Killing in the name of Jesus is not murder..

There was no evidence she self aborted. At all. There is plenty of evidence that she miscarried. Hence my comparison. I am sorry if that bothers you. But that is what it is.

I am curious, however. Is killing or allowing someone to die in the name of one's faith or religious belief acceptable? Is it moral? As an atheist, I find it deeply immoral. Yet there are theists who believe that his is moral and acceptable, because God and Jesus trump all, including life saving medical care, even if it means sitting there and watching a little girl die from choking on a banana for nearly an hour and doing nothing at all to help her but to pray.

 

For someone who claims to not like it when people say things that are factually wrong, I am surprised you aren't twisting yourself into a pretzel at the fact that the prosecutor was able to charge and get a guilty verdict against one person with two charges that conflict each other in every way imaginable. Surely you are not suggesting that you think it is "factually" correct that she killed her child in her uterus by way of a self-abortion, and that she then later killed it when she abandoned it after it was born? Please explain the factual correctness (or possibility) of how a child was killed twice, once in her uterus and once it was born.

Can't you see the hypocrisy highlighted by these two cases?

How is killing a child two separate issues?

The prosecutor in Indiana has treated the foetus as a child and charged the mother of having killed it in two different ways and got a guilty plea for both.

The prosecutor in Texas is not charging someone with murder for having starved a child to death.

Both are classified as a "person". Why has only one been charged after personhood was applied and why has the other not been charged after having killed a 2 year old person?

One was charged with murder for killing her child in her uterus and then killing it when it was born, despite no evidence that this occurred. The other was charged with what they deemed to be child abuse, which resulted in a child dying after starving him to death over a period of 25 days, with evidence that it occurred and she also video taped herself with the child she had killed, not to mention there was eyewitnesses to the whole starving and dying process the child went through. Both involve a child dying. Yet only one was charged with having killed a child and the other who also killed a child, was not charged with having killed that child.

This thread is to ask why one was charged and the other not charged? Why does one matter more than the other?

My comment about the case in Indiana was to highlight the hypocrisy. I do apologise if that bothers you.