A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

LoL, you are so fucking stupid that it's sometimes difficult to tell when it is simply willful ignorance, some kind if inbreeding genetic defect or both.

I challenge you to quote the post where I ever claimed that partial birth abortions are legal. You can't do it because I never made the claim. Further more, the legality of partial BIRTH abortions has nothing to do with the procedure and the NAME for the procedure itself.

You dont like the word and/or the way the term came about but tough shit. It is a legally and medically recognized term now that the BAN on "partial birth abortions" has been passed.

You don't get to change the dictionary definitions just because you don't agree with them or because you think THEY are retarded.

Your side fucking lost that debate and now the word is applicable. Whether you fucking like it or not.

And you continue to be a retard. There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion. There never was. That was a retarded label that anti-choice activists made up because you are all too stupid to understand Intact Dilation and Extraction. Since you anti-choice fanatics are so retarded, you needed something easy to say that sounded scary, and icky so you made up "Partial Birth Abortion".

You are the only one here trying to change dictionary definitions in order to make the world fit your agenda, retard. Look up abortion. Look up birth. They are two different things.

I love that the term came up, because it demonstrates just how retarded you, and your anti-choice fanatics are. You can't just call things what they are. You have to make shit up so that you can twist it to fit into your little retarded agenda. I'm sorry you're upset that I will not let you just make up the meanings of words as you see fit, but reality is what it is, and you need to just accept that.

Off with you, while you plan your next retarded failure of an argument...

Denial is not an argument.

Under the 14th Amendment and especially whith the "born alive infant protection act" and with the bans we have against "partial BIRTH abortions" in place. . . What do you call a child who is accidentally delivered alive during an abortion attempt?

If you answer with anything other than "born citizen" you are an even bigger fucking moron than I thought.

Absolutely it is a person, because it is born. Do you know when it wasn't a person? When it was still in utero. The only thing that the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" - which is one of the most horribly written, and retarded pieces of legislation ever passed; George W. Bush, go figure - does is affirm that an infant that is alive is...well...alive. But, it in no way shape or form confers personhood to an in utero fetus. Wow. We certainly needed a law to tell us that an infant that is alive is alive.

But, then again...we're dealing with retards like yourself, so...I guess maybe we actually do. That might have been news to you, and you needed a law to make it so.

Er..no, you can be convicted of murder for killing an infant in utero, and murder is the unlawful killing of a person.

Awkward.

4 tha Win!

You, and your activist conservative justices, can argue it all you'd like, that doesn't make it so, which is why personhood amendments continue to fail.

 

[koshergrl]

And you continue to be a retard. There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion. There never was. That was a retarded label that anti-choice activists made up because you are all too stupid to understand Intact Dilation and Extraction. Since you anti-choice fanatics are so retarded, you needed something easy to say that sounded scary, and icky so you made up "Partial Birth Abortion".

You are the only one here trying to change dictionary definitions in order to make the world fit your agenda, retard. Look up abortion. Look up birth. They are two different things.

I love that the term came up, because it demonstrates just how retarded you, and your anti-choice fanatics are. You can't just call things what they are. You have to make shit up so that you can twist it to fit into your little retarded agenda. I'm sorry you're upset that I will not let you just make up the meanings of words as you see fit, but reality is what it is, and you need to just accept that.

Off with you, while you plan your next retarded failure of an argument...

Denial is not an argument.

Under the 14th Amendment and especially whith the "born alive infant protection act" and with the bans we have against "partial BIRTH abortions" in place. . . What do you call a child who is accidentally delivered alive during an abortion attempt?

If you answer with anything other than "born citizen" you are an even bigger fucking moron than I thought.

Absolutely it is a person, because it is born. Do you know when it wasn't a person? When it was still in utero. The only thing that the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" - which is one of the most horribly written, and retarded pieces of legislation ever passed; George W. Bush, go figure - does is affirm that an infant that is alive is...well...alive. But, it in no way shape or form confers personhood to an in utero fetus. Wow. We certainly needed a law to tell us that an infant that is alive is alive.

But, then again...we're dealing with retards like yourself, so...I guess maybe we actually do. That might have been news to you, and you needed a law to make it so.

Er..no, you can be convicted of murder for killing an infant in utero, and murder is the unlawful killing of a person.

Awkward.

4 tha Win!

You, and your activist conservative justices, can argue it all you'd like, that doesn't make it so, which is why personhood amendments continue to fail.

Activist conservative judges?

Hahahaha look you just made something up! That's wonderful! See you can be creative. What a shame death cultists are only creative when they're lying.

 

[Czernobog]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

 

[koshergrl]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

Actually, he isn't pointing to law as a justification. He's just pointing out that you were lying. Law doesn't define life, we know this. But you said that the law doesn't recognize the humanity of the unborn..and you were lying.

It's fascinating how when you're exposed in one lie, you immediately change the subject...you were exposed lying about how the law views the unborn, then immediately spouted another lie "since you are pointing to law as your justification".....which never happened. YOU pointed to the law as YOUR justification, and you were hit with the truth.

 

[Chuz Life]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

 

[Chuz Life]

Denial is not an argument.

Under the 14th Amendment and especially whith the "born alive infant protection act" and with the bans we have against "partial BIRTH abortions" in place. . . What do you call a child who is accidentally delivered alive during an abortion attempt?

If you answer with anything other than "born citizen" you are an even bigger fucking moron than I thought.

Absolutely it is a person, because it is born. Do you know when it wasn't a person? When it was still in utero. The only thing that the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" - which is one of the most horribly written, and retarded pieces of legislation ever passed; George W. Bush, go figure - does is affirm that an infant that is alive is...well...alive. But, it in no way shape or form confers personhood to an in utero fetus. Wow. We certainly needed a law to tell us that an infant that is alive is alive.

But, then again...we're dealing with retards like yourself, so...I guess maybe we actually do. That might have been news to you, and you needed a law to make it so.

Er..no, you can be convicted of murder for killing an infant in utero, and murder is the unlawful killing of a person.

Awkward.

4 tha Win!

You, and your activist conservative justices, can argue it all you'd like, that doesn't make it so, which is why personhood amendments continue to fail.

Activist conservative judges?

Hahahaha look you just made something up! That's wonderful! See you can be creative. What a shame death cultists are only creative when they're lying.

Thanks for all that you are doing in the fight for the rights of those that idiot is in denial of.

 

[Czernobog]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

 

[koshergrl]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[koshergrl]

"Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*)."
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[koshergrl]

You'll note that Oregon isn't on that list, because they like to keep themselves open to cutting up babies in utero (and outside of utero, if the unthinkable happens) at any stage of pregnancy. We proudly stand as a baby killing state. You can dive in there with garden shears and start hacking in good conscience.

 

[Czernobog]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

Our laws already define and recognize the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a child and is a human being.

You deniers lost that debate. So. If you ever want me to share in your denial of the facts? It's not going to happen. Your side lost. Get over it or change the law. Just like this side has to deal with Roe v Wade.

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah. Bad law. You can cite bad law to justify your irrational position all you like, that doesn't make it any less irrational. When we finally have some justices with some balls, who take on the bad law, and overturn it, so that those bad laws no longer exist,. what are you going to do then? Then there will be no "laws" that recognise a fetus as a person, under any circumstances.

So...since you are pointing to law as your justification, then when those laws no longer exist, will you then agree that a fetus is not a person?

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

You're right Current law - badly written, and irrational - under specific circumstances, with contradictory caveats within the language of the laws themselves, define fetuses as persons. Which is why I am confident that, when we have a Supreme Court that no longer rules according to a conservative agenda, those laws will be overturned, and states will wither have to accept that fetusess are not persons, or they will have to redraft those laws without the inherent contradictions - in other words, without the abortion exceptions. Good luck with that. I'd be willing to bet that not one of those "fetal homicide" laws will be passed without that contradictory clause. So, when that happens, when those laws no longer exist, what authority will you use to justify calling a fetus a person?

See, that's the problem with relying on laws, particularly bad laws, to justify a position. Eventually, those laws will no longer exist. Where is your authority, then?

 

[koshergrl]

The legal definition for a "person" is simply "a human being"and a Human Being in the fetal stage of their life meets that criteria.

That's why our fetal homicide laws will never be overturned.

So, until you can change the legal definitions and change those laws?


LoL





You


Are


Dismissed.

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

You're right Current law - badly written, and irrational - under specific circumstances, with contradictory caveats within the language of the laws themselves, define fetuses as persons. Which is why I am confident that, when we have a Supreme Court that no longer rules according to a conservative agenda, those laws will be overturned, and states will wither have to accept that fetusess are not persons, or they will have to redraft those laws without the inherent contradictions - in other words, without the abortion exceptions. Good luck with that. I'd be willing to bet that not one of those "fetal homicide" laws will be passed without that contradictory clause. So, when that happens, when those laws no longer exist, what authority will you use to justify calling a fetus a person?

See, that's the problem with relying on laws, particularly bad laws, to justify a position. Eventually, those laws will no longer exist. Where is your authority, then?

God. The same authority cited by our founding fathers when they crafted the constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

and no, 38 states don't have "bad law" incidentally, lol. The thought is ludicrous.

But when justices exceed their authority and rule contradictory to the Constitution, it is the job of the states to countermand it. They do what they can.

 

[Czernobog]

Can you cite the law to which you are referring, please? With a link to the text.

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

You're right Current law - badly written, and irrational - under specific circumstances, with contradictory caveats within the language of the laws themselves, define fetuses as persons. Which is why I am confident that, when we have a Supreme Court that no longer rules according to a conservative agenda, those laws will be overturned, and states will wither have to accept that fetusess are not persons, or they will have to redraft those laws without the inherent contradictions - in other words, without the abortion exceptions. Good luck with that. I'd be willing to bet that not one of those "fetal homicide" laws will be passed without that contradictory clause. So, when that happens, when those laws no longer exist, what authority will you use to justify calling a fetus a person?

See, that's the problem with relying on laws, particularly bad laws, to justify a position. Eventually, those laws will no longer exist. Where is your authority, then?

God. The same authority cited by our founding fathers when they crafted the constitution.

Who's legal authority extends exactly to the limits of your church's walls. So, leave him there.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

You're right Current law - badly written, and irrational - under specific circumstances, with contradictory caveats within the language of the laws themselves, define fetuses as persons. Which is why I am confident that, when we have a Supreme Court that no longer rules according to a conservative agenda, those laws will be overturned, and states will wither have to accept that fetusess are not persons, or they will have to redraft those laws without the inherent contradictions - in other words, without the abortion exceptions. Good luck with that. I'd be willing to bet that not one of those "fetal homicide" laws will be passed without that contradictory clause. So, when that happens, when those laws no longer exist, what authority will you use to justify calling a fetus a person?

See, that's the problem with relying on laws, particularly bad laws, to justify a position. Eventually, those laws will no longer exist. Where is your authority, then?

God. The same authority cited by our founding fathers when they crafted the constitution.

Who's legal authority extends exactly to the limits of your church's walls. So, leave him there.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And we're back to the starting point.
The legal authority certainly exists, whether you like it or not. Hence fetal homicide laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

and no, 38 states don't have "bad law" incidentally, lol. The thought is ludicrous.

But when justices exceed their authority and rule contradictory to the Constitution, it is the job of the states to countermand it. They do what they can.

Winner! I wish I could figure out how to like posts with this phone again.

 

[Chuz Life]

"... legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws. "

Look it up yourself. Different states are different.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

You're right Current law - badly written, and irrational - under specific circumstances, with contradictory caveats within the language of the laws themselves, define fetuses as persons. Which is why I am confident that, when we have a Supreme Court that no longer rules according to a conservative agenda, those laws will be overturned, and states will wither have to accept that fetusess are not persons, or they will have to redraft those laws without the inherent contradictions - in other words, without the abortion exceptions. Good luck with that. I'd be willing to bet that not one of those "fetal homicide" laws will be passed without that contradictory clause. So, when that happens, when those laws no longer exist, what authority will you use to justify calling a fetus a person?

See, that's the problem with relying on laws, particularly bad laws, to justify a position. Eventually, those laws will no longer exist. Where is your authority, then?

God. The same authority cited by our founding fathers when they crafted the constitution.

Who's legal authority extends exactly to the limits of your church's walls. So, leave him there.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What the fuck are you talking about? No one here has been spouting any religion what so ever.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. Bad. Law. Those are the very badly written, irrational laws to which I am referring. ChuzRetard suggested that those laws won't be overturned because they are based on some other mythical US law that defines a person as a "human being" with no other qualifiers. I'm waiting for a reference to that law. I suspect I'll be waiting for a while, as I suspect it does not exist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Well RvW is the mother of all irrational, badly written and unconstitutional law, so it makes sense that the laws that have to address it are confusing as well. Probably very frustrating for baby killers.

And the point stands, whether or not you agree with it, the laws do exist that define children in utero as persons, despite your assertion to the contrary.

You're right Current law - badly written, and irrational - under specific circumstances, with contradictory caveats within the language of the laws themselves, define fetuses as persons. Which is why I am confident that, when we have a Supreme Court that no longer rules according to a conservative agenda, those laws will be overturned, and states will wither have to accept that fetusess are not persons, or they will have to redraft those laws without the inherent contradictions - in other words, without the abortion exceptions. Good luck with that. I'd be willing to bet that not one of those "fetal homicide" laws will be passed without that contradictory clause. So, when that happens, when those laws no longer exist, what authority will you use to justify calling a fetus a person?

See, that's the problem with relying on laws, particularly bad laws, to justify a position. Eventually, those laws will no longer exist. Where is your authority, then?

God. The same authority cited by our founding fathers when they crafted the constitution.

Who's legal authority extends exactly to the limits of your church's walls. So, leave him there.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And we're back to the starting point.
The legal authority certainly exists, whether you like it or not. Hence fetal homicide laws.

Actually, my statement was in response to your answer to the question of what authority you would use, when those badly written, irrational laws no longer exist. Your response was, "God", so that assumes that is your authority without those laws in place.

My response remains the same. When those laws are gone, "God's" legal authority extends to exactly the dimensions of your church's walls. Leave him there.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk