Advertisement
A case coming up may prove interesting
It is that Hasan terrorist army of one guy. They are charging him with ALL the deaths he causes.
For the live of me I don’t know why they are not also charging him with the assault and battery and attempted murder of the ones he merely wounded.
But the unique aspect that appeals to me is the fact of charging him with the murder of the unborn.
YA see I’ve Got these issues with the topic of the unborn:
If you can say on the one hand that it’s OK for some one to kill the unborn then why is it murder (and not simple battery) if some kills the unborn.
Yah that is exactly as confusing as it sounds.
Here let me try my best to spell it out:
Fact: Legal Doctrine of The Person In Being:
In the law a person in being is the one with the rights and is what the laws of the nation are designed to protect and or control. Persons not in being are not covered.
A person in being is a person who is born alive. That’s it. In the USA the legal doctrine is fully satisfied the moment you are born alive. From that instant on, you are vested with rights and protected by laws and controlled by other laws.
EXAMPLE 1:
Woman gets preggers.
Woman can decide unilaterally that the unborn child is unwanted and order it to be killed. The Doctor is the contractor who does the actual killing.
This is called abortion. It’s legal.
EXAMPLE 2:
Woman is preggers but, in this set of facts, the Woman has not (at least not yet) decided to have the unborn child killed. That absence of a decision to kill the child is the one component in the fact pattern that is demonstrably different. However, before she can decide to kill the unborn child she is attacked by some ghastly sort and he kills her and the unborn child together.
In this fact pattern the death of the unborn child is not legal in some states it is murder. So the resulting criminal charges are two murders.
Why is #2 different from #1~? How can they be different as it pertains to the unborn child that dies on both fact patterns~?
If the unborn child has no rights, is not a person in being, and is not protected by law than how can its death be a second murder?
The incredible wrongness of assigning to a single woman the power to unilaterally decide whether a person should be allowed to live or be killed is simply crazy. It is also incongruous to assign to her the arbitrary power to elevate to criminal murder a deed which when done by her and a Doctor is legal.
The law either protects the unborn child or it does not.
This is what I hope to see the Supreme Court answer when The State of Texas sentences Hasan to the death penalty or even to life. I hope to see the ACLU take his case and appeal it to the SCOTUS. I hope that they make this argument in their effort to mitigate his sentence.
I would very much like the SCOTUS to have to wrestle with that problem
It is that Hasan terrorist army of one guy. They are charging him with ALL the deaths he causes.
For the live of me I don’t know why they are not also charging him with the assault and battery and attempted murder of the ones he merely wounded.
But the unique aspect that appeals to me is the fact of charging him with the murder of the unborn.
YA see I’ve Got these issues with the topic of the unborn:
If you can say on the one hand that it’s OK for some one to kill the unborn then why is it murder (and not simple battery) if some kills the unborn.
Yah that is exactly as confusing as it sounds.
Here let me try my best to spell it out:
Fact: Legal Doctrine of The Person In Being:
In the law a person in being is the one with the rights and is what the laws of the nation are designed to protect and or control. Persons not in being are not covered.
A person in being is a person who is born alive. That’s it. In the USA the legal doctrine is fully satisfied the moment you are born alive. From that instant on, you are vested with rights and protected by laws and controlled by other laws.
EXAMPLE 1:
Woman gets preggers.
Woman can decide unilaterally that the unborn child is unwanted and order it to be killed. The Doctor is the contractor who does the actual killing.
This is called abortion. It’s legal.
EXAMPLE 2:
Woman is preggers but, in this set of facts, the Woman has not (at least not yet) decided to have the unborn child killed. That absence of a decision to kill the child is the one component in the fact pattern that is demonstrably different. However, before she can decide to kill the unborn child she is attacked by some ghastly sort and he kills her and the unborn child together.
In this fact pattern the death of the unborn child is not legal in some states it is murder. So the resulting criminal charges are two murders.
Why is #2 different from #1~? How can they be different as it pertains to the unborn child that dies on both fact patterns~?
If the unborn child has no rights, is not a person in being, and is not protected by law than how can its death be a second murder?
The incredible wrongness of assigning to a single woman the power to unilaterally decide whether a person should be allowed to live or be killed is simply crazy. It is also incongruous to assign to her the arbitrary power to elevate to criminal murder a deed which when done by her and a Doctor is legal.
The law either protects the unborn child or it does not.
This is what I hope to see the Supreme Court answer when The State of Texas sentences Hasan to the death penalty or even to life. I hope to see the ACLU take his case and appeal it to the SCOTUS. I hope that they make this argument in their effort to mitigate his sentence.
I would very much like the SCOTUS to have to wrestle with that problem
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
