Atheists on this board answer this question....

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

you are dumb

For purposes of the federal law concerning murder, the fetus is NOT considered to be part of the woman's body. If I cut off your finger, which is part of your body that's not murder.

I know you are, but what am I? The Federal law does not apply in all cases, only in the commission of some federal crimes of violence does not affect Roe v Wade and a women's right to choose what happens to her body. Besides, you're presuming I agree with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I don't. It comes too close to trying to separate the fetus from the mother. There are better ways to craft legislation that would punish violence against pregnant women that recognizes the additional injury a woman may suffer from loss of, or harm to, a wanted pregnancy.

Oh, so your argument is that a fetus is only a human being if the mother wants the child



My God you truly are retarded

I never said that. I said a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body and the fetus is part of her body. There is a difference if I smash my own hand with a hammer or if you do it.

Oh my God you are stupid

Do you know what MURDER is?

We're not talking about smashing your hand you dumb fuck

Murder is the illegal killing of a human being.

By the very nature of the law, the law is recognizing that a fetus is a human being, so how can a different law say "no a fetus is merely part of a woman's body?"

The two laws disagree on whether a fetus is a human being or not

Numbskull

Gosh, Dumb as a Post, why don't you call me some more names and see if I want to continue discourse with you. I said I do not agree with the law (which, as I have already pointed out only applies to some Federal crimes of a violent nature) and therefore do not see it as murder. The law has also not had any effect on Roe v Wade has it?

Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. I didn't ask that.

I asked how can one law call a fetus a human being and another law call it part of a woman's body.

 

[Seawytch]

I know you are, but what am I? The Federal law does not apply in all cases, only in the commission of some federal crimes of violence does not affect Roe v Wade and a women's right to choose what happens to her body. Besides, you're presuming I agree with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I don't. It comes too close to trying to separate the fetus from the mother. There are better ways to craft legislation that would punish violence against pregnant women that recognizes the additional injury a woman may suffer from loss of, or harm to, a wanted pregnancy.

Oh, so your argument is that a fetus is only a human being if the mother wants the child



My God you truly are retarded

I never said that. I said a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body and the fetus is part of her body. There is a difference if I smash my own hand with a hammer or if you do it.

Oh my God you are stupid

Do you know what MURDER is?

We're not talking about smashing your hand you dumb fuck

Murder is the illegal killing of a human being.

By the very nature of the law, the law is recognizing that a fetus is a human being, so how can a different law say "no a fetus is merely part of a woman's body?"

The two laws disagree on whether a fetus is a human being or not

Numbskull

Gosh, Dumb as a Post, why don't you call me some more names and see if I want to continue discourse with you. I said I do not agree with the law (which, as I have already pointed out only applies to some Federal crimes of a violent nature) and therefore do not see it as murder. The law has also not had any effect on Roe v Wade has it?

Whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. I didn't ask that.

I asked how can one law call a fetus a human being and another law call it part of a woman's body.

Then you'll have to ask someone else. Try the SCOTUS.

 

[koshergrl]

Meanwhile, let's continue with reality and reason.

In my time here at USM, I have yet to see you use reality or reason in any post.

That's because you are a progressive hysteric who doesn't understand or acknowledge reason.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile, let's continue with reality and reason.

In my time here at USM, I have yet to see you use reality or reason in any post.

That's because you are a progressive hysteric who doesn't understand or acknowledge reason.

No its because I have good reading comprehension- not that it requires much for your posts- and can easily identify the lack of content of your posts.

 

[koshergrl]

Meanwhile, let's continue with reality and reason.

In my time here at USM, I have yet to see you use reality or reason in any post.

That's because you are a progressive hysteric who doesn't understand or acknowledge reason.

No its because I have good reading comprehension- not that it requires much for your posts- and can easily identify the lack of content of your posts.

No, you don't have good comprehension. But don't feel bad, all the progressive moonbats who can't intelligently debate turn around and claim that I'm the one not making sense.

Everybody recognizes it for what it is...a desperate and insecure attempt to cover the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, or what you're reading. You lack reason, so it's wasted upon you. You morons are the same ones who whine and piss yourselves when your betters correctly cite and source information that puts the lie to your ridiculous commentary.

Carry on.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile, let's continue with reality and reason.

In my time here at USM, I have yet to see you use reality or reason in any post.

That's because you are a progressive hysteric who doesn't understand or acknowledge reason.

No its because I have good reading comprehension- not that it requires much for your posts- and can easily identify the lack of content of your posts.

No, you don't have good comprehension..

Well that is about as 'factual' as any of your other posts.....which means of course totally devoid of facts or logic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

--Homosexuality as "sexual abnormality"
--Homosexuality as "immoral"
--Male/female marriage as the "natural standard"
--Constitutional separation of church and state as a "myth"
--Secularism as an "attack" on Christmas, and really Christianity in general

Just to name a few....

And, abortion/birth control.

Sharia law at its finest.

Hey coward why you bail from every thread you are challenged in?


Since you brought up abortion, let me reask a question I asked of you in another thread that you ran from

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?


I mean at a minimum you could have the guts to say the law is wrong.

Is there or is there not a difference in the law if I break my window or if YOU break it?

Besides, those laws vary from state to state, they are not absolute.

You moron

A) that's a FEDERAL law, supersedes all state laws, pesky COTUS

and a window isn't a fetus.

It is an analogy. A fetus is part of the women's body and it is her decision as to whether or not it remains there, hers. YOU cannot take that decision away from her either way just as YOU can't decide what is done with my window.

A Pre-born Baby is 'part' of a Mother's body as is a 'conjoined twin' a part of the other twins body. Two, distinct human beings, joined as one body.

If twin "A" decided to 'call' twin "B" Ham-sandwich and, used that false identification toward the rationalization to justify eating it, that would in no way alter the fact that one twin does not have superior rights to the other and where they find that their twin is an inconvenience, this is not a sound moral justification for killing them.

The simple fact is that there is no potential for a 'right' by a Mother of all beings, to kill her pre-born child because that child was conceived as a result of the mothers unsound decisions.

Now, there is no problem at all with women deciding to sterilize themselves, so that they can allow me to ejaculate their seminal fluids into their bodies... the world probably needs twisted women of low moral character. But women who murder their pre-born children for convenience, are perverse people.

And there's just not much more to it, than that.

 

[g5000]

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?

Please link to the law. You will find that every single state that has a fetal murder law exempts abortion.

So it is not TWO laws, only one.

 

[g5000]

Fetal Homicide State Laws

Alabama* Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.

Go down the whole list and they all say abortion does not apply.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?

Please link to the law. You will find that every single one of them exempts abortion.

It's already been posted

 

[g5000]

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?

Please link to the law. You will find that every single one of them exempts abortion.

It's already been posted

Then you have seen it is not two laws. It is one law. Your belief that "one law says this, and another law says that" is erroneous.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?

Please link to the law. You will find that every single one of them exempts abortion.

It's already been posted

Then you have seen it is not two laws. It is one law. Your belief that "one law says this, and another law says that" is erroneous.

no it isn't

one law defines a fetus as a human being (the felony murder law)
the other defines a fetus as part of a woman's body (abortion law)

No need to be dishonest about it

 

[g5000]

Fetal murder laws all revolve around the consent of the mother.

 

[kaz]

First a definition:
"An Atheist"... a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
An atheist's belief is by definition based on "nothing".

The question then is:What do atheists have to fear from people that believe in something?

As long as that something does not do as the majority of radical Muslims believe, i.e. any person that is an infidel must be put to death, why do atheists fear NOTHING i.e. they don't believe in the existence of God or gods..?

We have to fear the potential use of law to enforce us to live by another's religious beliefs.

No one forces us to live by their religious beliefs more than a liberal. Government is God and must be worshiped and paid tribute and all disbelievers destroyed.

 

[g5000]

How do you rectify these two laws.

1. says if your wife is 1 month pregnant and you hit her and the baby dies, your guilty of murder (the illegal taking of a human life)

2. Your wife can choose to end the same life that is in her body without it being called murder?

Please link to the law. You will find that every single one of them exempts abortion.

It's already been posted

Then you have seen it is not two laws. It is one law. Your belief that "one law says this, and another law says that" is erroneous.

no it isn't

one law defines a fetus as a human being (the felony murder law)
the other defines a fetus as part of a woman's body (abortion law)

No need to be dishonest about it

I see you are choosing to not read the links. Every single fetal murder law contains a provision which says the law does not apply to abortion. Murder is determined by whether or not the mother consented to the death of the fetus.

Read the damn link.

No contradiction in the law. Sorry about that.

 

[g5000]

Our country has decided that the mother of the fetus retains all rights to the life of the fetus up through the second trimester. If the fetus is murdered without the consent of the mother, then that murder is subject to prosecution as a violation of the mother's rights, not the fetus'.

And that is the way the fetal murder laws are written.

One can argue over whether the fetus has inherent rights unconnected to the mother, but our country has decided a fetus does not.

There is no contradiction in the law.

 

[g5000]

I am pro-life. I believe the murder of a fetus should be illegal with or without the mother's consent. I believe abortion should be banned.

Does that mean I want to force my beliefs on other people? Hell yes, it does. But that is no different than if I say I want to ban all murders would be an expression of a desire to force my beliefs on others.

We all have beliefs we want to force on others in the public realm. But when we want to start forcing a particular brand of religion on others, then we are going off a cliff into the kind of nightmare of which the people of the theocracies of the Middle East could lecture all of us.

 

[g5000]

We are not that far removed from religious extremists killing infidels in our own country. The KKK was putting out fatwas against infidels in my own lifetime, and their members were executing people.

It would not take much for us to slide back into that madness. There are some on this forum who would welcome it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You will find that every single state that has a fetal murder law exempts abortion..

Yes... of course: The Law regarding the Murder Pre-born Children incontrovertibly severs itself from the essential moral component required for law to be legitimate, in that one Law recognizes the Pre-born child as a human being and that human beings rightful claim to its own life, and the other does not, authorizing the murder of that human being, justifying the murder of that human being at the whim of another human being which the law otherwise recognizes as having EQUAL RIGHTS, thus in no way does one innocent human life stand superior to another.

There is no potential "RIGHT" for one person to take the life of an innocent human being. And that is because ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL BEFORE GOD, thus... before the law.

This of course is rejected by the intellectual perversion known as Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And it is THERE that it becomes clear WHY the Ideological Left fails to serve justice in every aspect of governance, with the would-be "Right to CHOOSE!" not being the least of that extensive list.

 

[g5000]

You will find that every single state that has a fetal murder law exempts abortion..

Yes... of course: The Law regarding the Murder Pre-born Children incontrovertibly severs itself from the essential moral component required for law to be legitimate, in that one Law recognizes the Pre-born child as a human being and that human beings rightful claim to its own life, and the other does not, authorizing the murder of that human being, justifying the murder of that human being at the whim of another human being which the law otherwise recognizes as having EQUAL RIGHTS, thus in no way does one innocent human life stand superior to another.

There is no potential "RIGHT" for one person to take the life of an innocent human being. And that is because ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL BEFORE GOD, thus... before the law.

This of course is rejected by the intellectual perversion known as Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And it is THERE that it becomes clear WHY the Ideological Left fails to serve justice in every aspect of governance, with the would-be "Right to CHOOSE!" not being the least of that extensive list.

Um. No.

The law says that the mother retains the rights to the life of the fetus, at least up through the second trimester. Therefore, if the life of the fetus is taken without her consent, that is prosecutable. If the life of the fetus is taken with her consent, there is nothing to be prosecuted.

There is no contradiction. It's really that simple.