Last week I reported on preborn twins who were killed during an IN bank robbery. Their mother, Katherin Shuffield, is pictured right with their father Jason.

News reports indicated the gunman (not yet caught) could not be charged with murder because the babies weren't viable, as IN law stipulates. I questioned this, since the doctors decided to deliver the babies, meaning they thought the babies stood a better chance of surviving outside their mother's uterus than inside... meaning they were potentially viable.

Mike Fichter, president of IN Right to Life, has emailed details...

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a wrongful death suit cannot be brought for killing an unborn child, regardless of whether the baby is viable. This was in the wake of a drunk driving accident a few years back when a nearly full-term baby died.

Indiana law also does not define "viability" in reference to its fetal homicide or manslaughter laws. We believe we have identified a murder case in which the courts accepted viability as being 24 weeks.

It appears that fetal battery charges may be the only charges that can be brought.

Several legislators have worked throughout the last two years to correct these problems, but the core issue in Indiana is that our Democrat-controlled House kills every pro-life bill that it gets.

So while the babies died, IN law apparently will not support charging their killer with killing them, only hurting them.

WTHR is reporting today the tragedy has prompted legislative action:

Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi wants to expand fetal homicide laws to increase the penalties for the death of a fetus that may not have been viable outside the womb.

Brizzi's proposal was prompted by last week's bank robbery in which a pregnant teller was shot and wounded. Teller Katherin Shuffield was five months pregnant when the twins she was carrying died.

Under current law, the twins were not considered viable, so the person who shot her could not face a murder charge.

Currently the way Indiana's fetal homicide law is written, the man who shot Shuffield could face as little as two years for the deaths of her unborn twins....

[T]he change would remove a condition that the fetus be viable, or be able to live outside the mother's womb. Brizzi said, "If somebody takes the life of an unborn child, they should be charged with murder, period."

If the law is changed the murder of an unborn fetus could carry a penalty of 45 to 65 years in prison. Currently Indiana is among 35 states with fetal homicide laws but not among the 18 states that allow strong penalties for killing an unborn child of any age.

This goes beyond the pale. This is appalling, This is beyond outragous. Where is the Indiana citizenry outrage over this?

Government that does not protect the most vulnerable in society stand judged.

If this guy had killed puppies, which I think anyone would argue are of infintely less value than unborn humans, liberal pro-abort types would heve been in a panty twist.

Where's the utter and forceful outrage over this?

It is obvious that the liberal mindset is biased towards maintaining their power base against doing what is right.

What the mother must be thinking now.

If she was pro-choice, do you think she will remain that way after something like this?

That is beyond sick. As someone currently waiting the arrival of our youngest child to the extrauterine world, I am horrified!
I was taught, (granted I never fully researched it, and took the work of my teacher) that it is during pregnancy that a woman is most likely to have violence against her.
It makes me cringe to think that getting shot in the abdomen and killing my very viable child does not carry murder charges. How on earth does that reduce violence towards women?

Is the mother doing ok physically? Still in the hospital?
I have a feeling the citizens of Indiana will soon rise up and do the right thing.

You think this is bad, in Canada we have NO laws in place to protect an unborn child if he/she is injured or killed during some kind of violence. There is a bill before our House of Commons but the proaborts are SCREAMING bloody murder stating that this will make abortion illegal because it will mean an unborn baby is a "person". Apparently, we don't have unborn persons in our country.
Read it and weep.

It is obvious that the liberal mindset is biased towards maintaining their power base against doing what is right.

Posted by: HisMan at April 30, 2008 3:00 PM

This is EXACTLY the proabort mentality in Canada. It doesn't matter that the killers go free as long as the sacrosanct right to abort is preserved at all costs.

the proaborts are SCREAMING bloody murder
********
Huh, interesting choice of words. If only they would realize that's exactly what it is.

I think there's an easy way around this. Make the charges for feticide the same as murder, then make sure abortion doesn't fall under the category of feticide.

Justice is served and reproductive rights are preserved.

so what WOULD abortion then be Edyt - since abortion involves the deliberate murder of the child by its mother?
Just abortion????

What the mother must be thinking now.

If she was pro-choice, do you think she will remain that way after something like this?

Posted by: carder at April 30, 2008 3:15 PM
*******************
You obviously dont have a clue what being pro choice means.

Justice is served - by abortion? and reproductive rights are preserved - they are already preserved - no one forces a woman to get pregnant (exclude rape) she makes that choice when she gets into bed with the guy...
Your statement is a little wonky, me thinks.

Yeah TR: prochoice means being able to choose the convenience of death for your baby...

Umm, Patricia, do try to follow along.

Pro-choicers are concerned that making feticide (the intentional killing of a fetus by someone other than its mother in a procedure other than medical abortion) would guarantee personhood rights to the unborn.

Pro-lifers are concerned that justice isn't being served because the fetus isn't seen as a person.

Therefore, raise the sentences and ensure the definition of feticide is like the one I provided above. Then, the fetus still does not have personhood rights, but the murder of one can result in a sentence that parallels the murder of a human being.

I was the lobbyist at the time for Indiana Right to Life when the original bill was filed. We wanted to have mothers and unborn children like Laci and Conner Peterson protected throughout pregnancy but abortion advocates refused to give them protection and justice before viability.

Also, a correction to the WTHR story quoted.... There are 36 states with these kinds of laws (not 35) and 16 of them (not 18) protect throughout pregnancy.

See http://www.lifenews.com/state3182.html for more on this story.

Edyt,
Neither side of a debate can or should be allowed to change, twist or distort the definitions of words.

I could say that murder is the intentional killing of a person by someone other than its parent in a procedure other than drowning, but that doesn't make it so.

From the online medical dictionary, feticide -- Destruction of the embryo or foetus in the uterus.

Another example of how pro-aborts are willing to throw women and their babies under the bus to protect their "rights"

**************************
You obviously dont have a clue what being pro choice means.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 3:34 PM
TR,
I met and spoke with a pro-choice woman who miscarried. She felt emotionally devestated by her loss, but totally confused as to why. It surprised her that she would feel this way. She has been taught by society that what she miscarried was a "nothing". She had to deeply question her position.

Why is it that we are having such a difficult time passing a fetal disposition law??

You would think being pro-choice would automatically make you a supporter of womens' rights decide how to bury their baby. Think again. They fought our bill and it died in committee.

Another fine example of the "pro-choice" hypocrisy.

Edyt: your definition of "feticide" is outrageous, irrational and plain SICK!
Sorry dear, but to define "feticide" as "the intentional killing of a fetus by someone other than its mother in a procedure other than medical abortion" is really creepy.
So if a mother stabs herself in the abdomen and kills her child, she shouldn't be charged?

Pro-lifers are concerned that justice isn't being served because the fetus isn't seen as a person.

Therefore, raise the sentences and ensure the definition of feticide is like the one I provided above. Then, the fetus still does not have personhood rights, but the murder of one can result in a sentence that parallels the murder of a human being.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 3:42 PM

Except Edyt, I, along with most other prolifers believe that the unborn baby IS a human person deserving of full protection of the law. Therefore, your logic doesn't follow. A fetus can't be a person sometimes and not at other times. Case law doesn't work like this.

Patricia, so as not to distract from the point, Edyt said "in a procedure other than medical abortion." As stabbing oneself with a knife would not be considered a medical procedure, I would think by Edyt's logic that it would be considered fetacide. See it's only not fetacide if the mother wants it and it is performed as a medical procedure.

Of course on rereading the proposed definition I realize it could be read that the mother would have to perform said medical abortion on herself. It depends on whether it is the intention or the actual killing that is being ascribed to the mother. Perhaps she might add a clause protecting the medical practioner as well.

Still Elizabeth, the wording is not correct because it allows for exclusion of mothers and who's to say that the knife stabbing was not an attempt at an abortion procedure. What if she took a drug or stuck something up inside herself (knitting needle). What defines "abortion procedure"? What about the age of the baby?
A law like this would not work because you cannot have an unborn baby declared a person in one circumstance and then have it be a nonperson in another.
However, given the irrational and confused state of our society and its laws today, it wouldn't surprise me if a law like this was passed.

Well, as long as we're making up definitions, she could make up any definition for abortion procedure she so chooses. That's why we need to use the standard, accepted definitions of words as can be easily referenced by reliable sources.

I totally agree, rape, murder, pediphilla, theft are not dependent on who the perpetrator is. A rape victim doesn't become a non-victim if the perpetrator is her husband. A victim of feticide doesn't become a non-victim if the perpetrator is his or her mother.

so what WOULD abortion then be Edyt - since abortion involves the deliberate murder of the child by its mother?
Just abortion????

Posted by: Patricia at April 30, 2008 3:34 PM

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE, of course. Sheesh!:(

This goes beyond the pale. This is appalling, This is beyond outragous. Where is the Indiana citizenry outrage over this?

Government that does not protect the most vulnerable in society stand judged.

If this guy had killed puppies, which I think anyone would argue are of infintely less value than unborn humans, liberal pro-abort types would heve been in a panty twist.

Where's the utter and forceful outrage over this?

It is obvious that the liberal mindset is biased towards maintaining their power base against doing what is right.

Posted by: HisMan at April 30, 2008 3:00 PM

I don't know, HisMan, this seems just as much like a Biblical mindset as a "liberal" one. How else do you explain Leviticus 27:3-7 and Exodus 21:22-25?

Well, as long as we're making up definitions, she could make up any definition for abortion procedure she so chooses. That's why we need to use the standard, accepted definitions of words as can be easily referenced by reliable sources.

I totally agree, rape, murder, pediphilla, theft are not dependent on who the perpetrator is. A rape victim doesn't become a non-victim if the perpetrator is her husband. A victim of feticide doesn't become a non-victim if the perpetrator is his or her mother.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 30, 2008 4:30 PM

The beauty of abortion law is its fluidity.

Last week I reported on preborn twins who were killed during an IN bank robbery. Their mother, Katherin Shuffield, is pictured right with their father Jason.

News reports indicated the gunman (not yet caught) could not be charged with murder because the babies weren't viable, as IN law stipulates. I questioned this, since the doctors decided to deliver the babies, meaning they thought the babies stood a better chance of surviving outside their mother's uterus than inside... meaning they were potentially viable.
............................................

First you state that the twins were killed during the robbery then you state that they died due to premature removal from the woman.
Quite a contradiction.
Then you pretend to know the motivation of the premature delivery. Of course it would never occur to you that continuing the pregnancy may have cost the woman her life. Because that never happens. @@ In your world the woman is of no consequence. Explains why you were fired from nursing.

Of course the robber can't be charged with murder. He didn't kill anyone. The woman is still alive. The doctors killed the twins with their premature removal form the critically wounded woman. Obviously the twins were not their primary concern. I'm sure that pisses you off. An abortion for 'convenience' is what took place. @@
Come on you PL folks. Let's hear all about how terminating a pregnancy is never necessary to save a woman's life.

Eliz G: In case you don't know...I'm being facetious.

Of course the robber can't be charged with murder. He didn't kill anyone. The woman is still alive. The doctors killed the twins with their premature removal form the critically wounded woman.

*********

First, you are assuming the doctors removed the twins to try and save the woman as opposed to trying to save the twins themselves.

Second, say the doctors had to remove some of the woman's organs. If she had died during surgery would you have said the doctors killed her instead of the robber which necessitated the removal of the organs?

Janet: I figured, but thanks for clarifying in case.

Janet: yeah whatever was I thinking.
Slap me one good!
Of course, the fluid abortion law - it can be whatever proaborts need it to be.

Sally do you specialize in just being plain MEAN? Or are you just NASTY all the time.

Of course the robber should be charged, without having been shot in the STOMACH (just happens this is near the womb)she would likely not have had to have surgery nor would her twins have been delivered prematurely. His actions resulted in their deaths.
In Canada this is called manslaughter.

Sally, you don't know any better than anyone else what transpired. It is really irrelevant whether the twins were removed to save her life or theirs. The fact is that the surgery was the RESULT of the robber shooting her. His actions led to the deaths of the babies. He should be charged. Actions have consequences you know. Oh I forgot, you don't believe in that - you believe in abortion. Duh? What was I thinking.

Janet: yeah whatever was I thinking.
Slap me one good!
Of course, the fluid abortion law - it can be whatever proaborts need it to be.

Sally do you specialize in just being plain MEAN? Or are you just NASTY all the time.

Of course the robber should be charged, without having been shot in the STOMACH (just happens this is near the womb)she would likely not have had to have surgery nor would her twins have been delivered prematurely. His actions resulted in their deaths.
In Canada this is called manslaughter.

Sally, you don't know any better than anyone else what transpired. It is really irrelevant whether the twins were removed to save her life or theirs. The fact is that the surgery was the RESULT of the robber shooting her. His actions led to the deaths of the babies. He should be charged. Actions have consequences you know. Oh I forgot, you don't believe in that - you believe in abortion. Duh? What was I thinking.

Posted by: Patricia at April 30, 2008 5:35 PM
.........................................

So you understand that there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. I guess that's a start.
And it is relevant that the woman's pregnancy was ended to save her life. It is quite relevant to the woman involved. Oh I forget! Women's lives are of no importance to you. Duh! What was I thinking?

Sally, Duh! Again!
Manslaughter is still the KILLING of a human being. In this case, depending upon the statements of witnesses he could be charged with murder if he deliberately AIMED his gun at her abdomen.It depends upon his intent.
Once again another proabort in MAJOR denial. The surgery and delivery were a consequence of the robbers actions. WHAT part of this don't you understand, honey? He has to be held accountable for his actions which caused the deaths of two unborn children and injured the mother. What part of THAT don't you understand.
It's absolutely NOT irrelevant that a woman was involved and I never said that-- you imputed that to me! He should be charged with attempted murder and 2 counts of murder. PERIOD. Three lives were endangered and 2 people died because of his actions. YOu can't admit this because if the unborn are persons than what does that make all of you who support "choice". It makes you no better than the robber - murderers also.

Edyt,

but the murder of one can result in a sentence that parallels the murder of a human being.

As opposed to the murder of what? A slug? A toothpick? I have always been under the impression that murdering a fetus IS murdering a human being. My understanding is that there is no problem murdering a human being as long as it is in the womb?

Edyt:

What you are speaking of is moral realtivism at its evilest.

You can't have it both ways.

Making it punishable to kill a fetus by anyone other than the mother.

Pick and choose morality.

MK, I'm sorry I have to explain this so many times. Yes, fetuses are human beings. But what I am talking about is the legal definition of personhood. So therefore if fetii are not legally defined as persons with legal rights the same as a born person then the legal definition of what constitutes murder or manslaughter would also be different because it's not the murder of a legal person.

Let me know if you understand this.

So my solution is to make the murder/manslaughter charges for a fetus the same as a born person. It doesn't establish personhood (which is what pro-choicers are worried about) and it ensures that the criminal is punished the same as he/she would for murdering a born person (which is what pro-lifers are worried about).

And then I added in the clause about how we would change our definition of legal feticide so that it does not include medical abortion chosen by the mother, so that reproductive rights are still intact.

HisMan, I'm not arguing morality, I'm arguing legal terms based on our existing laws and a solution so that this woman feels justice has been done.

MK, I'm sorry I have to explain this so many times. Yes, fetuses are human beings. But what I am talking about is the legal definition of personhood. So therefore if fetii are not legally defined as persons with legal rights the same as a born person then the legal definition of what constitutes murder or manslaughter would also be different because it's not the murder of a legal person.

Dayum... Better check Edyt's IP address hee hee hee.

Right on, Edyt, and I agree that for wanted pregnancies it should be feticide as you say.

Regarding the comment about the Indiana legislature by Mike Fichter:
I had been requested to drag myself from the third shift to the first shift and speak to the Indiana senate health committee on a prolife piece of legislation. There were five maniacally committed pro -aborts present in that committee, that day. The experience of watching the sponsor of the prolife bill, pretending not to know the purpose of the bill, in order to get it passed, was surreal.

The American Life League map of planned parenthood locations comes to my mind. There's an amazing concentration of them in Indianapolis, which is astonishing for a midwestern state.

In Indiana, many of the democrats (at the local level) are much more conservative than the republicans. This disappears at the national level, of course, since prolife candidates are de-funded by the Democrat party at that career stage.

Of course the death of the unborn twins
was a terrible tragedy.But charging the bank-
robber with murder won't do anything
positive.I'm not defending him,but he may not
have seen the woman's whole body from where
he was,and may not have known she was pregnant.
In that case,he might not have shot her.
Life imprisonment would be good for him.

So my solution is to make the murder/manslaughter charges for a fetus the same as a born person. It doesn't establish personhood (which is what pro-choicers are worried about) and it ensures that the criminal is punished the same as he/she would for murdering a born person (which is what pro-lifers are worried about).

It amazes me that you think this is really a solution.

How can the child go from being worthy of protection in one instance to being unworthy depending on who the perpetrator is? It's insanity.

Hisman 7:28, I agree.

I don't know, Robert. He shot the teller with the intent to cause her death, so even if he didn't mean to kill the twins, he's guilty of intent. Intent is one of the basic necessities for a murder charge, and while he may not have killed his original target, his intent resulted in two more deaths. I believe this is grounds for a murder charge. Another way of looking at it would be to examine the extenuating circumstances...a person can get a charge for murder if he/she causes a death while committing another crime. Obviously, him robbing a bank and violently assaulting the teller are crimes, and these crimes resulted in the twins dying. Another grounds for murder.

Good point, Lyssie!

How can the child go from being worthy of protection in one instance to being unworthy depending on who the perpetrator is?

Bethany, I know you're not really good at listening when other people talk, so listen really hard this time.

I'm talking about legal matters, okay? Legal definitions. Now when the adults bring up issues of morality, I'll be sure to let you know. But right now I'm talking about laws and compromising to make both pro-lifers and pro-choicers happy.

And you know, pro-lifers make snippy comments about pro-choicers fighting the wording of certain laws, but we know that even when solutions such as mine are offered up you won't take it. Why? Well, because you want to inch away reproductive rights. Thankfully our legislators know that.

Would it make any difference to anyone who is PC if this woman was your best friend?? If you had watched her decorate the nursery and be elated at being a mom? Wouldn't you want this man to pay for the killing of your best friend's babies?

Bethany, I know you're not really good at listening when other people talk, so listen really hard this time.
I'm talking about legal matters, okay? Legal definitions. Now when the adults bring up issues of morality, I'll be sure to let you know. But right now I'm talking about laws and compromising to make both pro-lifers and pro-choicers happy.
And you know, pro-lifers make snippy comments about pro-choicers fighting the wording of certain laws, but we know that even when solutions such as mine are offered up you won't take it. Why? Well, because you want to inch away reproductive rights. Thankfully our legislators know that.

Edyt, I am well aware that you are speaking of legal issues. In my opinion, however, laws should make sense.

Maybe this has been said already earlier, but we need to remember that this is more than a story, this
happened to a real Mom and Dad who are suffering tremendously because of this horrible tragedy.
We will eventually come to know the truth about what happened, but in the meantime, they need all of our thoughts and prayers. For the mother, Katherin Shuffield, and the father Jason and their families:

Our Father, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Edyt posted "So my solution is to make the murder/manslaughter charges for a fetus the same as a born person. It doesn't establish personhood (which is what pro-choicers are worried about)"

Edyt your solution would not hold up in court. You cannot charge someone for the murder of a nonperson. What are you murdering? We don't charge people for the murder of animals. We charge them with cruelty to animals, recognizing that animals are different than (and different) people.

It's on a person if the pregnancy is wanted. Why am I not surprised that you support this Doug!? Personhood based on "wantedness". How will you feel if your children decide that when you are 73 years old, they no longer "want" you and decide to euthanize you? Will you still agree with their "choice"?

Patricia: Why am I not surprised that you support this Doug!?

Because Edyt is smart and I agree with her on this. She is looking for a good solution more acceptable to both sides. No, it does not grant full personhood to the unborn, (which makes it more acceptable to vast numbers of people, and the unborn aren't accorded that as it is), but it does address concerns which people on both sides of the abortion debate have mentioned.
.....

Personhood based on "wantedness".

No, she specifically said it wouldn't establish personhood. And it need not, either - increased penalties would please many on both sides of the usual argument here, as above.
......

How will you feel if your children decide that when you are 73 years old, they no longer "want" you and decide to euthanize you? Will you still agree with their "choice"?

Well, you've switched around 180 degrees now. Edyt was talking about wanted pregnancies. For your example, if you figure I'm going to be inside the body of a person then it could be an issue.

I'm not defending him, but he may not have seen the woman's whole body from where he was, and may not have known she was pregnant.

Robert, it gets into some interesting areas. IMO it doesn't really matter all that much.

He used deadly weapons in the commission of a bank robbery, and even if his shot hadn't hit anybody at all, I don't think the penalty should be less.

Edyt's suggestion doesn't address MY concerns at all. I believe an unborn baby is fully human and therefore fully a person. As such he/she deserves the full protection of the law. No pro lifer would ever consider this law workable or reasonable. There are no compromises between your desire to kill children and my desire to protect them.

Case law does not work in the manner Edyt is suggesting. You can't charge a person with the murder of a nonperson. Our laws are based upon thousands of years of philosophy. They aren't just made up out of people's heads (like yours and Edyt's) because someone had a rush to brains. These laws are based on philosophical reasoning going back to Aristotle. By implementing Edyt's law, personhood would have to be assigned to the unborn child. Our traditon of law doesn't allow for the charging of murder of a nonperson. (This is irrational, once again ). Of course, PETA might like this idea.

Whether you will admit to it or not, you and Edyt have set up a definition of personhood. It excludes unborn babies. The reason for this is based on "wantedness". If a woman wants the baby its a baby. If the woman doesn't want the baby, it's a fetus, blob of tissue, a nonperson.

The unborn baby's location is irrelevant. Just as you sitting in a bed, unable to move, speak, wasting money while being on a respirator, in a coma is irrelevant. You are still a person (though I might be tempted to pull the plug on you Doug).

I've got to go to orchestra. Sorry guys. Toodles.

Oh, surely you don't believe we can't change a definition? We've done that plenty of times!

The crime is killing human life. The penalty is equal to that of a born person. However, the fetus does not retain personhood rights.

And it's not a murder, it's feticide.

"And it's not a murder, it's feticide."

is that like insecticide? does it make you feel better by using clever language to defend legalized killing of unborn children. Do you feel good?

http://www.prolifetraining.com/AbortionPictures/22-Weeks.htm

Does it make you feel good to put down black people, Jasper? Or women? Is that why you do it? Because it makes you feel like you're better than them?

Does it make you feel good to put down black people, Jasper? Or women? Is that why you do it? Because it makes you feel like you're better than them?

What are you talking about, Edyt?

Jasper: That picture is shocking. Let us pray for all women who have suffered after abortion, that their hearts may be healed. God bless.

Pregnant women are a real target these days. Maybe if some people were severely punished for harming a pregnant mother, and killing her fetus in the course of committing a crime, fewer people would target pregnant women. With this thought in mind, maybe that bank robber should get the max, like two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

Patricia: Whether you will admit to it or not, you and Edyt have set up a definition of personhood.

Wrong. We are talking about legal penalties. Personhood was not attributed to the unborn when abortion was illegal in the US, but the penalties were still on the books. Likewise, the penalties for killing a fetus, such as in this bank robbery case, could be increased.
......

It excludes unborn babies.

No it doesn't. There is the societal attribution of personhood, sure, but that is not what Edyt is talking about. Personally, I think personhood comes with personality, sentience, awareness, etc., and for most fetuses that's before birth. There is a mind there, then, there is "somebody" there. My opinion, and again that's not what Edyt was talking about either. She was talking about including more of the unborn under the stiffer-penalites laws.
......

The reason for this is based on "wantedness". If a woman wants the baby its a baby. If the woman doesn't want the baby, it's a fetus, blob of tissue, a nonperson.

Nope - you're just making stuff up again. "Baby" or not is subjective and if you want to say "unborn baby" that's fine with me - doesn't matter whether it's wanted or not.
......

The unborn baby's location is irrelevant. Just as you sitting in a bed, unable to move, speak, wasting money while being on a respirator, in a coma is irrelevant. You are still a person (though I might be tempted to pull the plug on you Doug).

If I would go into a permanent vegetative state then I don't want for my body to be kept alive. What would be the point of that?

Location makes a huge difference. That is why abortion is a big issue.

This goes beyond the pale. This is appalling, This is beyond outragous. Where is the Indiana citizenry outrage over this?

Actually there has been a lot of outrage voiced about by citizens in the Indianapolis Star, the newspaper over the last couple of weeks. And a lot of people are demanding justice and for the law to be changed to include unborn babies of all ages in the instance of premeditated homucide, however lawmakers are a bit squimish of the issue getting tangled in the abortion debate.

BTW, finally saw Juno last night. Hubby and I both enjoyed the movie and he liked the music.

HisMan said: This goes beyond the pale. This is appalling, This is beyond outragous. Where is the Indiana citizenry outrage over this?

Rachael said: Actually there has been a lot of outrage voiced about by citizens in the Indianapolis Star, the newspaper over the last couple of weeks. And a lot of people are demanding justice and for the law to be changed to include unborn babies of all ages in the instance of premeditated homucide, however lawmakers are a bit squimish of the issue getting tangled in the abortion debate.

This would be a perfect cause for the various Pro-life groups at the Indiana Universities and high schools to rally around!

ignoring TR today......

Old Word: Soup Ladle
New Word: Dessert Spoon

Wow…this really is easy!

Hooves:???? what am I missing??

I was just demonstrating how easy it is to redefine something when it suits you to make it into something else. I like dessert. Dessert spoons are too small. Soup ladles are big. Big spoons are good for dessert. So I took my soup ladle and renamed it "Dessert Spoon". Now I'm happy because I have a really big dessert spoon instantly with no guilt and no embarrassment. Now then, when you redefine something you must also defend your new definition. Therefore, if you try to reel me back into YOUR reality (which I reject) by telling me I’m eating my dessert with a soup ladle I will call you a dessert heretic and have you carted off to sensitivity training.

Do not infringe on my dessert rights you narrow minded control freak.

Keep your definitions off my dessert.

If you tell me I’m wrong to eat my dessert with my dessert spoon you are a bigot.

And Hisman better not even try to throw his bible at me. I know for a FACT there is nothing in Leviticus about ice cream….

Hooves, good call! More dessert for everyone!

If you tell me I’m wrong to eat my dessert with my dessert spoon you are a bigot.

Yee-HAA. Hooves, you're damn skippy!

I know for a FACT there is nothing in Leviticus about ice cream….

What about that part that goes, :Verily, I say unto you, if one part begats goodness, then ten parts begats greatness."?

Hooves, good analogy.