 |
|
|
|
| AUTHOR |
MESSAGE |
|
Iwant2kssuallovr
62 / female
Bendover, Florida, US
|
Stupidity Runs Amuck!
Riots.
Riots, bullets, National Guards: What's happening in Los Angeles and why?
Protests continue in Los Angeles and several other parts of the US as Trump deploys additional troops to control the crowd of civilians. On Monday, a line of National Guard troops with Homeland Security officers behind them surrounded the federal buildings as people yelled, "Free them all!" and "National Guard go away."
Abortion:
Quoting: I saw my favorite argument thus far on this.
If a mother is pregnant with twins and one twin terminates the other in utero, is that baby going to be tried for murder?!
Why yes little Savannah, we are going to prosecute a baby.
|
| June 12, 2025, 22:45 |
|
Pidz
66 / male
Not Alabama, China
|
Re: Stupidity Runs Amuck!
This is not just restricted to the US and social up rises can happen anywhere. It happened in the UK Toxteth, Liverpool riots in 1981. What initially starts as an acceptable and peaceful protest that just happens to coincide when social tensions are high from political distrust or times when joblessness, poverty or home repositions could be at an all time high. People can come out of their homes to see what all the commotion is about and in the noise of the protest their own grievances rise to the surface and arguments and scuffles break out. The police arrive and anti-establishment people get annoyed and as news gets out, people arrive from other residential areas. Then stage 2 is when looters take advantage of police concentration on the protest and start emptying out all the stores. So half the police are despatch to deal with this, stretching a thin blue line and are unable to quickly restore peace quickly. When it all begins to quiet down and many of the secondary protesters are arrested as hooligans, it usually turns out these are everyday normal people who in hindsight can’t understand how it all escalated that far. This just goes to prove that rioting isn’t really the best way to prove a point.
As for the death of an unborn child I can’t comment on the US ruling, but currently as it stands in the UK, in the eyes of the law an unborn child is not a person, so you can't be charged with murdering/injuring an unborn child. The only act that covers unborn child preservation is the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. It states ‘any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life’.
However if the unborn child was killed for preserving the mother, then no offence would have been committed. This act was set up in 1929 to deal with horrendous amounts of backstreet abortions. If a man beat up a pregnant woman and as a result the baby was terminated, then the charges against him would be for grievous bodily harm to the mother and not baby. As for an unborn baby being charged with murder that has to be a fantasy. How do you charge a criminal without a name? Or where it says name on the charge sheet, will it say, ‘to be completed later’. 
|
| June 13, 2025, 09:46 |
|
|
Web Naughty Forums »
General Discussion »
Stupidity Runs Amuck!
|
|
|
