[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:45 pm

"Her baby's dead, isn't that punishment enough?"

No. There's the murber bit.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:06 pm

Gx1080 wrote:"Her baby's dead, isn't that punishment enough?"

No. There's the murber bit.

She wasn't even accused of murder.

-Username17

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:40 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Gx1080 wrote:"Her baby's dead, isn't that punishment enough?"

No. There's the murber bit.
She wasn't even accused of murder.

-Username17

Indeed. According to Gx, she was accused of Murber. Now, I'm not sure what murber is, but that's what Gx is trying to discuss and I think we should respect him by staying on-topic.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:08 pm

Her baby's dead, isn't that punishment enough?

I lol'd heartily

K · Post by K » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:39 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
Gx1080 wrote:"Her baby's dead, isn't that punishment enough?"

No. There's the murber bit.
She wasn't even accused of murder.

-Username17
Indeed. According to Gx, she was accused of Murber. Now, I'm not sure what murber is, but that's what Gx is trying to discuss and I think we should respect him by staying on-topic.

She was convicted of second-degree murder, and then the conviction was overturned on appeal. That means that the case was bullshit from a legal standpoint and she never should have been convicted in the first place purely from a legal standpoint.

It probably also means she never should have been charged in the first place, but without the case files and a license to practice law in Canada, I can't give an opinion on that.

Appeals only correct the incorrect application of the law, so it's not even like they reviewed the evidence and decided the jury was wrong; it was that they reviewed the briefs and transcripts of the trial and decided the case should have never gotten to trial because it rested entirely on flawed legal reasoning and the judge should have thrown it out.

Like I said before, it's a sad and pathetic story about a shitty law punishing a grieving mother, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:17 pm

K wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
She wasn't even accused of murder.

-Username17
Indeed. According to Gx, she was accused of Murber. Now, I'm not sure what murber is, but that's what Gx is trying to discuss and I think we should respect him by staying on-topic.
She was convicted of second-degree murder, and then the conviction was overturned on appeal. That means that the case was bullshit from a legal standpoint and she never should have been convicted in the first place purely from a legal standpoint.

It probably also means she never should have been charged in the first place, but without the case files and a license to practice law in Canada, I can't give an opinion on that.

Appeals only correct the incorrect application of the law, so it's not even like they reviewed the evidence and decided the jury was wrong; it was that they reviewed the briefs and transcripts of the trial and decided the case should have never gotten to trial because it rested entirely on flawed legal reasoning and the judge should have thrown it out.

Like I said before, it's a sad and pathetic story about a shitty law punishing a grieving mother, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

Thankfully, we don't have to speculate on the court's reasoning, as such decisions are published on the internet and can be found with a few seconds of searching.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5C20 ... ca0134.pdf

Actually, in this case they did overturn the verdict because the jury erred.

[29] But here the test is whether a reasonable and properly instructed jury would not even have
been left with a reasonable doubt about the appellant’s state of mind. Viewing the matter “through
the lens of judicial experience” it is impossible to say that there was not at least a reasonable doubt
present on this record. That conclusion would mean the jury found the opinions of both experts were
so seriously flawed that they should be given virtually no weight at all. Even accepting the Crown’s
criticisms of the expert evidence, it still had significant probative value.

[30]Since juries do not give reasons, it is impossible to understand their exact reasoning. Perhaps
this jury was distracted by the tragic circumstances of the death of a newborn infant. “When a jury
which was admittedly properly instructed returns what the appeal court perceives to be an unreasonable conviction, the only rational inference, if the test in Yebes is followed, is that the jury, in arriving at that guilty verdict, was not acting judicially”: Biniaris at para. 39. The verdict of guilt
of murder cannot be supported.

Essentially, the prosecutor didn't prove that she was mentally competent at the time of the killing beyond a reasonable doubt. He shredded her psychiatric experts on cross examination, but he didn't introduce any of his own. That was only sufficient to prove his case to a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there was a reasonable doubt regarding her mental state, the jury couldn't have legitimately convicted her of murder.

Really, this is a case where the prosecutor did waste everyone's time. She offered to plead guilty to the lesser charge several times and he always refused to accept it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:02 pm

Actually, when an appeal's court says "a reasonable jury could not have foun [what the jury actually found]." it very specifically means that the judge should have made a directed verdict instead of sending the issue to the jury.

What it means is that as a matter of law there was not enough evidence that X, so there was no reason to send it to the jury, and therefore, the judge was at fault for even letting the jury give a verdict (technically, he could let them give a verdict and make a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but for our purposes in this conversation, that's the same thing, in that the jury doesn't get to have a say).

To put it in slightly different terms: If I claim that you stabbed me, but I have no evidence whatsoever, then no reasonable jury could find you guilty. That doesn't mean the judge should send it to the jury and find out if this jury is reasonable, and if he did so, that would be a mistake by the judge. Instead, he should grant the motion to dismiss that your lawyer will file, and the jury never even gets called.

kerachery · Post by **kerachery** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:07 am

Why do abortion supporters use a euphemism to describe their stance on abortion? Pro-choice seems to be a phrase that would be more fitting with consumerism than to describe a position towards abortion.

K · Post by K » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:33 am

kerachery wrote:Why do abortion supporters use a euphemism to describe their stance on abortion? Pro-choice seems to be a phrase that would be more fitting with consumerism than to describe a position towards abortion.

Pro-choice doesn't support abortion. It supports the choice to choose whether you want an abortion or not. It's not saying "everyone should get abortions!" or "more abortions!"

Pro-life doesn't want you to have a choice at all, so when that's taken into consideration "pro-choice" makes more sense.

That being said, it's mostly marketing. It's the same reason that social safety net programs are called "entitlements." If they weren't, they'd draw less anger.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:37 am

I don't understand why people opposed to abortions claim they're "pro-life" when it's an unarguable fact that legal abortions lead to fewer deaths than having them be illegal.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:04 am

good question, I think all pro-lifers should be branded as what they truly are: pro-death. in fact they're basically murderers when you consider that they bomb abortion clinics and support policies that leave women dead. really there are two options: taking away their ability to vote or reeducating them until they can function in a modern society.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:17 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I don't understand why people opposed to abortions claim they're "pro-life" when it's an unarguable fact that legal abortions lead to fewer deaths than having them be illegal.

And the fact that most of them support the death penalty, firearm proliferation, the right for police to murder anyone they want without repercussion, and random wars. I'd love to call myself pro-death ("MANDATORY ABORTION OF ALL INFANTS, AND IN FACT LIVING PEOPLE AS WELL. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, HAHAHA!"), but the fact is, they're more supportive of death than I am.

I'll give PR the tiniest bit of credit - where it's due - he at least opposes getting into the random wars. For all I know he also doesn't support wasting government money executing people.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:46 am

For all I know he also doesn't support wasting government money executing people.

sorry to disappoint. but if it makes you feel better I don't support it in most cases. also firearm proliferation is not being pro-death; it's being pro-freedom.

but let's be completely honest here. if we wanted to curb homicide statistics, we'd tell blacks to straighten the fuck up. 13% of the population with 50% of the homicides? but that's not politically correct.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:57 pm

kerachery wrote:Why do abortion supporters use a euphemism to describe their stance on abortion? Pro-choice seems to be a phrase that would be more fitting with consumerism than to describe a position towards abortion.

K and Count summed it up nicely.

I personally find abortions quite squicky and would be happy if people didn't feel the need to have them, but at the end of the day, I'm still pro-choice. It's not that I like abortions. It's a combination of I like people having the choice, and I've yet to hear a coherent pro-life stance that doesn't end up sounding more abhorrent than the alternative once it's implemented.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:31 pm

And giving things nicer names is the way it has always worked.
global warmingclimate change
destabilisestabilise
creationismintelligent design
retarded mentally disabled handicapped intellectually challenged?
old senior chronologically gifted
fingeringforeplay

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 pm

rape surprise sex

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:04 pm

That's why PR is a better troll than Shazar.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:51 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:if we wanted to curb homicide statistics, we'd tell blacks to straighten the fuck up.

It's not so much that being black makes you likely to be a killer, it's that being poor makes you more likely to be a killer. Black people just happen to be more likely to be poor.

If you really really wanted to curb homoside statistics, we'd make it so that people weren't poor enough that running drugs, mugging people and joining a gang seem like good ideas. But that would be socialism.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:18 pm

"Black people just happen to be more likely to be poor. "

And this isn't fault of Blacks, even with Affirmative Action because....?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:29 pm

If you really really wanted to curb homoside statistics, we'd make it so that people weren't poor enough that running drugs, mugging people and joining a gang seem like good ideas. But that would be socialism.

actually I totally agree, which is why I support returning manufacturing jobs to america through the use of tariffs and punitive taxes on companies that outsource. it's also why I support closing off our borders, putting a moratorium on immigration, cutting taxes, and possibly doing a little trust busting while we're at it. and then we can end the welfare-warfare state that is devaluing our currency and keeping the poor in poverty and shrinking the middle class.

what I don't agree with is wealth redistribution because it doesn't work. every attempt by the government to stop poverty through wealth redistribution has failed because the welfare state is a failure. look at fucking britain. their social safety net is far greater than ours and blacks "youths" still rioted.

you cannot tax and spend people out of poverty, though you can certainly tax and spend them into it.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:37 pm

Our currency isn't being devalued. Inflation is lower than ever.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:33 am

Gx1080 wrote:And this isn't fault of Blacks, even with Affirmative Action because....?

Take your resume. Now replace your first name with 'Tyrone.' What do you think just happened to your odds of getting calls for interviews? They went down, even though everything else on your resume stayed the same. You didn't magically get a criminal record or lose any credentials, the only thing that's changed is that now the person considering your application thinks you're of African descent and statistically speaking that makes him more likely to discard it.

You can take a white person and a black person who are, to all appearances, identical except for their race, and the white one will...
a) be more likely to get a job,
b) be more likely to be paid higher,
c) given similar criminal acts, be less likely to be charged for those acts, or more likely to be charged with less crimes when that option is available,
d) given the same criminal charges, be more likely to be sentenced to less years
And the list goes on.

If your argument is that "race isn't a disadvantage anymore! We have affirmative action," you're just flat out wrong because there's a rather large list of disadvantages that still come with merely being labelled 'African American.' The idea of a level playing field is a joke.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:37 am

blacks are more likely to have a criminal record and more likely to repeat offenses.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:03 am

1/10, too obvious.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:05 am

I would add that is a phenomenon almost exclusive of American-Blacks.

Non-American Blacks criticize American Blacks because they make them look bad.

My theory is that, as usual, the welfare nanny state destroys people. Paying single moms for each bastard spawn encourages them to pop out more. I would cut all that shit and give a minimum income to everybody. Is not perfect, but sure beats the dysgenics program for prole factories.

Weird that the country with the huge welfare state, Britain, also has the same problem.