Laws protecting from murder
Posted By: Marmann on 2008-10-27
In Reply to: (long) I have never understood... - Veteran
Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.
A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."
Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized. The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone. It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.
Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.
If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is: Don't have one.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
Another murder
Yet another illegal shot and killed a mother of 3 in front of her kids according to our area news headlines this morning. Seems he had been arrested numerous times in California, deported once and now ends up in Arkansas. I think all the bleeding heart liberals should take over paying for their health care, kids, food stamps, and their public defenders. It just makes me sick.
did I say murder?
1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct4: moral conduct : virtue
That's taking it a bit out there, isn't it? You took a simple statement aimed at SEXUAL morality - which obviously was too much for you to comprehend - and defended your stance with broad-based BS. It's my fault teenagers are having sex? Hahahahahahaha...........yep, Bill's right. Why don't you adopt those millions of babies if you are so worried about them - obviously the people having abortions do not want them. It's okay to go to Iraq and kill millions of innocent civilians but abortion is murder? What an oxyMORON. Might as well advocate torture while you are at it.
Go Nascar! If you had the money Obama did, you wouldn't spend it on your kids? Is it any of your business? BTW, that was not a shot at Palin's daughter - it was a point in fact. I feel sorry for that poor girl being paraded around in front of millions of people. Look at her eyes. She's terrified. How awful. They knew perfectly well what they were doing when they dug Palin out of the hat and they knew perfectly well her daughter was pregnant. M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N.
Beat that drum.......someone might listen
It's not right for us to murder
but God takes lives all the time and he does it in various ways. He can certainly use another one of his creation to take a life. He's going to take many lives one day. Woman have the right to chose sex, birth control. They have the right to avoid pregnancy. They do not have a right to kill their unborn. It's kind of hypocritical to say you're against murder but, on the other hand, you're happy he can no longer kill any more babies. Maybe, with luck, in a few years he would have died from disease but that wouldn't have helped all the unborn during the interim. He's the exact opposite of Kevorkian. These unborn babies don't get a say in their death sentence. Kevorkian only kills adults who wish to die. Big difference.
Abortion is murder....
plan and simple. People scream and complain about the war and how we are killing innocent people.....yet they never seem to focus on the innocent children who are murdered by their mothers every day in our own country. Those are the real baby killers. That is a human life that you are getting rid of....disposing off like it is trash.
It amazes me how a pregnant woman can be killed and it is considered a double homicide and yet other pregnant woman can go kill the baby themselves at a clinic and that is okay.....no big deal. Talk about a contradiction. I living thing is a living thing whether it is still in the womb or not. You kill it.....you are a murderer!!!
Protecting borders?
We went to Iraq to protect our borders? That is a new one! Why did we go to Iraq? WMD? There werent any. Getting Saddam (heaven knows why..there are terrible leaders in other countries that are much more threatening..i.e., N. Korea, Iran). Well, we got him. So, why are we still there? We are there because our goal has always been to control the Middle East and it's oil. Of course, the American people would not have sacrificed their children in war for those reasons, so Bush had to scare the American people into war. We walked right into the terrorists web by invading Iraq. Gave them a reason to fight us. We are in a country where we dont belong. We need to leave. Set a time table, train the Iraqis to take care of their own country and leave. Protect our borders? How about protecting the border from USA to Mexico. Or USA to Canada. Those are borders that will affect us right here on our soil. The Iraq invasion was a major mistake. This murderous administration knows it but, of course, Bush never backs down on anything, even when he is dead wrong and forget about ever admitting he made a mistake about anything or apologize for something. This war is wrong and history will show this and Bushs legacy will not be kind.
Protecting America?
Invading Iraq was not protecting America. Invading Iraq has caused America to be less safe and has started a world wide terrorist movement against America.
This bird is not protecting the
constitution. But then maybe he'll succeed and Hillary will be the candidate to replace Obama..........could that have anything to do with the case doyathink? Come to think of it, might not be such a bad idea, I doubt McCain would have a snowball's chance againt her.
At that time there was no law protecting them...
or why would hospitals be allowing them to die? Nice dodge, but not true, and he knew it.
Yes, and protecting American should be O's first
nm
Man being sued for protecting
his private proverty from illegal immigrants. Why is our country allowing this? Illegal aliens do nothing but cost us money that we don't have. Arizona now has the highest rate of kidnapping because of Mexico. We need to protect our border!!! Bring our troops home and put them on the border.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
I'm all for protecting people but here
is my issue. When someone murders someone, it isn't because they love them. Aren't most crimes like assault and murder basically out of hate? I guess I don't mind protecting certain groups but to me if you kill a homosexual you shouldn't get more time in the slammer than if you killed a heterosexual. You killed a person and to me that is that regardless of their sexual orientation....but whatever.
Some of those things listed on there is just downright wrong. Personally, I feel that we should have the right to beat the crap out of people who get their jollies off of exposing themselves to others. Strangers, especially children, shouldn't have to put up with that. Ya know. Sick sick people.
I heard that someone suggested pedophiles be added to the list. I'm sorry but anyone who wants pedophiles to be protected ought to be smacked around themself. JMO though. We need to protect our children from them....not protect pedophiles from us.
Murder charges for 3 U.S. soldiers..sm
I have mixed feelings about this y'all. There is no doubt in my mind that mental issues are involved given the situation. However, they could have just been following orders. Or, worse just murdered the Iraqis on their own volition and threatened a fellow soldier.
Definitely worth the investigation, which sends the message that we (the US) does not tolerate this type behavior from our soldiers.
---------------------------------
Murder charges for 3 U.S. soldiers
They are accused of killing 3 Iraqis
Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
(06-20) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Three U.S. soldiers have been charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqi detainees as well as with threatening the life of a fellow soldier who they feared would challenge their accounts of the deaths, military officials said Monday.
The three Americans were identified as staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker and Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, all members of the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. They were charged with shooting the detainees May 9 during a military operation near Thar Thar Canal in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad.
A murder conviction in the military carries the possibility of the death penalty. The accused soldiers are being held in Kuwait, a Pentagon official said. No personal information was available Monday about the soldiers.
The latest charges come as the military is conducting a separate investigation of the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha in November. Military investigators are examining possible murder charges against a group of Marines for those deaths. In addition, seven other marines and a Navy corpsman are being held in the brig at Camp Pendleton (San Diego County) in connection with the death of an Iraqi man in another town, Hamandiya. Since the start of the Iraq war, the military has brought criminal charges against at least 20 other service members in deaths of Iraqis.
Military officials first mentioned the Salahuddin investigation in a brief news release June 16. But details of how the three soldiers shot the men, near the Muthana Chemical Complex, have remained sketchy. The military has not said why the three Iraqis were being detained.
In addition to murder, the soldiers were charged with conspiracy and with threatening another soldier. Military officials said the accused initially reported they shot the detainees while they were trying to flee.
But that account was contradicted by a junior soldier who saw the shooting. Defense Department charge sheets released Monday identify the object of the threats as Bradley Mason, an Army private first class. The legal papers do not specify whether Mason is the soldier who witnessed the killings.
The accused soldiers are charged with threatening to kill Mason on May 29, as the group was traveling from its own operating base to Camp Speicher, near Tikrit, where the Criminal Investigation Division has an office.
You better not say anything, or I swear I will kill you, Girouard allegedly told Mason, according to charge sheets.
Girouard is accused of threatening to kill Mason six different times in the weeks after the detainees died. Hunsaker is accused of threatening Mason four times, and Clagett twice.
They face a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence for a court-martial. The first proceeding, known as an Article 32 hearing, is likely several weeks away, a military officer said.
The military has not executed anyone since April 1961, but nine people are on death row, including a sergeant in the 101st Airborne who killed two officers and wounded 14 soldiers in Kuwait in March 2003.
My conscience tells me that it is murder.....sm
and that is even apart from what my religious beliefs tell me. I believe in life at the moment of conception as I stated in my post above. I won't go into all that again.
As far as amounts and agencies and how monies from my taxes and every one else's taxes are distributed to help provide medical care for those who receive free (to them) medical care, of course I can't provide that. I am not privy to where each of my tax dollars go and how much of it is spent on various government agencies or governmental salaries, etc., and neither do you. Funny, though, you're not asking Obama to produce his birth certificate or from whom he received campaign contributions, huh.
You're right--that's why noone ever goes to prison for murder. nm
nm
No, most of those murder enough babies legally as well.....
@@
The DNC has been protecting Obama for 18 months....
they have not let him do an interview with anyone who didn't either get a thrill up their leg talking to him or were so enraptured with him they softballed every question. When he went on O'Reilly was the first time he went into an interview with someone who was not going to softball him, and he did not do much better than she did...and that is with 18 months surrounded by hundreds of advisors.
I have no doubt she will be fine talking to world leaders. We will never see the side of the person that talks to world leaders behind closed doors. I have as much faith in her as #2 talking to world leaders than I have with the #1 on the other ticket who wants to pander to them and frankly sell us down the river. He shows weakness...and her words were prophetic. When you face those guys, you don't blink. She made that case to Charlie Gibson, and she didn't blink. She kept eye contact way more than he did. And he had notes...she didn't. lol.
Thank you President Bush for protecting and
nm
Since when do fishers of men advocate plotting murder?
Are you serious, or have you truly lost the ability to disagree with someone - no matter how corrupt - if he SHARES your political agenda?
The fact he described Zarqawi's death is *murder*
is a big clue that he supported what Zarqawi.
I would rather money go to illegal aliens than murder by war.
Apparently, you prefer murder.
Santa protecting children from a terrorist
what's wrong with that?
and just where is the terrorist going to put that TNT--in the manager?
I guess if you were Santa you'd just try to give the terrorist a big ole hug...
You know it's pretty darn sad that Christmas is so darn political this year. This is a neutral statement because it's happening on both sides, liberal and conservative
Darn right - we must ALWAYS err on the side of protecting the INNOCENT.
xx
Nope. -was protecting the country instead of talking
nm
We murder 4000 innocent babies by abortion each
and every day, 50 million total so far in this country and counting, and now we will pay for abortions worldwide. Social Security is bankrupt but would not be if those 50 million innocent children had had a choice for life. No one can deny that fact.
Add it up: Abortion kills 4000 innocent babies each day. Queers do not populate.
I would definitely say we are practicing population control, and Obama gonna see we practice worldwide.
Bush is a president who cares about protecting America
not building a legacy, like Clinton. It is a crying shame that those in the left circle of the Democratic party have become so embittered they actually put us all at risk.
Tax laws are always about
Secondary effects such as the impact on jobs, if any, are much more debatable, are often very difficult to prove and take much longer to materialize.
As I posted on the Company Board in a similar thread, these issues are very complex and this administration has made them even more difficult to determine by cleverly lumping "jobs saved" (which can never be proven because you have to prove a negative hypothesis - i.e., that a job was not lost that would have been lost if not for their programs) with "jobs created", and "jobs created" was already hard enough to prove anyway.
As I also said, the "other side of the coin" is that there was obviously some reason that the tax breaks were created in the first place. In this case, the main reason was that it would allow US companies to compete globally with foreign companies that enjoy low labor costs.
There will obviously be ways for companies to counter these proposed tax changes (which face stiff opposition in Congress) - including, if necessary, simply moving their entire operations to another country as some are already thinking of doing.
Every law that Congress passes has unintended consequences. These usually show up to bite us in the assets.
This is not about any laws! This is sm
about Christians trying to have bible study in their own homes which folks have been doing for centuries. If this were any other group, nothing would be said. It is about taking away freedom for Christiasn! I don't care what you say or what your opinion is as to why, Im telling you why, it is Christian persecution! Not religious but Christian.
If Wiccans or Muslims or anybody else did this it would be fine. I live in a city where there are at least 500 different religions practicing here and the only one that EVER gets picked on are the Christians.
As far as the Wiccans.......if they aer over there at their own house doing whatever they do, no I am not going to say a word nor am I going to watch and participate. as far as in the nude, if there is a law that says they can be nude in their backyard, there is nothing I can do about that.
My goodness I know people who have 15-20 people over every week for BRUNCH (why, I don't know) and no one would ever think of saying a word. Bible study where people are sitting in their living rooms discussing God's Holy Word, my goodness what a crime! I just know it is going to cause everyone so much harm!
What about the families who have teenagers that every single weekend there are more than the magic number of 15 gathered, partying in the front yard? Nobody says anything about that? I wouldn't either unless it got too loud. Its their house they can do what they want.
People wake up, this has nothing to do with licenses, laws, law breakers, religious persecution or anything else. It is nothing more than CHRISTIAN persecution. Anyone who is a Christian already knows this.
I assume you are wiccan because you say sometimes "we". That is your business. I am not bothering you, why do you insist on sticking your nose in my business.
If this were a bunch of Wiccans gathering each week and somebody raised an objection, there would be such an outcry of discrimination it would be unbelievable. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have seen it where I live.
Hmmmmmm guess they could keep the bible study to 14 people each week or 14 people each night or whatever. I guarantee you there would still be the same objections raised by folks who want to stamp God out of this country.
I refuse to get into an argument with a bunch of people on here about this subject though. It is my right to have a Bible study or whatever I want in my own home.
Sad thing about it is that as Christians, part of this is the Christians (me included) fault for sitting back for so long and allowing our freedoms to be slowly taken away. NO MORE!!!!!
Give it a few more years and it will be just like a communist country and the Christians will have to put black curtains up over their windows to be safe when having prayer and Bible study!
I don't believe he broke any laws
You believe that he did. We're at an impasse. I don't hate America I put America first before the rest of the world, but I guess I'm just selfish enough to take care of my home first. I'm a baaaad person I guess.
The tougher laws I see...
refer to dealers. So far as I can see, she wasn't dealing. She was a user. McCain, so far as I can see, has not wanted harsher penalties against users. He wanted tighter laws so not so much flows over the borders, he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins (like heads of cartels, etc). Again...John McCain, by himself, cannot make law. He can support it and vote for it, but if all the others in the legislature don't vote for it, it doesn't become law.
What he asked for tougher laws on I can't see that his wife did. I am sure Ted Kennedy would probably vote to keep the law that it is a felony to leave the scene of an injury accident too...but that didn't stop him from walking away from a bridge where a young woman was drowning in a submerged car. He managed to get himself out but could not be bothered to try to get her out. And he never did 1 second in jail for that. Which in my book is much worse than what Cindy McCain did.
That being said...The tougher laws McCain (and many others) supported was against dealers, not users. She didn't deal. She used and she stole from herself essentially (her foundation funded the charity) and yes, put pressure on the physicians associated with it to write her prescriptions. Because she was addicted and you know that someone who is addicted does not make good decisions.
The system is not perfect. No, she did not do any time for her crime. Many first-time user-offenders don't. On the other hand, they make deals with people a lot worse than Cindy McCain every day, turn them loose in order to get the bigger fish. That's not right either, but it happens every day. And contrary to what you might think, even people who forged prescriptions have gotten off, people a lot less affluent than Cindy McCain. For a whole lot of reasons.
And I say again...if you had all the means at your disposal the McCains have and it was your mother or sister who, while addicted, did things she would not normally do...if it was in your power to protect her from jail and get her the help she needed to get off the stuff, would you not do it?
Incidentally, McCain also, as part of his advocating harsher penalties for dealers, also advocated increase in federal spending for drug treatment programs: McCain indicates that federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs should be expanded. He says, “Work to expand public/private partnerships in support of such initiatives, and coordinate them with state and local efforts.”
Honestly, I can't find anything where he advocates harsher treatment of addicts and users. Only dealers.
Oh but it does...research the laws regarding...
citizenship.
in-laws are all dems - what to do? nm
x
Laws protect more than that...
You don't have to be a citizen in the United States to be protected from being murdered. You just have to be human and alive, both of which can also be said of UNBORN CHILDREN. Or are we to believe that a tourist, or a person who is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States, is NOT protected from being murdered? Can I just go out and kill anybody I want to just because they aren't citizens? Ahhh, no. I don't think so.
And the whole "mind your own business" argument doesn't hold water. A human life is taken during an abortion, the same as when it is taken during a murder. Are we all to just "mind our own business" and "just don't kill anybody?" No, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't choose to kill someone, or have an abortion, doesn't mean we can just "live and let live" - particularly since people who commit abortions and murders DON'T let their victim live...at all.
These are exactly the types of arguments/mantra that have been spewed from the mouths of people who TRY to make us believe this is a women's issue to help us make a choice about "our bodies." If it was only my body, I would agree. But it is not my body that is being killed. It is my child. Men, women, children, citizen or not - no one has the right to take a human life.
you are right - but it is the privacy laws -
women's bodies are their own - if they are old enough to see a gynecologist they have their privacy. Now, they can go next door and get treated by the general physician and get the same thing done and mommy or daddy can be involved, just not in the gyno's office.
NY has had laws on the books for
over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
I for one, love it!
Yeah......who needs laws?
bang, bang, shoot 'em up.
If there are laws against smoking
at parks, your son's baseball park, or anywhere, marijuana wouldn't be allowed either, because it's also smoking.
Marrying in laws
Was not required, but suggested. They were allowed to decline.
I said SOUND laws..
Giving women the right to vote WAS A SOUND LAW. I think someone has missed their naptime.
what? laws to taze your kid? sheez.
x
We are governed by laws not the Bible!
In the United States of America, we are required to follow laws, not the Ten Commandments. The last time I checked, raping, killing, and stealing were against the law.
By the way, a lot of good the Ten Commandments do keeping people from breaking laws. I would bet anything that the majority of prisoners in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
no laws don;t trample people
shoppers do. We need to think our way out of the greedy consumerism that has been force fed to us by the republicans. A democracy needs reasoning participants. In times of economic crisis, saving $49 on a big screen TV should be laughable.
If we claim to be a nation of laws, then
we need to BE a nation of laws. JTBB has said it all and said it well.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Read up on the laws of this country
A president, vice president and most/all members of congress and the senate get to go to safe places in case of attack or threat of attack. It's the way the government can keep going in case of an emergency.
Don't post something you know nothing about. Come to this board with FACTS. That's what this board is supposed to be about.
links to the COPYRIGHT LAWS
xx
Trying to change sound laws
is just as objectionable as breaking them. ;-) I believe the topic was enforcing laws. Need to leave this one alone so it can be enforced.
Oprah on child molestation laws...sm
I found this article on Oprah's website and thought this excerpt was powerful on the anti-child abuse/molestation movement. The underlined areas are links, please help out with this as you can.
*This is a full circle moment for me. For me to have been raped at 9 years old … this is so big and so gratifying that I now get to put people behind bars who did to me what they've been doing to other children. This is it. And so I am going to spend my own resources, and I am going to work with law enforcement, and I'm going to change, with your help, the laws in this country state by state by state by state.
We are not going to be a country that talks the talk about how we care about children, and then we let these people back out on the street. It's Joseph Duncan all over again. We have got to let Shasta Groene and all the others be the last children. Let their lives not have been in vain. Let's stand up, and change the laws.
Take a look at these accused child molester profiles, and see if you can be the next person to put a fugitive behind bars.*
I am SO with you on the religion in your face thing. My in laws are so sm
judgmental of nonChristians that it literally would make you ill. I am a Christian and a strong one, but I wasn't a Christian I would probably divorce my husband and move 3,000 miles away from all of them.
Nice talking with you.
Copyright laws forbid it. Nothing to do with the length. nm
.
|
