Can you please stop with the wall of replies?
A thread on the Hannity message boards entirely deflected to the same endless and pointless debate on abortion?
What is this, 2007?
Nah, you would have to encourage someone to get an abortion before your pro-abort. I just won’t deny anyone that choice in the first trimester. That said, I am fine with my position on the issue and if you need to call me “pro-abort” knock yourself out.
so you don’t support welfare for 15 year old mothers?
How many million children were ripped apart in the womb since then?
So you do think that the State should deny a 15 year old rape victim a termination of her pregnancy.
How many poor threads on this message board were needlessly killed by the same old vapid and emotional deflection?
Think of the threads.
Personally, I don’t. I’m not even sure if a 15 year old qualifies for welfare.
Not the business of the state
Back to the topic at hand. Should the rapist be set free because he can’t afford the bail?
Why should a rapist who can afford bail be set free?
Should be or is?
This is the crux of the argument. Two men both accused of rape. One is wealthy and one is poor. Either they should both be held until trial or neither should be held until they are convicted. One or the other. Not one justice system for the rich and one for the poor.
If bail is granted - then yes. Absolutely.
If the position of the court on whether the person should be released or not is based only on whether they can afford to pay, then they should be released.
This is what innocent until proven guilty means.
Both get a trial. Both are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
True, but if facts are the same money should not determine whether you are free until your trial date or in jail until your trial date.
And one gets to wait for his trial at home, and the other gets to wait in jail.
That’s the point.
Facts aren’t the same. Ergo, bail is based upon the prosecutor, defense attorney and the judge in the case.
No, it really isn’t the point.