Aggravated Murder, charged and confessed to. An unborn is afforded human dignity

I am not astounded at all, however I see it a little differently from you, I see it as someone admitting to anything rather than take the chance of getting the death penalty, even if it means spending the rest of their life in prison.

As there was no trial then the actual charge was not tested in court, was it.

 

I am not relying on whims. I had accused pro-choicers of relying on whims. Stop putting words into my mouth!

 

Funny but I can remember an expectant mom explaining how her " the baby" (silly ignorant woman, no?) kept her from sleeping because of his movements within the womb.

It is also used to dehumanize. It can be a human captive...the empowered one's chattel. It can be what the enemy is. It is easier to kill an it rather than a him or her or a baby. Of course there are people, some who are professionals, who can kill babies in the womb because they are an it to them.

I don't know why he didn't kill his (now five or six y.o.) daughter in the womb. Maybe Amanda was his favorite? Whatever the reason don't begrudge the child her life, she harmed no one.

Cold. The lives of fifty five million dead is politics for you? You have no empathy, no sympathy? Castro was empowered while the baby and mother were without power. Shall I take it that you are about empowering one human over another human but we'll name that human "It?"

Thank you for revealing (a deeply held) conviction.

Your statements today and "political agenda" have made me very curious as to what your life's vocation or employment is/has been. You needn't answer. I always sensed (from your posts) you were passionate but I honestly never saw you as so coldblooded before. Your words are absolutely chilling.

What happened to the woman with the retro-innocent Kool-Aid mom avatar?

 

what words have I put in your mouth .. you accuse us (and women) of relying on whims for abortion, I accuse you of relying on whims to stop abortion.

What words I have put in your mouth again.

 

Absolutely, a happily pregnant woman will refer to her fetus as "the baby." However, in situations where accurate terminology is important, ambiguous and inaccurate terminology hinders understanding. This is a debate forum, and we do not abort babies, Dix. If you are honest, you will admit that.

Using the accurate terminology doesn't "dehumanize." Don't you think a fetus is human? Then it isn't dehumanizing to call it that. But I understand why you want us to call it a baby.

I am not "begrudging" the child her life. Why would you suggest that? I haven't even mentioned her until now.

I have no empathy or sympathy for an embryo that is terminated. You don't either, except as it can be used to restrict women's reproductive rights.

"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object…Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves ‘pro-life.’" – Ayn Rand

I have never seen you so "holier than thou" and haughty before (lol, that's a lie, I have). But seriously, Dix, let's just understand one thing. The abortion debate is nothing more than a basic disagreement about the point one becomes a person with rights. You are not a kinder, gentler, more upstanding person than I am because of your anti-abortion belief, which is not based on either science or the Bible. While you are sitting there polishing your halo, remember this...pro-choice policies result in fewer abortions than "pro-life" policies. That is well established.

In an ideal world, a woman would never be faced with the agonizing decision of aborting or having a child she is unable to care for. We will never be able to stop abortion, but we can reduce the abortion rate in proven ways. And we can be more supportive of women who choose to give birth. But making already desperate women even more desperate is not a Christian act.

 

Abortion is a party plank for democrats, it is an empowering political source, a core ideal, value, aspiration. Not something to be surrendered or imperiled. The prosecutor is a loyal, valued and influential party member as well as a publically elected official. He wouldn't put this demoncrat sacrament at risk.

Though the accused is undoubtedly selfish (self-serving) in nature he did confess in open court and I believe was found guilty. No legitimate court tolerates known falsehoods from an officer of the court or a defendant. If the State believed he (Castro) was perjuring himself there would of course be an additional criminal charge(s) and the truth pursued.

I cannot share your advocacy for Mr. Castro's innocence regarding murder, have you ever consider that he pled guilty to murder simply because he committed the crime of murder against his unborn son or daughter?

 

I'll address the final point first ... would you care to point to the place where I advocate his innocence, I said that the charge was not tested in court .. there was no trial.

Neither can you consider that he pleaded guility in order to save his own life.

I personally believe that the very reason he did what he did is due to him being more afraid of losing his position than anything else, lets be honest here most politicians will say or do what it takes to remain in office and keep their votes .. I don't trust any politician not matter which side of the fence they reside. I think most, if not all of them, would sacrifice anything on the alter of success, paying lip service to the majority.

 

Do we actually have any medical evidence that they suffered a miscarriage, and that the miscarriage was related to the trauma they suffered, and not just natural causes?

 

I don't know how there could be medical evidence of a miscarriage that allegedly happened at some point during those 10 years. I think the murder charge would have been hard to prove.

 

The women accused him of the crime and he plead guilty to it in a plea deal...

Why do you need more evidence than that?

 

Even without the murder charges, what were his chances of getting a lesser sentence than life?

 

I don't understand this question.

If I thought I was innocent of murder, you would not get me to plead guilty to murder.

Period.

No matter if it would get me life or any other reduced sentence.

 

and that is you, others do not think the same way.

 

Could I get you to admit to a murder that you did not commit?

 

How does he know if he committed a murder or not?

 

About which issues?

 

That would have been a good reason for him to not take the plea.

Don't you agree?

 

I don't know having never been in the situation where the choice would be, plead not guilty and face the death penalty if convicted or plead guilty and get life in prison, but at least still alive.

TBH its irrelevant what his reasons were the fact remains that the charge was not tested in court, so in reality we will never know if the murder charge would have stuck will we.

- - - Updated - - -

Try reading the comments and you will find out.

 

We can't know whether or not that case could have been prosecuted because he took the plea.

We also can't know if any other cases can be prosecuted.... until we try.

 

Which is what I said.

go for it, though which ever way such a case goes won't change the debate in any way.

You lose and it won't mean pro-lifers will give up, you win and it won't mean pro-choicers will give up, the best it will do is mean one or other of the sides will change tactics .. just as pro-lifers did when their numerous attempts to overturn Roe all failed, now it's all back-door.

 

If the SCOTUS were to get a case that challenges Roe and they ruled that the UVVA has it right. That it is a child in the womb and that they have a (14th Amendment) Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws but that abortions in the case of rape & life of the mother could be justified.

Would that settle the dispute for you?

It would for me.

 

If the SCOTUS were to get a case that challenges Roe and they ruled the the UVVA has it wrong. That it is a child post viability and that they have a (14th Amendment) Constitutional right to the equal protections of the law after that point, but that abortions in the case of rape & life of the mother could be justified.

Would that settle the dispute for you?

It would for me.

 

No.

It wouldn't.

But I'm ready for that challenge.

How about you?

 

Yep, more than ready.

 

Good!

Let's do this!