SonofLincoln:
Read your post again and you will see where you told wirinet the the person you are referring to lives in Illinois and you believe he's lying. What does that say about you if you can't remember what you posted less than 30 minutes ago.

He quoted someone on quora and the person on quora said he lives in illinois, I wasn't referring to you.

wirinet:


Boss, the day I saw a new born floating in the lagoon toward the sea, behind NPA (also behind School of Oceanography, Bar Beach ). I became pro choice forever. The baby was born overnight and dumped directly into the Lagos lagoon. My wife also said that while living in Navy Town, Ojo, she and others had witnessed a baby dumped inside a dump heap and covered in ants. Luckily the baby was rescued. If you hear many atrocities that happens as a consequence of women not wanting to have babies, and not being able to abort, you will puke.

I know you cannot force a woman to love, care and nurture a baby she definitely does not want, all because you want to punish her for her sexual "immorality" not caring for the fate of the baby once it's born.

This argument lacks merit because there are many institutions more than ready to take in unwanted kids and care for them or put them up for adoption. So the callous throwing away of kids has to do with the wickedness and careless disregard for human life by the mother not because the kids won't be taken care of if she doesn't want them. The other thing is that we are not pro life because we want to punish people for immorality, we are pro life because we believe in the sanctity of human life both born and unborn. There are many common sense options available for women who are sexually active to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

wirinet:


As I said I knew nothing about double murders statutes of pregnant women in the US, and so had to rely on Google (and probably you) to educate me.

Have said that, your response above justifies my stance that a woman can never murder her fetus under any US law. You even said that the exception if the abortion is done with the consent of the mother.

This is what you get when you jump into an argument without knowing the crux of the matter. Wirinet said unborn children are not alive, they only become living beings after they are born so I asked the question then why are people charged with killing unborn babies, surely you can't kill something that was never alive in the first place. If you charge people with the murder of unborn children then that is an admission that the unborn children were alive in the womb.

SonofLincoln:
I am lying about State Laws in America and you that only dream of America is telling the truth. What an irony. State legislative bodies determine their laws and most Red States will charge the murder of pregnant lady as double murder why most Blue States will not charge it as Double murder. The problem with you guys that don't know anything about America except the junks you get from Right wing blogs is that you think of yourself as American political experts from several thousands miles away.

Firstly, I am right here in the states and why do you jump into posts addressed to others and pick fights with people over things that aren't even related to you? Could you do me a favor and read the post I made to wirinet again and show me where I said you were lying? And you are wrong about the blue state/red state thing. The state of illinois where I believe you reside, charges people with manslaughter for the death of unborn children.

SonofLincoln:
I gave you the answer but you don't want to hear the truth. It's called State laws.

You didn't answer the question.

Ok, let me make it simple, why do state laws charge people with murder when they kill an unborn child?

Wirinet, I just looked up the illinois statute and just as I suspected, the person you quoted from quora was lying. Illinois actually punishes the killing of unborn children as murder with the only exception being when it is done during an abortion with the consent of the mother. The illinois laws define "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. The question still remains, if the fetus is not alive and just a clump of cells as you guys argue, then why charge people with their murder? Can you kill a non living thing?

wirinet:


I had no idea that a person that murders a pregnant woman is charged with double murders, so I did a Google search.
Here is what I found;



So you see, the law still doesn't recognise a fetus as a person (child).

What of the rest of the country? You are referring or the person you quoted was referring to the state of illinois (I will still look that up cos I think he is lying). Anyway, you still have to answer for the rest of the country.

SonofLincoln:
Firstly, I am against abortion and I have said it here several times. I and my siblings went through parochial schools all our lives and my children all did too. What I said is the charging double murder in case of abortion depends on the State the murder occurred. What part of that is hard to comprehend.

I asked someone else a question, you responded to that question that's why I said you didn't answer the question and repeated it. Since you don't have an answer to my question, I'll wait for wirinet to answer it then.

SonofLincoln:
Obviously, you must be typing your junk from your village. Kelly is up in double digits in Arizona and Georgia is tied while Shorty midget Lindsey is fighting for his political life in South Carolina. You think Faux News is the only Statuon in America. We have hundreds of TV Stations that you can't even see in Nigeria but you people swallow the junk you are being fed by the same people who hates people that looks like you.

Polls are the most meaningless things in politics, we just saw an election earlier this year for Katie Hill's seat in California where the Republican candidate that was down by ten points in the polls easily won the real elections. This argument is even unnecessary, democrats need to win 13 new Senate seats to have a filibuster proof majority so where are you getting those 13 seats from?

SonofLincoln:
Murder law differs State to State and that's why we have State laws. Federal murder charges is unique but most murders in America are State Charges.

You didn't answer the question, why are murderers charged with a double murder if they kill a pregnant woman?

SonofLincoln:
Thank you Prof of American politics for reminding us Doug Jones is going to lose his Senate seat in Alabama but forgeting to mention numerous Republican Senators that will lose their seats in Maine, Colorado, Arizona Probable Iowa, North Carolina and Georgia. South Carolina with Midget Lindsey is in play. About the States, it is a work in progress . Things don't work in a jiffy in America. Time will take care of that the same way time took care of Hawaii and Alaska becoming the newest States over 50 years ago. Politics 101 for you right there from an American that don't need Google to know how things work in my country.

All I see in your post are too many liberal pipe dreams that will go up in smoke come November. You are actually pinning your hopes on a democrat sweeping of red states like Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina?

wirinet:


And unborn baby is simply that - unborn. It becomes a real baby after it has been born.

It's only a mentally sick person that will use a real baby to illustrate an unborn one.

Religiousity has often been compared to opium, to me it's worse. At least someone on opium will not use threats, blackmail and actual violence to impose their beliefs on others.

So why do you charge murderers with a double murder if they kill a pregnant woman?

A bit of reality check to those liberals that are having pipe dreams about admitting DC and puerto rico as two new states, you are going to be needing republican votes to achieve that. Assuming a situation where democrats control both the Senate and the White House, Constitutionally, you will need 2/3 of the Senate to vote to admit them, that 67 votes and if they invoke cloture, they will still need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. AmazonTopaz and Sonoflincoln should tell us where they intend to get these 60 votes from. Remember that one Democrat senator is already a dead man walking in Alabama.

The threat by Democrats to pack the courts and admit two more states to the country is just tantrum throwing by losers.

AmazonTopaz:

What happened to the Mcconell rule and the precedent he set?
Hold the GOP accountable call out their hypocrisy and stop saying rubbish

The precedent is not superior to the constitution. Trump will be carrying out a responsibility given to him by the constitution

SonofLincoln:
By the way, I purposely don't download anything to buttress my real live experiences about the country I grew up in. About economics, I am 1.000 times richer that you will ever be and that's me being modest. Your yearly income is not worth couple of my wrist watches. Been to places on Earth you couldn't even dream of. So what economics are you talking about.

A lot more black people will be voting for Trump this time around than did in 2016.

kopfschmerzen12:


All the crap you have been posting will have make sense, if bad faith Mitch McConnell did not eventually block and stall on Merrick Garland's nomination. 11 months vs 6 weeks, y'all are the SI unit of hypocrisy.

The constitution doesn't care about your emotions, You all would have gladly confirmed Merrick Garland in 2016 if the democrats had the Senate majority so stop pretending, you are only angry because it's conservatives that get to nominate this time.

There’s no reason Trump’s nominee can’t be confirmed before Nov. 3rd:

1975—Justice Stevens, 16 days between nomination & confirmation

1981—Justice O’Connor, 33 days between nomination & confirmation

1993—Justice Ginsburg, 42 days between nomination & confirmation

Fill the seat.

Fill the seat!!!

The vacant Supreme Court Seat doesn’t belong to a singular person. It belongs to the American people. And it’s up to Donald Trump and the US Senate to fill that seat.

Nancy Pelosi won't rule out impeaching President Trump so he can't appoint a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg

If they can impeach him in an election year then there's no reason he can't appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

The Constitution says the President shall appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

Donald Trump is the President.

Chachess6:


Where are the Democrats here to deny this claims?

They dare not deny it cos it's all true

Senator Pat Leahy in 2016: For months, poll after poll show that 2/3 of Americans want the Senate GOP to hold a hearing on Judge Garland. Do your jobs, we need nine SCOTUS justices!

Senator Pat, this is 2020 and we still need 9 SCOTUS justices so let's all support the Senate GOP to do their jobs!

Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii in 2016: After meeting with judge Garland, it has become more apparent that the Senate GOP must do their jobs and consider his nomination.

Sen Hirono, isn't it apparent that the Senate GOP must do their jobs and consider the nomination of whoever Trump nominates?

Senator Richard Blumenthal in 2016: I was outside SCOTUS today urging the Senate GOP to "do your jobs and hold a hearing for SCOTUS nominee Garland"

Well senator Blumenthal, how about another trip to the SCOTUS to urge the Senate GOP to do their jobs?

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut in 2016: The constitution says "advice and consent"..... Do your job!

2020 GOP, Senator Murphy is right, Do your jobs.

Joe Biden in 2016: Blocking Merrick Garland sets up a constitutional crisis.

The GOP should take Biden's advice and not block Trump's nominee, we don't want to have a constitutional crisis, do we?

What of Chuck Schumer?

Schumer in 2016: Attention GOP, the Senate have confirmed 17 SCOTUS justices in election years, do your job!

Well Mr Schumer, you should be happy that the Senate want to do their jobs this time.

And what did Hillary Clinton say in 2016?

Hillary in 2016: In announcing Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee, president obama has met his responsibility, now it's up to the members of the Senate to meet their own.

Hello, Mrs Clinton! Should Trump not meet his own responsibility to announce a nominee for supreme court seat? And should the Senate not meet their own responsibility to screen such a nominee?

Obama in 2016: Refusing to consider a SCOTUS nominee before one is even nominated is irresponsible.

What happened in 2020 Mr Obama? Is it no longer “irresponsible” to not consider a SCOTUS nominee before one is even announced?

Obama in 2016: ‘There’s No Unwritten Law’ that Says Filling Vacant SCOTUS Seats Can Only Be Done on Off-Years