were unable to correctly read the material at that website.
I have a suggestion for you. Learn to give correct attributions. If you are going to cite Black's Law Dictionary as your source, use Black's Law Dictionary. The website, thelawdictionary is not Black's Law Dictionary. Also, if you do not know what a citation means, learn it or don't make believe and use it. 4 Bl. Comm. 191 is NOT a citation to Black's Law Dictionary. It is a citation to Blackstone's Commentaries on the English Common Law, Volume 4, page 191 (1770).
Homicide is indeed the topic at 4 Bl. Comm 191, 4th Ed., Oxford (1770). I do not see it on that page of the 1st Ed., 1753. If one is making believe that they are giving a definition of United States law, perhaps they should cite law from after the United States came into existence.
The citation to 1 Hale, P. C. 400 is a mistaken reading of 1 Hale, P.C. 466 as cited by Blackstone. Your internet source got within 66 pages of correct. It refers to Matthew Hale (b. 1609, d. 1676) Historia Placitorum Coronæ: The History of the Pleas of the Crown.
1 Hale, P. C. 466 states,
CHAP. XXXVIII.Of manslaughter, and particularly of manflaughter exempt from clergy, by the statute of I Jac. 8.
Manslaughter, or simple homicide, is the voluntary killing of another without malIce express or implied, and differs not in substance of the fact from murder, but only differs in these ensuing circumstances.
1. In the degree of the offense, murder being aggravated with malice presumed or implied, but manslaughter not, and therefore in manslaughter there can be no accessaries before.
2. In the form of the indicment, the former being always felonicè ex malitiâ præcogitatâ interfecit & murdravit, the latter only felonicè interfecit.
3. In the point of clergy, murder being by the statute of 23 H. 8, cap. 1. exempt from the benefit of clergy, but not manslaughter.
...
The 1882 Code of Georgia defined Manslaughter at §4324 on page 1134 of Part IV.
§4324. (4258.) (4221.) Manslaughter. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human creature, without malice, either express or implied, and without any mixture of any deliberation whatever, which may be voluntary, upon a sudden heat of passion, or involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act, without due caution and circumspection.
That is 19th century law, not current law, nor is it Black's Law Dictionary, by any stretch of the imagination.
To get the Georgia Code from the current century,
2020 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 5 - Crimes Against the Person
Article 1 - Homicide
§ 16-5-2. Voluntary ManslaughterUniversal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-2 (2020)
A person commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter when he causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder and if he acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person; however, if there should have been an interval between the provocation and the killing sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, of which the jury in all cases shall be the judge, the killing shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.
A person who commits the offense of voluntary manslaughter, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
- - - - - - - - - -
But I don’t discuss anything with people calling me a liar with the term bullshit.
I did not call you a liar. I said your attribution of your definitions to "Black's Law Dictionary" was bullshit. It was. It is now clear that you did not even look at any edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
And your opinion throughout your entry holds just as much water as mine does.
My material came from the sources I cited. Yours did not come from your cited "Black's Law Dictionary." You did not even look at Black's Law Dictionary. You misrepresented a website citing "4 Bl. Comm. 191" (Blackstone's Commentaries on the English Common Law) as Black's Law Dictionary.
Your claims, purporting to be from Black's Law Dictionary, are from 17th, 18th and 19th century sources, none of them Black's Law Dictionary.
I think the prayer in school thing did not have a great impact until the 1960s “cultural revolution”, then its impact was felt in the lack of daily counter to that, and the fact that the media had already by indoctrinated though their college education to align itself with “protests” as if merely to protest made your protest morally correct.
The “culutural recvlution” was made to order for getting “the youth” behind the totally Left inspired and run “antiwar” movement - I saw this even in the Christian ministries whose schools of theology had already trained the 1960s clerical class in the Leftist bending of the Gospel message.
The rest in a good part of Christendom was down hill from then on, other than the the more fundamentalist churches and demominations rejection of all that. The great divide between “church goers” and continued Gospel believers had begun, as the Book of Revelation said it would.
“I think the prayer in school thing did not have a great impact until the 1960s “cultural revolution”
I believe the cultural revolution started in the 1950’s if not sooner. I mentioned prayer in school but it was supported by our arts like Little Richard singing:
Good golly, Miss Molly, sure like to ball, whoo
Good golly, Miss Molly, sure like to ball
Many feel that this type of message constituted a moral corruption and challenged the current outlook on society. And we can all remember that Elvis was more famous for his lower body than his vocal chords.
In the art world Modernism was the primary artistic style at the time, and was viewed as a form of art with no standard guidelines that dictated the practice. Modernist Artists discarded conventional methods of depicting perspective, color and composition to portray their own visions. Their attitudes were reinforced through scientific discovers that made them question the solidity of the ‘real’ world and the reliability of perception.
Researchers have identified several general clusters of topics that help describe the way in which moral panics operate and the impact they have. Some of the more common modern clusters identified are: child abuse, drugs and alcohol, immigration, media technologies, and street crime.
And of course we couldn’t leave out films of the 1950’s even with the Hayes commission in action. Such films as High School Hellcats, Reform School Girl, The Immoral Mrs. Teas, Teaserama, Revenge of the Virgins, Girl Gang, and the Lonely Sex came out in the 1950’s and in some cases were listed as coming of age and/or culture and society.
And most of this was aimed at the youth so that by the time they reached the 1960’s, they were well indoctrinated in anything that deviates from the norm. It was alive and kicking in the 60’s, but it had to be sculpted first. And that’s what I meant.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.