Abortion, Murder, Death Penalty

This has been a confussing time for our judiciary, and the decesions are all over the board, with no sense or sanity...

1. Scott Petersen case in California:
A murderer is charged and convicted for the murder of his wife, and unborn child, and recieves the death penalty. The courts of the same state determined previously that a fetus is not life until birth and has no rights, so if the court previously stated that a fetus is not life till birth, how can one be charged with taking a human life, if the court has previously stated that a fetus is not life....and then a normal healthy fetus can be aborted (murdered) by a doctor and the doctor faces no charges, and why isn't the mother charged with conspiricy to commit murder for the conspiring with the doctor for the death of the unborn, if one can be charged in one example of murder for killing the unborn, why not the other?

2. Teri Sciavo case in Florida:
The civil rights people clamor that the death penalty is "cruel and inhuman punishment" and the courts in many states have also agreed, and stopped the death penalty....yet now a court has determined that a young lady in florida is to be put to death for the "crime" of trusting her husband. And this death is a slow agonizing death by starvation, cruel and inhuman?....when the parents of this young lady have agreed to care for her...and her "loving" hubby with girlfreind and "bastard" children will not divorce her or relenquish rights of care to the parents, (even with BIG money incentives by outside private intertests)and the court agrees with him sactioning this "death sentence". What are we missing here.

PS my bet is hubby does not want to chance she wakes up and can talk.....may put him in a bit of a situation relating to her condition...don't ya think?

Edited by oldsoldier

You don't think your particular phrasing of those questions is a bit loaded?

But our entire nation calls little dead children in Iraq "collateral damage."  Are our little white American fetuses more precious than little brown Iraqi ones?

Woot!  Getting ready for the March 19 protests!  I even have a few extra days off in case I get arrested.  I hope I get to do a pre-emptive strike on those Protest Warrior fools if they show up.  Smitty'bro is even speaking at it. 

badsmitty and os call eachother when they post cuase they are always in pairs

bravecoward wrote: badsmitty and os call eachother when they post cuase they are always in pairs

We live in the same duplex. 

dead children and other innocent people will occur in war, its jiust wahat happens when cities are bombed but our "little hite american children" arent more improtant but if someone was bombing the US then there would be the same outcome and u pretesters are all the same u have nothing better to do and u complain too much ntohing will ever be perfect **edited** happens soget over it!

Rypaintball wrote: dead children and other innocent people will occur in war, its jiust wahat happens when cities are bombed but our "little hite american children" arent more improtant but if someone was bombing the US then there would be the same outcome and u pretesters are all the same u have nothing better to do and u complain too much ntohing will ever be perfect **edited** happens soget over it!

Thank you.  I appreciate your validation of my point.

Before one should be allowed to post such a claim about abortion, I feel that he or she should atleast educate themselves on the subject. That does not entail just reading up on abortion, but the stages a human embryo takes while developing. So yes, OS, your first post is more loaded than the pistol under my bed.

Ok - as to point 2.

Terry Schiavo unfortunately did not have a living will, which makes it a bad case study for right-to-die questions, because it raises factual issues.

But - HAD she had a living will, the tube would have been removed a long time earlier, because long-established state law in Florida respects such documents.  The only question here was whether the hubby was lying or not.  While an interesting question, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the underlying law.

The only relevant court decision in the Schiavo case was the decision to overturn the last-minute-and-obviously-inconstitutional law enacted specifically to address this particular case.  Those types of laws have always been unconsitutional, and for good reason.

So the Schiavo case also has nothing to do with the judiciary.

 

As to the death penalty - TMK courts have overturned specific death penalty statutes only as they relate to minors and the mentally disabled.  I do not believe they have ever stated that the death penalty itself is a problem, just the application.  Unless I am misinformed, your claim here is simply wrong.

Similarly, two consecutive Illinois governors independantly concluded that they had to stop executions in Illinois, not because the death penalty was itself wrong, but because it was being unfairly applied.  This had absolutely nothing to do with the judiciary either.

 

So, in conclusion - I don't see how either points 1 or 2 relate to your general hard-on for the judiciary.

Edited by Clark Kent