Alabama woman charged with unborn baby's death after being shot in the stomach

An American woman who lost her unborn baby after being shot in the stomach has been charged with manslaughter for initiating the fight.

Marshae Jones, from Birmingham, Alabama, was five months pregnant when she was shot in the stomach by Ebony Jemison, 23, in December 2018.

Ms Jones, 27, was rushed to a nearby hospital and recovered, but her unborn baby girl did not survive.

However it was Ms Jones who was charged on Wednesday over the baby's death.

The two women were fighting outside a Dollar General store in December when the shooting occurred.

The shooter, Ms Jemison, was initially charged with manslaughter, but police said their investigation found she was acting in self-defence in a dispute over the baby's father.

Police said that Ms Jones had initiated the fight and was therefore at fault for the death of her baby.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/27/alabama-woman-charged-unborn-babys-death-shot-stomach/

Words fail me

I'm curious as to what the argument was about. Something to do with baby's father apparently.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm curious as to what the argument was about. Something to do with baby's father apparently.

The article doesn't say. But it is ironic given the new abortion law just passed in Alabama..."Woman performs abortion, escapes charges." Gives new meaning to the 2nd Amendment, right?

This is a hideous miscarriage of justice. I find I have no words....so the shooter gets away Scot-free???

eddie wrote:This is a hideous miscarriage of justice. I find I have no words....so the shooter gets away Scot-free???

That's the south...doesn't matter that some innocent life died. Just as long as guns are available, and the good guy wins.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:This is a hideous miscarriage of justice. I find I have no words....so the shooter gets away Scot-free???

That's the south...doesn't matter that some innocent life died.  Just as long as guns are available, and the good guy wins.

It’s just really grossly unfair. A baby dies, a woman is left with injuries and an empty womb and some stupid murdering bitch gets away with it?

The police said it was self defence. I would need to know more detail before commenting further.

eddie wrote:This is a hideous miscarriage of justice. I find I have no words....so the shooter gets away Scot-free???

The shooter was defending herself.

The pregnant woman was the attacker.

Let's say a 5 month pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated blows to the stomach, she loses the child.

Who's at fault?

Did the pregnant woman attack with a weapon if not, defending yourself with a gun seems unnecessary force.

Vintage wrote:Did the pregnant woman attack with a weapon if not, defending yourself with a gun seems unnecessary force.

All she has to do is say she was in fear of grave bodily harm to herself, or that of another.  That's why states in the north have taken the postion saying that if one can avoid the affray (i.e., run), s/he must do so.  The southern states have created an exception to this rule.  It's called 'stand your ground':

Criminal Defense Lawyer wrote:Self defense or defense of another often comes up when violence erupts between two people. For example, suppose a person is charged with assault or battery but the other party struck the first blow, was attacking someone else, or made frightening and credible threats. The defendant is entitled to present evidence that he was only acting in self defense or in defense of the victim. Traditionally, a successful self-defense claim involved showing that the defendant had no other choice—he couldn’t diffuse the situation by using less force, or safely walk away from the aggressor...

A new wrinkle on self-defense, known as the “stand your ground” doctrine, has arisen recently in many states. In a nutshell, the new “stand your ground” statutes do not require the person being attacked to retreat. Some of these laws, such as Florida’s, specifically state that a person being attacked or threatened, even in a public place, “has the right to stand his or her ground” and meet force with force.

This defense was used in the prosecution of George Zimmerman, who was accused of murdering Treyvon Martin.

In this case, once the woman was attacked she had no duty to retreat or avoid the confrontation, as she would in northern or western states.  This exception was written by the NRA and offered to legislators in states like Florida. Because it gives the advantage to the gun possessors, it promotes gun sales.  Possession of a gun is big in the south.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:Did the pregnant woman attack with a weapon if not, defending yourself with a gun seems unnecessary force.

All she has to do is say she was in fear of grave bodily harm to herself, or that of another.  That's why states in the north have taken the postion saying that if one can avoid the affray (i.e., run), s/he must do so.  The southern states have created an exception to this rule.  It's called 'stand your ground':

Criminal Defense Lawyer wrote:Self defense or defense of another often comes up when violence erupts between two people. For example, suppose a person is charged with assault or battery but the other party struck the first blow, was attacking someone else, or made frightening and credible threats. The defendant is entitled to present evidence that he was only acting in self defense or in defense of the victim. Traditionally, a successful self-defense claim involved showing that the defendant had no other choice—he couldn’t diffuse the situation by using less force, or safely walk away from the aggressor...

A new wrinkle on self-defense, known as the “stand your ground” doctrine, has arisen recently in many states. In a nutshell, the new “stand your ground” statutes do not require the person being attacked to retreat. Some of these laws, such as Florida’s, specifically state that a person being attacked or threatened, even in a public place, “has the right to stand his or her ground” and meet force with force.

This defense was used in the prosecution of George Zimmerman, who was accused of murdering Treyvon Martin.

In this case, once the woman was attacked she had no duty to retreat or avoid the confrontation, as she would in northern or western states.  This exception was written by the NRA and offered to legislators in states like Florida. Because it gives the advantage to the gun possessors, it promotes gun sales.  Possession of a gun is big in the south.

Zimmerman and his team did not invoke "stand your ground".

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman and his team did not invoke "stand your ground".

"In Zimmerman’s trial, defense attorneys did not cite the Stand Your Ground law but rather argued self-defense. Nonetheless, the judge instructed the jury that the law should be considered when making their deliberations."

https://danielgreenberglaw.com/zimmerman-trial-and-the-stand-your-ground-law/

In a trial court, the judge is the sole arbiter of the law. It appears the judge felt the 'Stand Your Ground' law was applicable.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Zimmerman and his team did not invoke "stand your ground".

"In Zimmerman’s trial, defense attorneys did not cite the Stand Your Ground law but rather argued self-defense. Nonetheless, the judge instructed the jury that the law should be considered when making their deliberations."

https://danielgreenberglaw.com/zimmerman-trial-and-the-stand-your-ground-law/

In a trial court, the judge is the sole arbiter of the law.  It appears the judge felt the 'Stand Your Ground' law was applicable.

It wasn't used in his defence - the judge is not the defence. There was no point in invoking it as Zimmerman had no opportunity to run anyway - he was pinned to the ground.

Vintage wrote:Did the pregnant woman attack with a weapon if not, defending yourself with a gun seems unnecessary force.

I don't know. But you can use deadly force if you feel serious injury or death is possible.

Plenty of people are killed by blows to the head, and you don't have to wait to receive one, prior to using deadly force.

Maddog wrote:

Vintage wrote:Did the pregnant woman attack with a weapon if not, defending yourself with a gun seems unnecessary force.

I don't know. But you can use deadly force if you feel serious injury or death is possible.

Plenty of people are killed by blows to the head, and you don't have to wait to receive one, prior to using deadly force.  

Unless her hands were basically strangling her and why the Us view based aqround force is so warped and fucked up. What do you think constitutes shooting someone based around self defense?

You see what you fail to factor is the point that someone with a gun may feel many a view and even a view that their life is in danger. When there never was any danger to that person. Its more about a person losing a fight and having a weapon that trumps the situation. This is why the warped reality of people carrying guns leads to such stupid situations. As its people carrying such deadly arms, ruled by their emotions. Its why your country has about the most fucked up laws around the bearing of arms.

The reality is nobody would have been shot, if she had not been carrying a gun. When people are in fear or losing a fight, irratioonal thoughts of fear take over and control the actions of people. Its why you have so many unecessary gun deaths in the US.

I have told you many times. Guns do not deter murder, only good intelligence does. We have seen in Israel for example people intent to murder jews through the knife intifada. Who ended up succeeding many times. What is even worse, is where the terrorists may have had access to guns. The death toll.would have been mutipled at least ten fold. As they were dealin with people intent to kill

I have no issue with people owning guns, but carrying them? Unless its for hunting, sports, or in the protection of your own home. Then body else should be cattying. Studies now show carrying guns leads to more unecessary deaths, because the reality is . That humans are unpredictable based on their emotions

So there is two pooints here.Was the person when using their gun in danger of their own life, even though she had the gun?

Th shot was not even aimed to kill, but to the lower abdomen.

Where people are even worse overlooking the major factor here, that this was fought over. Whether the present girlfriends boyfriend was the father.

What better way to elimnate that very issue, by where the other party was shot and ended up losing the fetus

I think this is the major part being over looked in the case. When a person is in fear of your life, really in fear of your life. Yoiu would should mutiple times to counter the threat to you

The reason here is based around who started the fight, not any view there was even a threat to life. The point being over looked here

If you are in threat of your own life, you would shoot many times, not a single shot aimed at the very region of the body, that they are having the dispute over

A single shot fired at a region, that would not cause an instinct kill, does not seem to be a view, that the person who did shoot, was in fear of their life

Go figure

Maddog wrote:Let's say a 5 month  pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated  blows to the stomach, she loses the child.  

Who's at fault?

About the most absurd and worst whataboutism argument I have ever heard

As yoour irrational stand point is based on something not even in the same ball park

Do you not even comprehend how dumb, the above is?

That you are now making comparable fighting weights, as if the person shot. Knew the person she was fighting held a weapon that could kill her?

Your really poor view seems to try and vindicate people using excessive force, based on knowing they were going into an uneven fight. When never knowing they were. I am, yet to see a UFC fight, which has a person losing the fight. Draw a firearm, to then shoot the person?

As this is what you are eseentially arguiong here. Where many people have fights, that a view to losing one, warernts then shooting the person getting the better of the fight. Never heard such a ridiculous view point to argue here

To equate non UFC people getting into a fight, to then excuse someone losing that fight, to then to clearly shoot to the pregnant woman. Shows people proposing such a stance are utter cowards. This was not a person knowingly going into a fight. Whilst disavatged being pregant. That believed the other person would pull a gun on them and shoot them

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't know. But you can use deadly force if you feel serious injury or death is possible.

Plenty of people are killed by blows to the head, and you don't have to wait to receive one, prior to using deadly force.  

Unless her hands were basically strangling her and why the Us view based aqround force is so warped and fucked up. What do you think constitutes shooting someone based around self defense?

You see what you fail to factor is the point that someone with a gun may feel many a view and even a view that their life is in danger. When there never was any danger to that person. Its more about a person losing a fight and having a weapon that trumps the situation. This is why the warped reality of people carrying guns leads to such stupid situations. As its people carrying such deadly arms, ruled by their emotions. Its why your country has about the most fucked up laws around the bearing of arms.

The reality is nobody would have been shot, if she had not been carrying a gun. When people are in fear or losing a fight, irratioonal thoughts of fear take over and control the actions of people. Its why you have so many unecessary gun deaths in the US.

I have told you many times. Guns do not deter murder, only good intelligence does. We have seen in Israel for example people intent to murder jews through the knife intifada. Who ended up succeeding many times. What is even worse, is where the terrorists may have had access to guns. The death toll.would have been mutipled at least ten fold. As they were dealin with people intent to kill

I have no issue with people owning guns, but carrying them? Unless its for hunting, sports, or in the protection of your own home. Then body else should be cattying. Studies now show carrying guns leads to more unecessary deaths, because the reality is . That humans are unpredictable based on their emotions

So there is two pooints here.Was the person when using their gun in danger of their own life, even though she had the gun?

Th shot was not even aimed to kill, but to the lower abdomen.

Where people are even worse overlooking the major factor here, that this was fought over. Whether the present girlfriends boyfriend was the father.

What better way to elimnate that very issue, by where the other party was shot and ended up losing the fetus

I think this is the major part being over looked in the case. When a person is in fear of your life, really in fear of your life. Yoiu would should mutiple times to counter the threat to you

The reason here is based around who started the fight, not any view there was even a threat to life. The point being over looked here

If you are in threat of your own life, you would shoot many times, not a single shot aimed at the very region of the body, that they are having the dispute over

A single shot fired at a region, that would not cause an instinct kill, does not seem to be a view, that the person who did shoot, was in fear of their life

Go figure

I wasn't there. Neither were you.

The shooter isn't being charged.

Apparently it was considered self defense after all of the facts were analysed.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Let's say a 5 month  pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated  blows to the stomach, she loses the child.  

Who's at fault?

About the most absurd and worst whataboutism argument I have ever heard

As yoour irrational stand point is based on something not even in the same ball park

Do you not even comprehend how dumb, the above is?

That you are now making comparable fighting weights, as if the person shot. Knew the person she was fighting held a weapon that could kill her?

Your really poor view seems to try and vindicate people using excessive force, based on knowing they were going into an uneven fight. When never knowing they were. I am, yet to see a UFC fight, which has a person losing the fight. Draw a firearm, to then shoot the person?

As this is what you are eseentially arguiong here. Where many people have fights, that a view to losing one, warernts then shooting the person getting the better of the fight. Never heard such a ridiculous view point to argue here

To equate non UFC people getting into a fight, to then excuse someone losing that fight, to then to clearly shoot to the pregnant woman. Shows people proposing such a stance are utter cowards. This was not a person knowingly going into a fight. Whilst disavatged being pregant. That believed the other person would pull a gun on them and shoot them

I asked a question. Want to answer it or spew ad hominems?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"In Zimmerman’s trial, defense attorneys did not cite the Stand Your Ground law but rather argued self-defense. Nonetheless, the judge instructed the jury that the law should be considered when making their deliberations."

https://danielgreenberglaw.com/zimmerman-trial-and-the-stand-your-ground-law/

In a trial court, the judge is the sole arbiter of the law.  It appears the judge felt the 'Stand Your Ground' law was applicable.

It wasn't used in his defence - the judge is not the defence. There was no point in invoking it as Zimmerman had no opportunity to run anyway - he was pinned to the ground.

So what? The judge made it an issue, and the jury was informed and considered it.

Maddog wrote:Let's say a 5 month  pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated  blows to the stomach, she loses the child.  

Who's at fault?

phil wrote:About the most absurd and worst whataboutism argument I have ever heard

It's not whataboutism...whataboutism involves contrasting an actual factual circumstance as a kind of rebuttal.  

Maddog is giving a hypothetical.  Hypotheticals are not fallacies; they are suppositions to make a point.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't used in his defence - the judge is not the defence. There was no point in invoking it as Zimmerman had no opportunity to run anyway - he was pinned to the ground.

So what?  The judge made it an issue, and the jury was informed and considered it.

Raggamuffin has a long history on here of defending murderers, and other nasties, and even putting up false excuses in defending her position...

I wonder why ?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


About the most absurd and worst whataboutism argument I have ever heard

As yoour irrational stand point is based on something not even in the same ball park

Do you not even comprehend how dumb, the above is?

That you are now making comparable fighting weights, as if the person shot. Knew the person she was fighting held a weapon that could kill her?

Your really poor view seems to try and vindicate people using excessive force, based on knowing they were going into an uneven fight. When never knowing they were. I am, yet to see a UFC fight, which has a person losing the fight. Draw a firearm, to then shoot the person?

As this is what you are eseentially arguiong here. Where many people have fights, that a view to losing one, warernts then shooting the person getting the better of the fight. Never heard such a ridiculous view point to argue here

To equate non UFC people getting into a fight, to then excuse someone losing that fight, to then to clearly shoot to the pregnant woman. Shows people proposing such a stance are utter cowards. This was not a person knowingly going into a fight. Whilst disavatged being pregant. That believed the other person would pull a gun on them and shoot them

I asked a question.  Want to answer it or spew ad hominems?

Its an irrelevant question, and whaboutism.

As since when did UCF fighters, now carry guns into the event?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Let's say a 5 month  pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated  blows to the stomach, she loses the child.  

Who's at fault?

phil wrote:About the most absurd and worst whataboutism argument I have ever heard

It's not whataboutism...whataboutism involves contrasting an actual factual circumstance as a kind of rebuttal.  

Maddog is giving a hypothetical.  Hypotheticals are not fallacies; they are suppositions to make a point.

Its completely whaboutism, as do UCF fighters carry firearms into bouts?

No


There is also rules for pregnant women on eligibility within sport

Hence it was complete whataboutism. You cannot compare people emotionally charge entering into an altercation and compare that with sports body rules

In fact it was aboiut the most idiotic question ever asked

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



It's not whataboutism...whataboutism involves contrasting an actual factual circumstance as a kind of rebuttal.  

Maddog is giving a hypothetical.  Hypotheticals are not fallacies; they are suppositions to make a point.

Its completely whaboutism, as do UCF fighters carry firearms into bouts?

No


There is also rules for pregnant women on eligibility within sport

Hence it was complete whataboutism. You cannot compare people emotionally charge entering into an altercation and compare that with sports body rules

In fact it was aboiut the most idiotic question ever asked

No.  Whataboutism is about something that actually existed, and someone says whatabout (eg) all the wars that the US started?  It's a challenge that changes the subject, without answering the problem.

What MD is asking is not 'what about', but 'what if'.  He is suggesting a hypothesis, not an event you can compare something to.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Its completely whaboutism, as do UCF fighters carry firearms into bouts?

No


There is also rules for pregnant women on eligibility within sport

Hence it was complete whataboutism. You cannot compare people emotionally charge entering into an altercation and compare that with sports body rules

In fact it was aboiut the most idiotic question ever asked

No.  Whataboutism is about something that actually existed, and someone says whatabout (eg) all the wars that the US started?  It's a challenge that changes the subject, without answering the problem.

What MD is asking not 'what about', but 'what if'.  He is suggesting a hypothesis, not an event you can compare something to.

No that is you making up your own understaning of whataboutism

And the hypoethsis is also irrelevant again based on the realitty again there is rules around eligilbility in sports with pregnant women

Its simple him deflecting from this actual case, with an irrelevant question

He also ignored every single point and question posed to him and thus is in no position to demand people answer his irrelevant questiuon

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No.  Whataboutism is about something that actually existed, and someone says whatabout (eg) all the wars that the US started?  It's a challenge that changes the subject, without answering the problem.

What MD is asking not 'what about', but 'what if'.  He is suggesting a hypothesis, not an event you can compare something to.

No that is you making up your own understaning of whataboutism

And the hypoethsis is also irrelevant again based on the realitty again there is rules around eligilbility in sports with pregnant women

Its simple him deflecting from this actual case, with an irrelevant idiotic question

He also ignored every single point and question posed to him and thus is in no position to demand people answer his irrelevant questiuon

Eligibility in sports? Who cares about sports? It was 'what if' and totally removed from any factual reality. 'What if' is a totally hypothetical issue. What if aliens taught us? What if Castro shot Kennedy? What if Churchill and Roosevelt engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor? Tell me that last is factual.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:


No that is you making up your own understaning of whataboutism

And the hypoethsis is also irrelevant again based on the realitty again there is rules around eligilbility in sports with pregnant women

Its simple him deflecting from this actual case, with an irrelevant idiotic question

He also ignored every single point and question posed to him and thus is in no position to demand people answer his irrelevant questiuon

Eligibility in sports?  Who cares about sports?  It was 'what if' and totally removed from any factual reality.  'What if' is a totally hypothetical issue.  What if aliens taught us?  What if Castro shot Kennedy?  What if Churchill and Roosevelt engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor?  Tell me that last is factual.  

The question was based on sports itself

The woman here in question in the article was shot by a gun, which could have also killed her as well. 

Its an irrelevant hypoethtical whataboutism question, that has absolutely no comparrison. As again sports have rules governing around pregnant women in sports

So I am all for hypoethtical questions that have relevance.

This had zero relevance

Even answring his question, the woman pregnant would not be at fault, as the punch that killed the fetus, was not by her, but by the opponent. Its as dumb as asking whether a pregnant women involved in a car crash, was responsible fo the loss of the fetus through miscarriage

phil wrote:The question was based on sports itself

It was in hypothetical form, so the setting is beside the point.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:The question was based on sports itself

It was in hypothetical form, so the setting is beside the point.

That was whataboutism, no matter how poorly you defend that

Its also a poor leading view generally held by dinosaur men, that generally hold women accountable for miscarriages

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I asked a question.  Want to answer it or spew ad hominems?

Its an irrelevant question, and whaboutism.

As since when did UCF fighters, now carry guns into the event?

The gun is irrelevant. What's relevant is that an unborn child died. Who is at fault?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Its an irrelevant question, and whaboutism.

As since when did UCF fighters, now carry guns into the event?

The gun is irrelevant.  What's relevant is that an unborn child died.  Who is at fault?

Already answered your question, read back and then go back and answer all my points

And whataboutism would be if I mentioned a specific case of something else happened.

I posed a hypothetical, that's never happened to my knowledge.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The gun is irrelevant.  What's relevant is that an unborn child died.  Who is at fault?

Already answered your question, read back and then go back and answer all my points

How about no?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eligibility in sports?  Who cares about sports?  It was 'what if' and totally removed from any factual reality.  'What if' is a totally hypothetical issue.  What if aliens taught us?  What if Castro shot Kennedy?  What if Churchill and Roosevelt engineered the attack on Pearl Harbor?  Tell me that last is factual.  

The question was based on sports itself

The woman here in question in the article was shot by a gun, which could have also killed her as well. 

Its an irrelevant hypoethtical whataboutism question, that has absolutely no comparrison. As again sports have rules governing around pregnant women in sports

So I am all for hypoethtical questions that have relevance.

This had zero relevance

Even answring his question, the woman pregnant would not be at fault, as the punch that killed the fetus, was not by her, but by the opponent. Its as dumb as asking whether a pregnant women involved in a car crash, was responsible fo the loss of the fetus through miscarriage

And if the woman was driving while intoxicated, without a seatbelt?

Maddog wrote:And whataboutism would be if I mentioned a specific case of something else happened.

I posed a hypothetical, that's never happened to my knowledge.  

A hypothetical dumb question which had no comparability to the actual case.

I mean you would never asked if a boxer was at fault for being killed in a professional fight would you?

So why would you ask who was responsible for the loss of an unborn child in an UFC fight

Its a typical antiquated and quite sexist stance often held by dinosaur men

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Already answered your question, read back and then go back and answer all my points

How about no?

So you deman people answer your points and questions and are too gutless to answer others

Score

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


The question was based on sports itself

The woman here in question in the article was shot by a gun, which could have also killed her as well. 

Its an irrelevant hypoethtical whataboutism question, that has absolutely no comparrison. As again sports have rules governing around pregnant women in sports

So I am all for hypoethtical questions that have relevance.

This had zero relevance

Even answring his question, the woman pregnant would not be at fault, as the punch that killed the fetus, was not by her, but by the opponent. Its as dumb as asking whether a pregnant women involved in a car crash, was responsible fo the loss of the fetus through miscarriage

And if the woman was driving while intoxicated, without a seatbelt?

Would be breaking the law around intoxication whilst driving. See how you try to move the goal posts again?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:And whataboutism would be if I mentioned a specific case of something else happened.

I posed a hypothetical, that's never happened to my knowledge.  

A hypothetical dumb question which had no comparability to the actual case.

I mean you would never asked if a boxer was at fault for being killed in a professional fight would you?

So why would you ask who was responsible for the loss of an unborn child in an UFC fight

Its a typical antiquated and quite sexist stance often held by dinosaur men

Because UFC fighting has inherent risks. Would a responsible woman enter the ring 5 months pregnant?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And if the woman was driving while intoxicated, without a seatbelt?

Would be breaking the law around intoxication whilst driving. See how you try to move the goal posts again?

So if you harm your fetus while breaking the law, you are responsible for harming your fetus?

Hence my point bringup accidents around driving and your point about a UFC fight. Is you basically suggesting that everytime a pregnant woman gets behind the wheel. To you would be resposible for the potential loss of an unborn child through an accident. That is the sentiment yoiu are driving to pose and is quite frankly really ignorant

phildidge wrote:Hence my point bringup accidents around driving and your point about a UFC fight. Is you basically suggesting that everytime a pregnant woman gets behind the wheel. To you would be resposible for the potential loss of an unborn child through an accident. That is the sentiment yoiu are driving to pose and is quite frankly really ignorant

No, I'm saying that women can be held responsible for harming their fetus if they are engaged in dangerous or illegal activities.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:Hence my point bringup accidents around driving and your point about a UFC fight. Is you basically suggesting that everytime a pregnant woman gets behind the wheel. To you would be resposible for the potential loss of an unborn child through an accident. That is the sentiment yoiu are driving to pose and is quite frankly really ignorant

No, I'm saying that women can be held responsible for harming their fetus if they are engaged in dangerous  or illegal activities.  

That is because you are quite dumb as seen. Like i said, driving a car can be potentially dangeroeus where people can end up in accidents. So your premise would be to blame every woman that has lost an unborn child and even born babies. By simple getting behind the wheel of a car and driving. Its a really dumb premise that you are holding

The laws are that different for children. If a woman were to take her child to a bank robbery and the child got killed while mom robbed the bank, who would be punished? Mom or the shooter?

Same as if mom was driving drunk. That's a serious crime if the child is hurt. If mom falls a sleep at the wheel and kills a child, no crime has been committed.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, I'm saying that women can be held responsible for harming their fetus if they are engaged in dangerous  or illegal activities.  

That is because you are quite dumb as seen. Like i said, driving a car can be potentially dangeroeus where people can end up in accidents. So your premise would be to blame every woman that has lost an unborn child and even born babies. By simple getting behind the wheel of a car and driving. Its a really dumb premise that you are holding

Driving a car is not a crime.

Maddog wrote:The laws are that different for children. If a woman were to take her child to a bank robbery and the child got killed while mom robbed the bank, who would be punished? Mom or the shooter?

Same as if mom was driving drunk. That's a serious  crime if the child is hurt. If mom falls a sleep at the wheel and kills a child, no crime  has been committed.  

This is getting embarressing now and you are still failing to efen understand what you are proposing.

Your view based around the potential for harm. Would place every single parent at fault, that lost a child in an aaccident. Simple by getting behind the wheels of a car. Do you understand that, by you invoking a woman pregnant involved in the loss of an unborn child in a UFC fight?

Have you fucking grapsed this yet?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

That is because you are quite dumb as seen. Like i said, driving a car can be potentially dangeroeus where people can end up in accidents. So your premise would be to blame every woman that has lost an unborn child and even born babies. By simple getting behind the wheel of a car and driving. Its a really dumb premise that you are holding

Driving a car is not a crime.  

It is if you are underage and do not have a licence, tax etc

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So what?  The judge made it an issue, and the jury was informed and considered it.

Raggamuffin has a long history on here of defending murderers, and other nasties, and even putting up false excuses in defending her position...

I wonder why  ?

I haven't defended a murderer as he was acquitted - it was self defence. Besides, pointing out a fact isn't defending anyone.

I wonder why you can't debate a subject properly - too stupid?

Maddog wrote:Let's say a 5 month  pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated  blows to the stomach, she loses the child.  

Who's at fault?

Good question. If you start a fight should you not expect the other person to defend themselves? In a country where people can carry guns, one should be able to predict that it might not end well.