soc.women

On Oct 2, 7:42 pm, "John D. Wentzky" wrote:
> "Vandar" wrote in message
>
> news: $ @ ...
>
>
>
> > R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> >> Vandar wrote:
>
> >>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> >>>>Vandar wrote:
>
> >>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>beavis wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>If abortion does not kill a baby then why is killing a pregnant
> >>>>>>>>>woman
> >>>>>>>>>double murder??
>
> >>>>>>>>----------------
> >>>>>>>>It isn't. It's regarded as a crime against the mother. Only
> >>>>>>>>uneducated
> >>>>>>>>slobbering hooting nincompoops call it "double-murder", the law does
> >>>>>>>>NOT.
>
> >>>>>>> /trials/peterson/
> >>>>>>>I guess those at CourtTV are "slobbering hooting nincompoops".
>
> >>>>>>>California Penal Code Section 187
> >>>>>>>(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
> >>>>>>>fetus, with malice aforethought.
>
> >>>>>>-----------------
> >>>>>>More legalistic nonsense. The SCotUS says it isn't, and as I recall,
> >>>>>>that is the Law of the Land.
>
> >>>>>The SCOTUS does not define murder and is not the law of the land.
>
> >>>>----------------
> >>>>I can't really help that you're obviously uneducated and illiterate.
>
> >>>The Constitution is the law of the land, Einstein. The SCOTUS doesn't
> >>>make law.
>
> >> -------------
> >> The SCotUS INTERPRETS the Constitution, and is the SOLE interpreter!
>
> > All you need to do now is point out where murder is defined in the
> > Constitution.
> > Since it isn't, the SCOTUS does NOT say murder doesn't include a fetus.
> > States define such things and California has defined the unlawful killing
> > of a fetus, with malice aforethought, to be murder.
> > The SCOTUS doesn't factor into that in any way.
>
> LOL!
> How about that 4th Amendment that GUARANTEES SAFETY AND SECURITY IN ONE'S
> PERSON?

You mean like the woman that does not want to be harmed by a pregnancy
that she is experiencing? The 4th Amendment, according to what you
just said, guarantees her right to get an abortion, since the woman is
definitely the one being harmed by an unwanted pregnancy.

> LOL!
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> Another pro-choice idiot needed to ask.

You are the only idiot here, and you are anti-choice. A more accurate
statement is that another anti-choice idiot made a statement that
helps secure a woman's right to get an abortion to end an unwanted
pregnancy.

Mark Sebree