Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Godfollower said:
In Maryland, the statute of limitations for sexual assault at the time was one year. In fact, in the 1980s even the statute of limitations for attempted rape was only one year. He is facing zero criminal liability, and the Maryland State police have announced that they are not investigating him. So none of that is at issue.
Click to expand...
But now, there are no statute of limitations in Maryland. She could file a charge there now. And if she files a charge, Maryland police will investigate. The Maryland State Police have only indicated that they will not investigate on their own. At least not at this time, with no evidence and without her filing a police report.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
But now, there are no statute of limitations in Maryland. She could file a charge there now. And if she files a charge, Maryland police will investigate. The Maryland State Police have only indicated that they will not investigate on their own. At least not at this time, with no evidence and without her filing a police report.
Click to expand...
No. In criminal cases, the statute of limitations cannot be changed retroactively. This is fundamental constitutional law; the statute ran in the 1980s, so it’s done. He cannot now be charged — which is why there will not be a state-level investigation.
 
Godfollower said:
40.png
Theo2:
Fact not in evidence. She could have been promised something.
Click to expand...
Which an investigation would check out. Yet he didn’t demand one. Why not?
Click to expand...
Well… as an innocent man, if I truly believed that there is a conspiracy to do anything possible to keep me off the Supreme Court, I would be afraid to volunteer for a criminal investigation when I’m not sure if the investigators would be fellow conspirators
 
Investigation wouldn’t lead to any charge but it would show whether he was lying under oath
 
jtwp5 said:
Still doesn’t change the fact that abortion ends an innocent human life.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it ought to be legal. I’m saying that the evidence shows that passing a law against it is insufficient to stop it.

As far as Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, it ought to be handled just the same regardless of whether the nominee seems conservative or something else. This is a matter of character, and character is very important, but it should take more than the word of witnesses without corroborating evidence to ruin someone’s reputation and deep-six a nomination to the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
We’re basically depending on big government to stop abortion in the US – big intrusive government, forcing the views of a minority. It’s got to be done but it’s probably a judgment on us that it’s come to this.
 
LordOfTheDance said:
We’re basically depending on big government to stop abortion in the US – big intrusive government, forcing the views of a minority. It’s got to be done but it’s probably a judgment on us that it’s come to this.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that we should just give up recognition of the true worth and rights of the unborn as a lost cause just yet, though.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Why not back a clean candidate that supports your agenda rather than someone who is tainted like this?
Click to expand...
Because it sets a precedence of using sexual assault allegations as a effective way to remove political rivals.
Inquisitor85 said:
Maybe if the pro-birth lobby
Click to expand...
If a women sleeps around without protection, I, the tax payer, shouldn’t be obligated by the State to provide her financial support, her poor planing doesn’t give her the right to murder a child.
EricF said:
Despite what they tell you, conservative politicians have no intention of ending it.
Click to expand...
Well it is a voluntary Holocaust of our political foes, every abortion is one less Democrat voter if you have a Machiavelli streak you might be in favor of abortion.
 
Last edited:
Inquisitor85 said:
Surely someone in this position should be beyond reproach.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely NO evidence for her accusations, NONE. Not even the witnesses that SHE named, including her long time friend, is backing her up. This has been demonic. The Democrats are brutally trying to destroy a man’s life, along with his family’s lives… WHY?
 
TheNoseKnows said:
If a women sleeps around without protection, I, the tax payer, shouldn’t be obligated by the State to provide her financial support, her poor planing doesn’t give her the right to murder a child.
Click to expand...
There it is, you are pro-birth not pro-life. If you were pro-life the life of the child that results would absolutely be your concern. Not for you though, once the child’s born to a woman that clearly doesn’t want a child it’s entirely her responsibility. What do you think would happen to the child at that point?
 
Are you pro life and pro support of women with unwanted pregnancies yourself?
 
I’m pro the life of the woman, and I’d happily pay more taxes to provide both the health service and children’s services with the means to do their job effectively.
 
So you’re pro allowing the killing of unborn babies and supporting women who give birth. Wonder why you think you have a ground to criticise those who support one and not the other too?

I am pro life and I support social support systems. I find both your positions problematic but think yours is much worse since at least she’s not interested in allowing people to kill women with children they cannot care for. .
 
Because from personal experience with my son, history tends to repeat. Preventing unwanted pregnancies and terminating them when they do occur is one way of breaking the cycle. The other is to provide adequate support for those that do carry a pregnancy to term, including provisions being put in place for the care of both child and birth mother.

In an ideal world abortion would be a non-issue, and there would be no need for children’s services, until we can reach that goal as a society I think it’s better to have options.
 
A solution to breaking any cycle cannot be killing vulnerable human beings. It may be convenient, but it’s no more moral than killing 2 month old babies or todlers because you’re poor.
 
Ah, now we’re getting to the core of the matter. I disagree with the idea that a foetus at 2 months gestation is the same as a 2 month old child.
 
Why? They are both developing human beings. What’s the difference between a baby in a 9 month pregnancy and one born one month ago?
 
The fact that it’s not in utero would be the thing for me, the fact that it’s independent of its mother body is for me the cut off.
 
Ok, gotcha. The ‘woman’s body’ argument. So you acknowledge it’s fully human but not independent. So you’re ok with abortion at 9 months then. At least it’s a consistent position. An immoral one, sure, but not illogical.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top