# Fetal Homicide Laws are...



## Chuz Life (Jun 29, 2017)

Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 29, 2017)

SSDD

Same
Spam
Different
Day


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 29, 2017)

If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons cow why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 29, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SSDD
> 
> Same
> Spam
> ...



I'm thinking I  might just respond to every new thread from you or by any other opponent like this from now on.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 29, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons *for* why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.



Cow? LoL!

Correction made.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons cow why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.


Doesn't the US constitution, guarantee the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness?  "LIFE" does start at conception, just there are some people in the US who hate people, born or unborn. That is why they will allow murderers , rapists, and child molesters to live and hurt or kill US citizens who follow the law.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons *for* why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.
> ...


I will say, I am somewhat glad that liberals believe in abortion, because many hundreds of thousands liberals never got a chance to become voters.  That is why the liberals have now decided that illegals and "refugees" are the future democrat voters.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.


Definitely Constitutional which is why a child in the womb should be protected from abortion which is murder.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)

Planned Parenthood's reasoning is based on this sort of insanity:


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)




----------



## TNHarley (Jun 30, 2017)

You make a very good point chuz. And i am ok with abortion. I have never heard that argument before.
However, wouldnt it come down to ownership, per se? The fetus is in her body.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> You make a very good point chuz. And i am ok with abortion. I have never heard that argument before.
> However, wouldnt it come down to ownership, per se? The fetus is in her body.


And after the child is born it lives in her house.  What's your point?  It's not her body.  It's the body of someone else and therein she has no right to murder it!


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 30, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> You make a very good point chuz. And i am ok with abortion. I have never heard that argument before.
> However, wouldnt it come down to ownership, per se? The fetus is in her body.



The Supreme Court says *no*. They already struggled with the results of establishing personhood for children in the womb. They concluded that once the children's personhood is established, the case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE  to make.

That's  their words. Not mine.

Edited to add:  Our fetal homicide laws are a major step in that direction.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 30, 2017)

Book of Jeremiah said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > You make a very good point chuz. And i am ok with abortion. I have never heard that argument before.
> ...


Its her body while the child is a fetus. That was my point lol


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


And my point is that it isn't her body.  If she kills herself it is called suicide. If she kills her unborn child it is called murder.


----------



## TNHarley (Jun 30, 2017)

Book of Jeremiah said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Book of Jeremiah said:
> ...


Then what is it? Kidnapping?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > You make a very good point chuz. And i am ok with abortion. I have never heard that argument before.
> ...


Trump needs to establish that Obama was an illegal president.  From there he can cancel every appointment he ever made including Supreme Court.  Based on the evidence you've presented this is an open and shut case for making abortion illegal.  It cannot come soon enough!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Jun 30, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


If she kills the child (abortion) it is murder.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 30, 2017)

Book of Jeremiah said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I don't think it works like that .  The president doesnt appoint Supreme Court justices. They only nominate them and then it's up to the Senate.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 30, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Anyone remember this?  How the left was going to go crazy that the judge convicted the Husband(and Dad) of double murder.



> Scott Lee Peterson (born October 24, 1972) is an American prisoner currently on death row in California, convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, in Modesto, California, in 2002. He was convicted of first-degree murder in 2004 and sentenced to death by lethal injection the following year.
> 
> *Scott Peterson - Wikipedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson


 As I have said before, I am somewhat glad that liberals LOVE to abort their babies, for if they didn't kill over 3 hundred thousand a year, we Conservatives would never be in the White House, Senate, Congress, or State ever.  Thank you liberals for your service to this country by executing your unborn.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 6, 2017)

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 6, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.


Cite the law or go away..Use federal code annotated please..


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 6, 2017)

Book of Jeremiah said:


> View attachment 136291


Then why does God get a pass when he does it?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 6, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?


At one time, before you libtards started executing liberal babies by the 10s' of 1000s, people used to take responsibility for ones actions, you know if you got pregnant, then the man would marry the woman and live to raise that child.  But since you libfucks HATE children, which is why you execute them in or out of the womb, you want to fuck women, and not be held responsible for it.  You know that is true, because the only people out in front of the Abortion clinics protest for abortions are the old white guys.  Like Bill Clinton....


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 6, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?
> ...


They ARE being responsible. They're taking care of the unwanted side effects at the abortion clinic and returning the situation to the prior state.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 6, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?




If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No. 


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car. 

Wouldn't you.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?
> ...


Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...




If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


If she never wanted the baby, she should of kept the aspiring held between her Knees.  When she opened them up, like a liberal slut, she then invited her Choice to get pregnant.  The pill states that it is 99% effective.  That 1% still is a chance.  Dumbasses, will be dumbasses, and follow liberalism to destruction.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



I can agree with some that but not all of it. There are plenty of sluts on all sides of the political spectrum, for one. Also, there are just as many pitiful excuses for men who premise the world, coerce, manipulate and even force women into having sex. . . The, when she gets pregnant? Those same men force, coerce and push them into killing the child with an abortion. 

To me, those so called men are worse than any slut is on any side of the political divide.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Having sex is an invitation to the fetus the same way keeping your door unlocked is an invitation for someone to come in (it isn't). Yeah, there's a chance, and it exists because of your decisions, but it's not an invitation.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Sex is how babies are made. Everybody knows that and if they are coherent at all, they know the risks when they assume the risks. Unlike a criminal who happens on an unlocked door, a prenatal child does not create that dependent relationship themself. That child is only where it is and in the physical relationship that it is in, because the biological parents put them there. 

So, your premise is flawed.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...




If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Driving through a bad neighborhood is a known way to get robbed/killed, but it in no way places criminal responsibility on the victim even if the risk is well known, and it shouldn't.




> If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.



Is that an offer? Hmm, let's see, so if 3 very young children break into your home because you failed to stop them and start draining some of your blood to feed themselves (let's say they do it painlessly and without permanently harming you, unlike the average pregnancy and birth), you feel you should be legally obligated to allow them to do it until they're no longer children (possible 10+ years into the future)?

I guess I disagree with you. I think I should be able to kick people out of my home if I don't want them there even if they're poor or young.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Logic is just not your thing, is it. 

Do you really need for me to explain the difference to you- between you grabbing a child and connecting it to yourself and you waking up to some kid magically connecting themself to you after first breaking into your house?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Nobody grabbed the child. Grabbing implies some sort of intent to grab. This is not the case with unintentional pregnancy. The intent of sex between two people who don't want a kid is pleasure, not pregnancy, so it is closer to a situation where you leave your door inadequately secured to allow yourself ease of access in and out of the house (intent) and someone happens to come in thanks to your failure to sufficiently secure the door (unintended consequence).

It makes no sense to then force the homeowner to house and feed the person for months or years at his own expense.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

The other question is: is it even a person? When does a person's life begin and what criteria did you use to determine this?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.


Such laws are Constitutional because they acknowledge the privacy rights of women and don’t seek to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Indeed, these laws protect the rights of women, not an embryo/fetus, because as a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law an embryo/fetus has no ‘rights.’


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



If all that pap were true (and it's not). . . Then, how would you explain the Supreme courts Comments during Roe. . . That, "once a state establishes personhood for a child in the womb. . .The case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make?"

Also, maybe you can explain why the pro abortion lawyer in the case (Sarah Weddington) actually AGREED WITH the justice when he said it.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.
> ...



If a *child* in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Who knows? Maybe it's the same reason lawmakers and judges pretend banning guns in states like NJ and CA are not in violation of the second amendment.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why *you *consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...




LoL-  Who knows?

THEY know.

Even if YOU  don't.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 7, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 7, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 8, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Which begs th question. . . 

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 8, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 8, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.


----------



## Faun (Aug 8, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons cow why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.
> ...


Just like with abortion, it's not illegal for the mother of said eagle to terminate her unborn.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 8, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Why are you dodging the question?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 8, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is. 

Did you forget already?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 8, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 8, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



There is no research necessary, I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is. 

Don't you?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 8, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


So what's the legal definition for what a natural person is?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 8, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



What do you think it is?

Take a guess.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 8, 2017)

Faun said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


So liberal women are animals?  That explains everything....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 8, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


Naturally when you have XX chromosomes, you are a female. But not with insane people.
Naturally when you have XY Chromosomes, you are a male.  But not with insane people.
But with liberalism, there are no adults in the room and liberals hate conflict, so they go to their safe spaces, and allow their children to tell them what they want to be.  Insane people don't take responsibility so the kids grow up fucked up in the head.


----------



## Faun (Aug 8, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


LOL

You're an idiot to think Liberals are the only ones getting abortions.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 8, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I think you're full of shit and guess that you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise you would have provided the definition already.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 8, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


So what's the definition of a natural person? Maybe you can guess Chuz Life's riddle correctly.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 9, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...




The reason for my being coy and not posting the definition, myself is so that You and or others will find a dictionary, look it up and see for themselves what it says.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 9, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


So you ARE clueless.

First you say "legal" definition. Now you're talking about a DICTIONARY definition.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 9, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...





Bahhhhh!


hahahahahahaha!


You call me clueless but you don't even know what a LEGAL dictionary is? Where the fuck else did you think you might find a LEGAL definition, snowflake?


----------



## Faun (Aug 9, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


A natural person is someone who's born, what about it?


natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Aug 9, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


So an unnatural being is one that is aborted before being born?  How many gays were executed on the abortion doctors operating table?  I told you liberals hate everyone, because if they loved people, they wouldn't be killing their own babies.


----------



## Faun (Aug 9, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


It's a legal definition, not a liberal definition.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 9, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Educate me then! Where is this "legal dictionary?"


----------



## IsaacNewton (Aug 9, 2017)

The OP is the same post by the same poster over and over and over.

Yes it's clear you are pro-birth, but don't care about life after that. We get it.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 9, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Just as you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. . . You are proof that we can lead a libtard to the facts, but we can't make them think.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Aug 9, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Fake water. Fake facts. Reason is what your post lacks. You can operate entirely on emotion while ignoring real life truths, or you can reason and stop bearing false witness. Choose. Or the best choice yet let the voice of the woman involved make the choice, instead of bending the bible into a club for those you would judge.

James 2:13
"For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 9, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You are a liar and totally full of shit! You and your mythical "legal dictionary."


----------



## Faun (Aug 9, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...


He bluffed...

You called...

He folded.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 9, 2017)

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 9, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



You looked up the legal definition for what a natural person is. 

Didn't you.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 9, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.


They are in conflict with reason, in any state that allows abortion.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?
> 
> They're here.


The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a _smart _pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


It's the third paragraph down on page 2 of McCarthy's list of communists.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 10, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?
> ...



Your attempt to make this about me is cute. 

Petty, but cute. 

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights. 

can you.


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally *born*, versus a legally generated juridical person.​


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard. 

From your own page. 

"


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



I wonder how much time you wasted trying to find one to cherry pick.


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You retard... it's a *law dictionary*. One of the most respected. No one said it's s law firm. No one said it should be used in lieu of attorney.

But you didn't challenge anyone to consult with a law firm to get the definition of a "natural person."

You didn't challenge anyone to contact an attorney to get the definition of a "natural person."

You made the challenge to look up "natural person" in a *"law dictionary."*

And that exactly what I did.

natural person

A human being, naturally *born*, versus a legally generated juridical person.​
The definition blows away the idiocies you've been posting for pages now, so you attack the site's disclaimer that it's a law dictionary, not a lawyer. How pathetic are you?


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


About 30 seconds. Black's law dictionary is thee most respected law dictionary in the country, so naturally, I went there first.

U.S. Legal Dictionaries  | Yale Law School Library


natural person

A human being, naturally *born*, versus a legally generated juridical person.​


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I wanted to make it about the topic, but since you're a liar who is full of shit and has no substance to support his claims, you've left me no choice.





> The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."
> 
> You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.
> 
> can you.


Again this retard talks about his mythical "legal definition" in the "legal dictionary."


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


No shit! Definitions used in law are often defined in the text of the law, often in the "definitions" section. Your entire premise of finding the "legal definition" of a natural person in a "legal dictionary" is therefore totally moronic, but totally expected from you.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


He'll post the REAL dictionary with the REAL definition any minute now. He's just struggling from the effects of the abortion they attempted on him while he was in the womb. I guess they used some really wicked chemicals to try and abort him given the amount of trouble he has coping with a simple discussion here. I wonder if he breathes on his own.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 10, 2017)

As I consulted not only Blacks legal dictionary,  but several other legal dictionaries as well, I  still hold that you are cherry picking. And here are just a couple reasons why.

First of all, as I recall, the hardbound version that I  pulled at the library indicated nothing about being "born". It just says "a human being" and or the Body of a human being.

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

If surgically delivered babies count. . . Then what's the physiological difference a child that is surgically delivered alive and one that is intentionally killed in essentially the same process and "born" into the hands of their (abortionist / killer) ?

Both involve essentially the same surgical procedure.

Finally, if natural personhood doesn't begin until "natural birth" why hasn't our Supreme Court used that fact to overturn ANY of the MURDER convictions of those charged with and convicted for the MURDERS of children in the womb?

You can't  MURDER someone or something that is NOT a person. 

Can you?

I submit that given these facts, your cherry picked definition is still lacking - despite the deserved credentials of the source.

The. One thing that all of the legal definitions share is that a natural person is simply "a human being"

Period.


----------



## Faun (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?


The answer to that question was linked in my post.

And still, despite your incessant whining.... looking up the definition as you challenge resulted in a "natural person" being defined as a person naturally born. Hunting through multiple dictionaries for a definition you want to find doesn't help you.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> As I consulted not only Blacks legal dictionary,  but several other legal dictionaries as well, I  still hold that you are cherry picking. And here are just a couple reasons why.


Cherry-picking? How is that even possible? Before, you said there was only one legal definition.
_
I agree with *the *legal definition for what a natural person is._

Now there are multiple legal definitions? Sounds like you're full of shit as usual.





> First of all, as I recall, the hardbound version that I  pulled at the library indicated nothing about being "born". It just says "a human being" and or the Body of a human being.


Why is your source any better than his? Because it fits your agenda?





> Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?
> 
> If surgically delivered babies count. . . Then what's the physiological difference a child that is surgically delivered alive and one that is intentionally killed in essentially the same process and "born" into the hands of their (abortionist / killer) ?


So as long as the fetus is destroyed inside the womb, it's not murder because it hasn't been born, either naturally or otherwise?





> Both involve essentially the same surgical procedure.
> 
> Finally, if natural personhood doesn't begin until "natural birth" why hasn't our Supreme Court used that fact to overturn ANY of the MURDER convictions of those charged with and convicted for the MURDERS of children in the womb?
> 
> ...


The same reason guns are illegal in some states despite the second amendment: because lawmakers said so.





> I submit that given these facts, your cherry picked definition is still lacking - despite the deserved credentials of the source.
> 
> The. One thing that all of the legal definitions share is that a natural person is simply "a human being"
> 
> Period.


That's even better than cherry-picking! You picked only the words in the sentence that you wanted to read!! Brilliant!!!


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 10, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?
> ...


It's more than he knew before. Now he at least realizes that there is more than one "legal definition." He's no less capable of learning than a brain-damaged vegetable!


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 10, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...




It's too bad that we can't get someone from "Blacks" to discuss the definition and answer questions further. Something worth looking into. 

I am will to bet money that they will agree that while the definition for what a natural person includes "naturally born" born human beings.... birth itself in not a legal requirement for them to be a "natural person"

Some I will be pursuing now. For sure.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's too bad you spent all that time whining about the "legal definition" of a natural person only to find out that it requires being born. Now, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you'll pretend they "meant" something else like the worthless coward that you are.

Here's a definition from the US Government Publishing Office:
_(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘‘*person*’’, ‘‘*human being*’’, ‘‘*child*’’, and ‘‘*individual*’’, shall include every *infant * member of the species homo sapiens who is *born alive* at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term ‘‘*born alive*’’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the *complete expulsion* or *extraction *from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who *after such expulsion or extraction* breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and *regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section*, or induced abortion._

Not good enough for you either?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Like This?

*18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children*

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means *a child* in utero, and the term *“child* in utero” or “*child, who* is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at *any *stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the *unborn child*, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 {MURDER}, 1112 {MANSLAUGHTER}, and 1113 {Attempted MURDER / MANSLAUGHTER} of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill *a human being*.

Again, I ask. . . . 

How does this FEDERAL LAW NOT recognize a "*child in the womb*" as "*a human being*" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.


----------



## Faun (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Well now you're making shit up calling a child in uterine, a "natural person," given you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born.

That aside, it's been legally established a pregnancy can be terminated by the woman carrying the child in utero. That right does not extend to anyone other than the pregnant woman.

As far as killing another human being being murder, that is not always the case. Sometimes it is murder, sometimes it's not. Cases where it's not include, but not limited to, war (excluding war crimes), capital punishment, self defense, abortion (when carried out by choice of the pregnant woman).


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

*18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children*

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means *a child* in utero, and the term *“child* in utero” or “*child, who* is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at *any *stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the *unborn child*, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 {MURDER}, 1112 {MANSLAUGHTER}, and 1113 {Attempted MURDER / MANSLAUGHTER} of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill *a human being*.

*Again, I ask.*


How does this (FEDERAL LAW) *NOT* recognize a "*child in the womb*" as "*a human being*" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .

How does this (FEDERAL LAW) *NOT* recognize a "*child in the womb*" as "*a human being*" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.


----------



## Faun (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .
> 
> How does this (FEDERAL LAW) *NOT* recognize a "*child in the womb*" as "*a human being*" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"
> 
> ...


It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?

Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .
> ...



Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand. 

*Murder* by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person. 

True or false.


----------



## Faun (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


That's true. 

True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That's true. 

In *most* cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal. 

This thread is not directly about abortions,  however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.

True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) *All* children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.


----------



## Faun (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


That's true.

*18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children*

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.​


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"


----------



## Faun (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't. 

The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "


----------



## Faun (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.

You punted.

Figures.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Unlike the definition I posted, at no point does the section with the definition you posted provide the definition of a person or natural person. It only defines "unborn child," "child in utero," and "child, who is in utero."





> Again, I ask. . . .
> 
> How does this FEDERAL LAW NOT recognize a "*child in the womb*" as "*a human being*" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"
> 
> ...


You can be charged with murder for not killing anyone at all.
The Elkhart Four and the Unjust Application of the Felony Murder Rule on Teens | HuffPost

Let me make it easier for you: the law can assign whatever punishment it wants for whatever crime it chooses via a "see section X for punishment." You were talking about the "legal dictionary" in the "legal dictionary." One that defines a natural person. You have provided neither here. Instead, you linked to a law that doesn't even define a person. You then use faulty reasoning to conclude that the assignment of a murder charge to a person requires that person to kill a person, which is also false, as I demonstrated.

It's time to put up or shut up. Post your legal definition from the legal dictionary that proves your point or shut the hell up.

Another question that's bothering me is this: your reasoning is that a fetus is a natural person because one can be charged with murder for killing it. But that law also says that you canNOT be charged for murder if the mother (or someone authorized to act on her behalf) gives consent to an abortion. If we apply your reasoning all the way (I'm not saying I agree with your reasoning, by the way), the most reasonable conclusion seems to be that a fetus is only a natural person when the mother has NOT given consent to have it aborted. If the mother DOES give consent for abortion, the fetus is NOT a natural person. Of course, we all know why you don't make that conclusion: because you're an unreasonable fool driven by an agenda, but too incompetent to support that agenda.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


What constitutional text would it violate to result in the death of a fetus by not allowing it to suck your blood/nutrients?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 11, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




To support my argument, I  need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb. 

I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 11, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Then he can refer to those who legally got an abortion and are NOT in prison, a group far, FAR more numerous than the one that's in jail.


----------



## Faun (Aug 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


That brings us back to.... so what?

Will you answer this time?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You're the one dealing with hypotheticals. Using your own reasoning, if murder is what's given for killing a natural person, then obviously the legal definition of a natural human does NOT include a fetus that a mother consents to abort.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 12, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Try paying attention, Sparky. This thread is about our fetal Homicide laws and the Constitutionality thereof. It may play into the abortion debate eventually but it can also be debated on its own.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I asked you back in post #108 what constitutional text was violated. You ignored that and kept dragging out your hypotheticals that you can't even rationally apply.


----------



## Faun (Aug 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Neither dubious nor diverting. Trying to understand your concerns over constitutionally. Of course they're Constitutional. All laws are Constitutional until overturned by the judicial branch.

So again, for the third and last time.... *so what?*


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He only cares about what the government has to say when it agrees with his agenda. That's what. Now he's going to continue being evasive since his position has been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 12, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Exactly.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.

The thread premise is attempting – and failing – to advance the ‘argument’ that because fetal ‘homicide’ laws seek to punish those who cause the death of a fetus are subject to criminal prosecution, then abortion should likewise be rendered illegal.

This ‘argument’ fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Fetal ‘homicide’ laws protect the right of the mother to decide the outcome of her pregnancy, should she either wish to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term.

Indeed, such laws have provisions which exclude lawful abortions from the scope of the law, as we see in this measure from Colorado:

“For purposes of a prosecution of a homicide or assault offense, the bill does not apply to:

An act committed by the mother of her unborn child;

A medical procedure performed by a physician or other

licensed medical professional at the request of a mother of

her unborn child or the mother's legal guardian; or

The lawful dispensation or administration of lawfully

prescribed medication.”

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CL...613C6C1787257E15006272AA?Open&file=268_01.pdf


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 12, 2017)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



So many Sparkys, so little time.

Under this and many other fetal HOMICIDE laws, The charge for killing a "child in the womb" in a criminal act is MURDER.

Here is the question leftardz like  yourself will not give a straight forward answer to.. "what does the charge of MURDER say about the personhood status of the victim killed?"


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's been answered already, dumbass. You ignored it.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 12, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



"So what" is not an answer. 

If you think it is an answer.... how about I use it for every question you tards ask from now on.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I answered it in post #107 you idiot!


----------



## Faun (Aug 13, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Nonsense, you've been given straightforward answers to this same illogical approach of yours in the past. Perhaps you weren't given one in this thread, but that's the result of your own clumsy dancing around the issue for more than a hundred posts.

The laws of this nation extend circumstances to where it's perfectly legal to kill someone. Killing someone for the purposes of self defense, of preventing a felonious assault, of mercifully ending being kept alive by life support, of punishment for illegally taking someone else's life, by unintentional accident, by war.

There are many circumstances where killing someone is not murder. Abortion, when administered according to the wishes of the pregnant woman, and within the legal guidelines of abortion, is yet another example of where it's legal and not murder.


----------



## Faun (Aug 13, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Now you're lying. "So what" was the answer to a different question, where you were asking, _"are fetal homicide laws constitutional,"_ and I was trying to get you to cast your avoidance aside and advance your position to where it is now by answering with, _let's say they are Constitutional, *so what?*_

"So what" was never an answer to the question you're asking now, which is, _"what does the charge of MURDER say about the personhood status of the victim killed?"_


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 13, 2017)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Yes, he was. The moron just chooses to ignore it. Can't be pro-life without being a dedicated, ignorant moron apparently.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 13, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


So are you going to address the answer you've been whining about getting now that it's been provided? Will you tell us what constitution text abortion violates?


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

Where are you, Chuz Life? Did you finally abandon your pro-life stupidity?


----------



## Faun (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Where are you, Chuz Life? Did you finally abandon your pro-life stupidity?


No, but he apparently ran out of gas in this thread.


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Where are you, Chuz Life? Did you finally abandon your pro-life stupidity?




LoL.

I haven't forgot you tardz. Just keeping you in suspension until I have a little more time.  This phone is good for short, quick concise posts. . . Not so good for longer posts with a lot of quoted text and responses.

I'll be schooling you fools again soon enough. Not that I ever expect tardz like you to actually acknowledge a point. . . But your ignorance makes for a great foil for reaching others.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 15, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where are you, Chuz Life? Did you finally abandon your pro-life stupidity?
> ...


Your brain is good for quick, concise posts. Preferably with zero content and thinking.





> Not so good for longer posts with a lot of quoted text and responses.
> 
> I'll be schooling you fools again soon enough. Not that I ever expect tardz like to to actually acknowledge a point. . . But your ignorance makes for a great foil for reaching others.


Sure! I'll believe it when I see it!


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 15, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



Projections noted.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2017)

andaronjim said:


> If she never wanted the baby, she should of kept the aspiring held between her Knees.  When she opened them up, like a liberal slut,



Oh look. A closeted ISIS member.

Okay, not so closeted.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Here is the question leftardz like  yourself will not give a straight forward answer to.. "what does the charge of MURDER say about the personhood status of the victim killed?"



Nothing. Not a thing.

According to your 'tard logic, if a law is passed that says accidentally stepping on an ant is murder, then ants are people.

That's absurd, so absurd that even you have to understand how absurd it is.

And that means, by pretending not to see it, you're being deliberately dishonest. Which is expected. Pro-lifers always lie their asses off when cornered. That's why they have the nickname "pro-lie". They think God has given them permission to lie to the dirty liberals, but it's not God telling them to lie, it's Satan.


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 23, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where are you, Chuz Life? Did you finally abandon your pro-life stupidity?
> ...


Still don't have any time to drag out your bullshit argument?


----------



## Chuz Life (Aug 23, 2017)

bgrouse said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > bgrouse said:
> ...



LOL.

*Sometimes, I'd just rather have a talking frog*. 

Betcha don't get it. 

(I'm obviously slap happy / tired)


----------



## bgrouse (Aug 23, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> bgrouse said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You've obviously been exposed as totally irrational.


----------

