Flour, eggs, water, and milk is not a cake, even when combined in a bowl. Sperm is not a person. An egg is not a person. A fetus is the equivalent of cake batter and your mom licked my spoon.
“Yes it is. Its a delibrate action with the intent to kill someone. How is it not murder?”
By your deeply flawed definition, lethal self-defense is murder, as is combat warfare, as is unplugging a ventilator based on the persons explicit instructions.
I wouldn’t expect more though, given your opinion.
Given that killing a baby at 28-weeks of pregnancy and hiding the body is illegal basically everywhere, you are going to be making an extremely long list of products.
Considering no one would want to have an abortion in the third trimester if they couldn't help it, this is either a situation of them being blocked from having an abortion at every turn earlier or a case where they wanted the baby, but found out that it was going to harm the mother and the state would do nothing about it because an unborn fetus trumps the life of the mother.
It’s a much less bold assumption than to make the claim that she merely didn’t want the baby in her third trimester just because.
She took the abortion pill and held on to the babies remains. It’s not a bold assumption that she’s just a nut case, it’s a more bold assumption that she’s 100% innocent.
As for your question, that further implies it’s the second scenario that I listed.
So you would keep the babies remains instead of…disposing of it in some way?
If she wanted the baby in the first place, but was then in a situation where the baby was going to be stillborn and would be harmful for her to birth normally? Then yeah, she would be incredibly sad about having to have an abortion and would want to keep the remains of the baby she had wanted.
And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case”
My opinion, based on the facts of the story, is that she’s a nut case. I’m not assuming anything, the article plainly lays it out, she illegally obtained an abortion pill to kill her 28 Week baby, and held onto the remains.
If you don’t think that’s what a nutcase would do, that’s fine, but I’m not making any assumptions, I’m basing my opinion off the facts presented in the article.
"In May, Burgess pleaded guilty to a felony charge of removing or concealing human skeletal remains."
If that is the case, people are a lot stranger then I thought. I thought not hiding and/or stealing human remains was something most people supported. Learned another new thing today
I wonder if the circumstances leading up to that have any bearing on what ultimately happened, and if the state’s draconian laws on women’s rights should be examined as a possible influence on these chain of events. No, you’re right, the entire thing happened entirely in a bubble, context be damned.
My understanding is that the law for abortion was 20 weeks at the time. That was more inline with European standards.
Regardless, you cannot just hide the remains. If that were legal bad clinics would be in there right to dump remains.
Either way you seem to be making a lot of assumptions. If you have links about this case that have more context of the situation I would be happy to read them.
I am a -1.5 by - 4.21 on the political compass if that makes you feel superior.
If she wasn’t able to access abortion healthcare prior to 20 weeks and as a result had the abortion performed at 28 weeks, which I’m sure she was aware at the time was against Nebraska law, then it’s not really a surprise that she would try to conceal the remains to cover up her original crime, which I would argue shouldn’t be a crime to begin with. Think about it critically here. Do you think laws against hiding human remains exist because hiding human remains is in and of itself a bad thing, or do they exist because someone hiding human remains suggests that they likely committed another crime prior to it? In which case we should be examining the circumstances leading up to the remains being hidden to begin with and apply judgement based on the entire circumstances.
Either way you seem to be making a lot of assumptions
“Context matters” is an assumption? We don’t know the full context, but here you are assuming she’s a bad person.
I am a -1.5 by - 4.21 on the political compass
Who cares. The political compass is a fucking joke that nobody should be taking seriously.
You made the assumption that she could not receive abortion healthcare in the allowed 20 weeks at the time. I do not want to form my opinion on an assumption or feeling. I am going by what the article state since no one else has provided links to additional information on this case.
She was sentenced for the crime she admitted guilt to. Seems fair from the information I have.
You arguments may hold up better in the case of the mother when her sentencing come up.
"Who cares. The political compass is a fucking joke that nobody should be taking seriously."
You appear to as you try to throw ideas that challenge you into buckets when you say "Sure is easy being a conservative, isn’t it?"
You made the assumption that she could not receive abortion healthcare in the allowed 20 weeks at the time.
I didn’t assume anything. I have made a theory based on the facts presented to me, but I have not asserted my theory as fact. Learn the difference between theories and assumptions, please.
Seems fair from the information I have.
That is an opinion formed from your feelings. It’s okay to form opinions, just don’t act like you’re better than everyone else because you’re pretending you aren’t doing so.
You appear to as you try to throw ideas that challenge you into buckets when you say “Sure is easy being a conservative, isn’t it?”
That had jack shit to do with the political compass and everything to do with you choosing to ignore everything that users in this thread were saying and assuming that the only moral judgement being made was on this woman hiding human remains, and ignoring all conversation to the contrary, when in reality the story is much more nuanced and complex than that. Boiling down a complex event to “person did a bad thing, therefore they are wrong in everything” and dismissing the rest of the story so you can make a moral judgement is something conservatives are fond of. Maybe don’t act like a conservative if you don’t want to be called one.
The article makes it sound like she didn’t go to a doctor for this and her mother helped her get the pills and she took them super late in the pregnancy and then dumped the body. Any other articles that confirm the slant of this article?
I mean, given that y'all qaeda had stopped them from being able to actually seek medical support for this, what did you expect her to do?
Hopefully sense prevails and this birther cult can be sent to the garbage can of history.
Yeah, I’m not sure if people thought you agreed with the state…? I guess we generally see “As a Christian, I <insert terrible opinion here>”, so assumptions of that sort are likely, but I’m not sure. I try to do my part to show that we’re not all the Westboro Baptist type, too.
There will be people browsing the comments who read the article, left feeling angry and powerless. Then you reveal yourself as someone who ascribes to what they see as ‘enemy’, downvoting you is a way to exert some (small) sense of power. Try not to take it personally.
hey theViscusOne, everyone can see you in this comment section you fucking collaborator. quit trying to convince people that this was the right thing you scum bag.
I'm so glad we prevented all those abortions so the unwanted or unhealthy kids could instead die in more painful ways such as congenital defects, poverty and neglect. Virtue signalling is bad, unless it causes preventable suffering to children in which case apparently Supply-Side Jesus is all for it.
Remember the 10-year-old rape victim who had to travel out-of-state for an abortion, and poor Milo Evan Dorbert, who lived a short life of 99 minutes before dying painfully of Potter syndrome, which left him without functioning kidneys. There are many other rape victims and babies with invariably-fatal conditions who have needlessly suffered for political reasons.
These babies were going to die anyway. Either with a medically safe abortion or through a complicated and risky pregnancy that also risks the mother's life.
pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant
Regardless of the circumstances that may have led to this decision, this isn’t a case worthy of outrage. There were 28-week preemies in the NICU when my daughter was there. While there’s still growing to do at 28 weeks, this is a whole-ass baby, not just a bundle of cells.
So when a fetus arbitrarily grows large enough to be a “whole-ass baby”, it magically grows the right to use someone’s body without their consent? They just have to lay there and take it, because it’s been there for so long already? Only in republican USA.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.