A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[koshergrl]

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

Yes, our constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply protects them.

Human rights do exist outside of law, and society recognizes this. That's why you can still be convicted of war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity even if, while you were committing them, those crimes were considered "legal".

Human Rights emanate not from our laws. They come from our Creator. Which of course our founders recognized and stated, repeatedly, during the formation of this great nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

 

[Czernobog]

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

Yes, our constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply protects them.

Human rights do exist outside of law, and society recognizes this. That's why you can still be convicted of war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity even if, while you were committing them, those crimes were considered "legal".

Human Rights emanate not from our laws. They come from our Creator. Which of course our founders recognized and stated, repeatedly, during the formation of this great nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Well, at least you're honest about being a fanatic who wants to turn this country into a theocracy.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

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

Yes, our constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply protects them.

Human rights do exist outside of law, and society recognizes this. That's why you can still be convicted of war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity even if, while you were committing them, those crimes were considered "legal".

Human Rights emanate not from our laws. They come from our Creator. Which of course our founders recognized and stated, repeatedly, during the formation of this great nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Well, at least you're honest about being a fanatic who wants to turn this country into a theocracy.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh look, another lie.

I never said anything about a theocracy. You must be another brain dead baby killer who has no idea what the word "theocracy" means.

 

[Czernobog]

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

Yes, our constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply protects them.

Human rights do exist outside of law, and society recognizes this. That's why you can still be convicted of war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity even if, while you were committing them, those crimes were considered "legal".

Human Rights emanate not from our laws. They come from our Creator. Which of course our founders recognized and stated, repeatedly, during the formation of this great nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Well, at least you're honest about being a fanatic who wants to turn this country into a theocracy.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh look, another lie.

I never said anything about a theocracy. You must be another brain dead baby killer who has no idea what the word "theocracy" means.

You blather on about the authority of God, and "our society" only "protects" rights that "emanate from God", then quote the declaration of independence, highlighting the section referring to For, as if that, somehow, demonstrates that our nation rules by the grace of God, and by protecting some divine Providence.

That, Ms. Religious Fanatic, is the very essence of a theocracy. You may not say the word, but your intent is quite clear.

You want the United States to be nothing more than a Christian Caliphate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

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

Yes, our constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply protects them.

Human rights do exist outside of law, and society recognizes this. That's why you can still be convicted of war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity even if, while you were committing them, those crimes were considered "legal".

Human Rights emanate not from our laws. They come from our Creator. Which of course our founders recognized and stated, repeatedly, during the formation of this great nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Well, at least you're honest about being a fanatic who wants to turn this country into a theocracy.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Another lie. I never claimed fanaticism..and I have never advocated for theocracy.

I guess you maintain that our country as it was conceived is a theocracy?

Which again shows you don't know what the word means...but meh.

 

[koshergrl]

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

Yes, our constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply protects them.

Human rights do exist outside of law, and society recognizes this. That's why you can still be convicted of war crimes, murder, crimes against humanity even if, while you were committing them, those crimes were considered "legal".

Human Rights emanate not from our laws. They come from our Creator. Which of course our founders recognized and stated, repeatedly, during the formation of this great nation.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Well, at least you're honest about being a fanatic who wants to turn this country into a theocracy.

Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh look, another lie.

I never said anything about a theocracy. You must be another brain dead baby killer who has no idea what the word "theocracy" means.

You blather on about the authority of God, and "our society" only "protects" rights that "emanate from God", then quote the declaration of independence, highlighting the section referring to For, as if that, somehow, demonstrates that our nation rules by the grace of God, and by protecting some divine Providence.

That, Ms. Religious Fanatic, is the very essence of a theocracy. You may not say the word, but your intent is quite clear.

You want the United States to be nothing more than a Christian Caliphate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

They don't identify as God being the one that creates them, that's my assumption. But they do identify it's something that man cannot create. So do with that what you will, your mind isn't very elegant so you probably will be confused.

And I neither said nor implied any of the rest of that ridiculousness that you wrote...that's just you on an involuntary tangent that baby killers are prone to when triggered by words like "God" and "Life" and "Baby" and "Humanity". You spew a whole lot of garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with reality, in the hopes that you can be viewed as "reasonable" when you advocate the butchery of women and children.

It doesn't work. People still see you for what you are, and you prove with every single post that besides being a baby killer, you're also an inveterate liar. Must be fun for the people in your life is all I can say, let's hope there aren't many.

 

[koshergrl]

Incidentally, Nazis and the murdering commies, and jihadists as well, sound just like czernobog when they try to defend killing the weak and exploiting the vulnerable.

 

[Muhammed]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

The electric chair immediately comes to mind.

 

[Czernobog]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

 

[koshergrl]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

 

[Czernobog]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you two retards, you can't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

 

[koshergrl]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you teo retards, you cvan't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

You sound like a true scholar, lol.

I was kidding there, in case you missed it.

So you're exposed (over and over) as a lying baby killer, what else is new. Don't get your panties in a twist over it, you will survive. After all, you aren't a vulnerable, pregnant female or an unborn child, so you're safe.

 

[Czernobog]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you teo retards, you cvan't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

You sound like a true scholar, lol.

I was kidding there, in case you missed it.

So you're exposed (over and over) as a lying baby killer, what else is new. Don't get your panties in a twist over it, you will survive. After all, you aren't a vulnerable, pregnant female or an unborn child, so you're safe.

Only to retards like you who don't know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Now off to the corner to drool on yourself, until you can come up with a more intelligent argument.

In the meantime, you are on ignore for a reason. Buh bye.

 

[koshergrl]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you teo retards, you cvan't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

You sound like a true scholar, lol.

I was kidding there, in case you missed it.

So you're exposed (over and over) as a lying baby killer, what else is new. Don't get your panties in a twist over it, you will survive. After all, you aren't a vulnerable, pregnant female or an unborn child, so you're safe.

Only to retards like you who don't know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Now off to the corner to drool on yourself, until you can come up with a more intelligent argument.

In the meantime, you are on ignore for a reason. Buh bye.

Lol...poor exposed baby killing loser.

 

[Slade3200]

You ASKED me by whose authority human rights are established, and I said that they come from God..then I provided quotes and links to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also states that human rights are something that all humans, regardless of their geography, culture, race, country, or the laws under which they are born, are BORN with.

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you teo retards, you cvan't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

You sound like a true scholar, lol.

I was kidding there, in case you missed it.

So you're exposed (over and over) as a lying baby killer, what else is new. Don't get your panties in a twist over it, you will survive. After all, you aren't a vulnerable, pregnant female or an unborn child, so you're safe.

Only to retards like you who don't know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Now off to the corner to drool on yourself, until you can come up with a more intelligent argument.

In the meantime, you are on ignore for a reason. Buh bye.

I've been ignoring that one for a while. Interactions with her will literally make you dumber.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I didn't. I asked, because you, and ChuzRetard keep using those horribly written, self-contradictory, irrational fetal homicide laws as your authority for calling fetuses persons, by what authority you would make that determination when those laws no longer existed. You, unsurprisingly, brought up God, and took my question as an opportunity to wax poetic about human rights.

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you teo retards, you cvan't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

You sound like a true scholar, lol.

I was kidding there, in case you missed it.

So you're exposed (over and over) as a lying baby killer, what else is new. Don't get your panties in a twist over it, you will survive. After all, you aren't a vulnerable, pregnant female or an unborn child, so you're safe.

Only to retards like you who don't know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Now off to the corner to drool on yourself, until you can come up with a more intelligent argument.

In the meantime, you are on ignore for a reason. Buh bye.

I've been ignoring that one for a while. Interactions with her will literally make you dumber.

You're pretty dumb to start with. What interactions with me do is expose your full stupidity to everybody watching.

It's why you loons put me on ignore. Though honestly, that very rarely happens.

 

[Faun]

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!

LOL

If you were winning, abortion would be illegal.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

 

[Mertex]

Wrong again. You said that the law did not recognize the unborn and we proved you wrong.

That's the long and short of it.

Then you flounced about and said fine, then what authority grants human rights?

And I said God.

If you don't want the answer, you shouldn't ask the question, you poor dolt.

That's a lie. ChuzRetard claimed there is a law that recognizes that a person is a "human being" - that exact phrase, without qualifier, and that that law is the reason the retarded fetal homicide laws would never be overturned. I challenged him/her to provide that law, and, not surprising, (s)he retreated into a corner to drool on him/herself.

Then you chimed in returning to the retarded fetal suicide laws, again, insisting that fetuses are considered persons because they say so. It's like arguing with rhesus monkeys with you teo retards, you cvan't even keep track of your own retarded arguments.

Now, go join ChuzRetard in the corner, and you two can drool on each other.

You sound like a true scholar, lol.

I was kidding there, in case you missed it.

So you're exposed (over and over) as a lying baby killer, what else is new. Don't get your panties in a twist over it, you will survive. After all, you aren't a vulnerable, pregnant female or an unborn child, so you're safe.

Only to retards like you who don't know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

Now off to the corner to drool on yourself, until you can come up with a more intelligent argument.

In the meantime, you are on ignore for a reason. Buh bye.

I've been ignoring that one for a while. Interactions with her will literally make you dumber.

You're pretty dumb to start with. What interactions with me do is expose your full stupidity to everybody watching.

It's why you loons put me on ignore. Though honestly, that very rarely happens.

Everybody on this forum (except for the few morons that are dumb as you) know you are the stupidest person on this forum. You whined and cried a long time ago that this forum was dying and was not interesting anymore just because all your righty friends ended up in pink dresses, and here you are, still hanging around. Now that is stupid.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Really? Abortion is legal, and the stupid laws that conservatives have passed under the guise of caring about the women but in fact are just created to thwart abortions have now been struck down, so, I don't know how you can say you have won. You're delusional.

If you have won, then why do you all keep coming up with innocuous laws to try and circumvent abortions?

Idiot, go back and read the exchange again. It was about the legal recognition of a child in the womb AS A CHILD by our fetal HOMICIDE laws. I even specifically mentioned ROE V WADE and the fact that it has not yet been overturned for context.

You clearly only read and see what you think fits your fu king template. Don't you.