PDA

View Full Version : Another case of murder for killing a fetus




tod evans
04-05-2014, 06:17 AM
Have a penis kill a fetus.............Murder

Have a vagina kill a fetus...........Abortion



Man Indicted For Killing Unborn Child Of Ex-Girlfriend

http://wreg.com/2014/04/04/man-indicted-for-killing-ex-girlfriends-unborn-child/?hpt=ju_bn2


A Memphis man has been indicted in a shooting last November that left his pregnant ex-girlfriend injured and killed her five-month-old fetus.
Jonathan Turner, 32, the father of the child, is charged with first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.
The shooting happened November 25, when Darmeisha Gross was walking near South Parkway and Wellington.
Prosecutors say Gross tried to run but was shot in the lower back.
Gross told investigators she was on the ground when Turner fired four more shots.
Gross said she pretended to be dead and when Turner left, she flagged down a car for help.
She was taken to a hospital in critical condition where her unborn child was pronounced dead.
Turner is being held without bond in the Shelby County Jail.

mrsat_98
04-05-2014, 06:33 AM
Have a penis kill a fetus.............Murder

Have a vagina kill a fetus...........Abortion

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Just doesn't add up.

tod evans
04-05-2014, 06:44 AM
I'd imagine the fetus would suffer less in death by bullet than being dismembered by a currette...

2248

Ronin Truth
04-05-2014, 09:58 AM
http://www.numberofabortions.com/

:( :mad:

EBounding
04-05-2014, 10:17 AM
Will the ACLU come to this guy's defense?

Voluntarist
04-05-2014, 11:20 AM
xxxxx

tod evans
04-05-2014, 11:24 AM
There's a fallacy in the quoted portion. I think it's an association fallacy - guilt/innocence by association (possession of a particular sexual structure).

The alleged fallacy was discussed in depth a couple months back when the father chose to abort the fetus against the mothers wishes...

He was convicted of murder.

There is severe duplicity in "The Law" as it stands when one parent can unilaterally decide to abort or kill their fetus....

Voluntarist
04-05-2014, 11:45 AM
xxxxx

tod evans
04-05-2014, 11:50 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with your position on "family law"..

Where I disagree is on a father having equal right to decide on the care of the fetus in utero...

Voluntarist
04-05-2014, 12:58 PM
xxxxx

tod evans
04-05-2014, 01:01 PM
I'm left wondering how many of the guys that feel that way actually have that conversation with their prospective sex partners before each sexual engagement. I think the talk, itself, would solve their problem for them.

Good point...

I'll bet there's not 1/2% that have anything close to that type of conversation...

tod evans
04-05-2014, 01:07 PM
The phrase "Blue Balls" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_balls) comes to mind.

So at this point in your life what's more important to you, getting off, or having an equal say in the well being of your progeny?

Me, I'm old-n-bald with a bad attitude and women my age are entering menopause so my opinion is one based on hindsight......

chudrockz
04-05-2014, 01:23 PM
Good point...

I'll bet there's not 1/2% that have anything close to that type of conversation...

Actually my wife and I had that conversation before the first such "encounter." The lack of desire on either of our parts to have children was one big plus for a relationship, and a contributing factor to why we're still happily together. I had a vasectomy, and she had a uterine ablation. Problem solved. :)

MelissaWV
04-05-2014, 01:24 PM
Good point...

I'll bet there's not 1/2% that have anything close to that type of conversation...

If you can't have the conversation about the consequences, you shouldn't engage in the deed with someone. I am finding I'm in a very select subset of the universe.

Voluntarist
04-05-2014, 07:39 PM
xxxxx

Voluntarist
04-05-2014, 07:39 PM
xxxxx

Warrior_of_Freedom
04-05-2014, 07:43 PM
everyone is avoiding the fact the guy tried to kill his girlfriend

MelissaWV
04-05-2014, 08:07 PM
While it's great that you're able to have the conversation you did, as all should, it doesn't quite match the conversation I outlined:

... because that conversation is about surrendering yourself, and what you consider right for you, to the demands of another. The woman essentially becomes a slave to the man. If she's pro-choice and wanting to have an abortion then the man can force her to sustain the pregnancy to term. If she's pro-life and not wanting an abortion, then the man can force her to terminate the pregnancy.

That is a conversation about the consequences. My reaction would be relief that I didn't open my legs for such a total asshole.

tod evans
04-05-2014, 08:35 PM
... because that conversation is about surrendering yourself, and what you consider right for you, to the demands of another. The woman essentially becomes a slave to the man. If she's pro-choice and wanting to have an abortion then the man can force her to sustain the pregnancy to term. If she's pro-life and not wanting an abortion, then the man can force her to terminate the pregnancy.

So in your opinion a woman who agrees that a man who fathers their child should have an equal say about that child while it's en utero is in effect subjugating herself to the father of their child?

I happen to view such behavior as shared responsibility, it takes two people to create a fetus and it's my belief that any decision regarding their fetus should be made mutually and not unilaterally by either parent...

John F Kennedy III
04-06-2014, 02:23 AM
Because he wasn't biologically connected to the fetus via an umbilical and placenta.


None at all. Pregnant men can abort the fetuses they carry within them. It's not about a parent's rights - it's about the right of the individually that's physically connected to the fetus via an umbilical and placenta.

Where there is a problem is in family law - where a biological father is forced to provide 18 years of support payments for a child that he didn't want. Once he finds out about a pregnancy (or birth for that matter) he ought to be able to "abort" his participation, including monetary support, if he doesn't want any part of it. That may not be a virtuous thing to do - but I see it as well within his rights.
And if the mother and father buy into entering a support relationship, then the contract the father and mother consensually work out (including provisions if they separate) should take precedence over any one-size-fits-all approach the state or culture comes up with.

I also think that approach would go a long ways towards reducing the number of "unintended" pregnancies that are implied by:

Stop being sexist. Seriously.

Ender
04-06-2014, 09:08 AM
everyone is avoiding the fact the guy tried to kill his girlfriend

Exactly.

This has nothing to do with a man's "rights" to the fetus and everything to do with attempted murder and the consequences.

And, men, if you don't want any "rights to the unborn fetus" issues, keep your pants zipped- this is not rocket science.

Nirvikalpa
04-06-2014, 09:31 AM
everyone is avoiding the fact the guy tried to kill his girlfriend

Because as outlined by numerous other threads here, a woman's life means nothing when there is a fetus/baby/embryo involved.

tod evans
04-06-2014, 09:34 AM
Because as outlined by numerous other threads here, a woman's life means nothing when there is a fetus/baby/embryo involved.

That's a far cry from both parents having an equal say in the life and care of said fetus.....

Nirvikalpa
04-06-2014, 10:03 AM
That's a far cry from both parents having an equal say in the life and care of said fetus.....

And that statement is a very far cry from the posts you've made in this thread.

OP article was about a man who attempted to kill his ex-girlfriend, who happened to be pregnant.
The boyfriend shot her in the back, walked right up to her and shot her an additional 4 times, killing her baby and leaving her in critical condition.
Your next post was a currette.

Is this is your "cry" for equality in this thread?:


I happen to view such behavior as shared responsibility, it takes two people to create a fetus and it's my belief that any decision regarding their fetus should be made mutually and not unilaterally by either parent...

And that was demonstrated in your OP... how? Shooting someone in the back isn't my idea of a "mutual decision," yet you used it for a reason.

tod evans
04-06-2014, 10:04 AM
everyone is avoiding the fact the guy tried to kill his girlfriend

He should absolutely have been charged with attempted murder of the mother..

As the OP I chose to focus on the DA's use of prosecutorial discression by levying murder charges for the death of their fetus and pointed out the duplicity of the law...

If it's murder when a father kills the fetus why isn't murder when the mother does?

tod evans
04-06-2014, 10:06 AM
And that statement is a very far cry from the posts you've made in this thread.

OP article was about a man who attempted to kill his ex-girlfriend, who happened to be pregnant.
The boyfriend shot her in the back, walked right up to her and shot her an additional 4 times, killing her baby and leaving her in critical condition.
Your next post was a currette.

Is this is your "cry" for equality in this thread?:



And that was demonstrated in your OP... how? Shooting someone in the back isn't my idea of a "mutual decision," yet you used it for a reason.


I believe I was addressing that while you were typing this....

If not please let me know.

Voluntarist
04-06-2014, 10:09 AM
xxxxx

tod evans
04-06-2014, 10:22 AM
"Enforcement" never entered the picture...

How about removing governments part in "family law" entirely?

The very last thing I'd support would be using the force of government to make parents do something to their fetus they didn't agree on...

Current law, as it stands, is untenable...

There must be some equitable solution that affords both parents equal standing without "forcing" one or the other parent to undertake action they disagree with....

As I stated earlier, I only started this thread to once again point out the duplicity in standing law.....


Have you given consideration to how you intend to enforce this? Are you going to put the woman under 24 hour watch? If so, haven't you subjugated her?

Is this something you want for all pregnancies, or just the ones where a man and a woman have written up a notarized contract to conceive?

Are you suggesting that state should become involved; and if so how much power should we grant the state to accomplish its duties in this regard? Should a law be passed such that no pregnancy can be aborted unless signed off on by the father as well as the mother? Such a legislative bill would, pragmatically, be DOA on arrival. Still, what powers would need to be assumed by the state to carry such a law out?
Obviously, the woman would have to identify all of the sex partners she’s had who could possibly be the father and DNA samples will be needed from those men – otherwise what’s to stop the mother from naming a male friend who will agree to sign off on the abortion.
We'll need intrauterine DNA testing o fthe fetus; otherwise what will we have to determine the father with?
I could see pregnancy registration becoming mandatory – the state now has an interest in knowing who the fathers are as early as possible. I'm wondering what form the state pregnancy registry will take - and how many underground pregnancies we'll have. We'll probably need pregnancy police to round up unregistered mothers.
And we'll have to implement border security so that only approved people can exit the state (wouldn't want pregnant females fleeing to other states where they could get abortions without the approval of registered fathers). It might even require federal legislation to keep them from leaving the country (TSA’s new pregnancy-no-fly list).

No – we’re not going to do any of that.

Unfortunately for men, nature has provided women with an advantage when it comes to having children - women are the ones who incubate them. Once pregnant, they can pretty much do what they want because it is their body and not yours. You can't force them to give you blood, bone marrow, a kidney or a lobe of their liver - because all of those require her to give up proprietorship of her body - her self-ownership. And you can try to enter into a contract with her - but the unfortunate aspect of contracts is that there is no guarantee that they will be fulfilled. The best any contract offers is a penalty clause for non-fulfillment.

One takes on risk whenever one enters into this type of interaction with another person. There is no libertarian path to get to the outcome you want. Pragmatically, your lowest risk path is to be really sure that you know who you’re dealing with before you start on the journey - but risk still remains. There be no guarantees.

Voluntarist
04-06-2014, 03:14 PM
xxxxx