Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

[paulitician]

Births are avoidable. By abortion.

And BTW, you're disgusting.

They wanna have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they wanna tell people to mind their own business and stay out of their personal lives. But on the other, they wanna force them to be involved by forcing them to pay for their numerous children or killing their babies.

Basically, the Entitlement Moochers just want people to shut up and pay up. Well guess what? Taxpayers are sick of that shite. They are gonna be in their business. And if they don't like it, too bad. They can give the money back and start accepting responsibility for their poor decisions in life.

Eventually, you can't push the check onto someone else and expect no push-back. The people are pushing-back. Don't want a kid? Don't have a kid.. I avoided it for 28 years. It's highly doable.

Spot On. Hey, if a woman wants to be a dumb slut, so be it. That is her business. So i'm perfectly fine minding my own business. But the moment she starts demanding that i pay for her numerous children or killing her babies, she's made it my business. And i will speak up. I won't just shut up and pay up.

in other words, you're a loser

Be a dumb slut, that's your call. It is none of my business. But as soon as you start demanding i support your numerous children or you killing your babies, you've made it my business.

Contraception is widely available. In fact, it's even offered for free. And i know it sounds shocking to many women, but they could always stop being dumb sluts too. Bottom line is, you wanna shit 5-6 kids out, that's fine. Just don't demand i support them. It really is that simple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And BTW, you're disgusting.

They wanna have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they wanna tell people to mind their own business and stay out of their personal lives. But on the other, they wanna force them to be involved by forcing them to pay for their numerous children or killing their babies.

Basically, the Entitlement Moochers just want people to shut up and pay up. Well guess what? Taxpayers are sick of that shite. They are gonna be in their business. And if they don't like it, too bad. They can give the money back and start accepting responsibility for their poor decisions in life.

Eventually, you can't push the check onto someone else and expect no push-back. The people are pushing-back. Don't want a kid? Don't have a kid.. I avoided it for 28 years. It's highly doable.

Spot On. Hey, if a woman wants to be a dumb slut, so be it. That is her business. So i'm perfectly fine minding my own business. But the moment she starts demanding that i pay for her numerous children or killing her babies, she's made it my business. And i will speak up. I won't just shut up and pay up.

in other words, you're a loser

Be a dumb slut, that's your call. It is none of my business. But as soon as you start demanding i support your numerous children or you killing your babies, you've made it my business.

Contraception is widely available. In fact, it's even offered for free. And i know it sounds shocking to many women, but they could always stop being dumb sluts too. Bottom line is, you wanna shit 5-6 kids out, that's fine. Just don't demand i support them. It really is that simple.

We don't have to demand. We put it to the vote in a democratic system, and you lost.

 

[jillian]

And BTW, you're disgusting.

They wanna have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they wanna tell people to mind their own business and stay out of their personal lives. But on the other, they wanna force them to be involved by forcing them to pay for their numerous children or killing their babies.

Basically, the Entitlement Moochers just want people to shut up and pay up. Well guess what? Taxpayers are sick of that shite. They are gonna be in their business. And if they don't like it, too bad. They can give the money back and start accepting responsibility for their poor decisions in life.

Eventually, you can't push the check onto someone else and expect no push-back. The people are pushing-back. Don't want a kid? Don't have a kid.. I avoided it for 28 years. It's highly doable.

Spot On. Hey, if a woman wants to be a dumb slut, so be it. That is her business. So i'm perfectly fine minding my own business. But the moment she starts demanding that i pay for her numerous children or killing her babies, she's made it my business. And i will speak up. I won't just shut up and pay up.

in other words, you're a loser

Be a dumb slut, that's your call. It is none of my business. But as soon as you start demanding i support your numerous children or you killing your babies, you've made it my business.

Contraception is widely available. In fact, it's even offered for free. And i know it sounds shocking to many women, but they could always stop being dumb sluts too. Bottom line is, you wanna shit 5-6 kids out, that's fine. Just don't demand i support them. It really is that simple.

I am neither dumb nor a slut. And your hatred for women is obvious.

Like I said.... you're a loser.

 

[Chuz Life]

If having an unwanted baby is such a great idea, why don't you anti's leave it as a choice and just use your brilliant powers of persuasion to spread the word,

of what a great idea it is?

How do you account for the vast majority of us who don't have unwanted children? I don't know if you know this, but children are completely avoidable.

Births are avoidable. By abortion.

Celibacy can be avoided by the violation of children too. But that doesn't justify the violation against the child . Does it? And yes. . . I certainly did just equate abortions to child molestations.

Not all forms of molestation are sexual, you know.

That's because you're an idiot. You will never get to send women to prison for life for taking the morning after pill so enjoy your misery.

Ummm, The morning after pill supposedly is not an abortifacient so what the hell are you going on about? Do you know something more about the morning after pill that isn't being admitted to by the pill's manufacturers?

Idiot?

 

[Skylar]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Its actually good to see. Much of the republican creep on abortion rights has been under the thin veneer of 'plausible deniability' on their motives to stop abortion.

This removes any plausibility and makes their goals apparent. Even the more conservative portions of the supreme court have little tolerance for this kind of pseudo-legal horseshit. Conservatives are over playing their hand.

 

[Political Junky]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

He just guaranteed his re-election.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Its actually good to see. Much of the republican creep on abortion rights has been under the thin veneer of 'plausible deniability' on their motives to stop abortion.

This removes any plausibility and makes their goals apparent. Even the more conservative portions of the supreme court have little tolerance for this kind of pseudo-legal horseshit. Conservatives are over playing their hand.

The United States Constitution clearly states that all "persons" are equally entitled to the protections of our laws.

As the Supreme court indicated when it was deciding Roe, that means that if a child in the womb (a human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person" - then as the Court said. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make.

No amount of personal attacks, hand wringing or even outright threats are going to deter those of us who are fighting to have the personhood of "children in the womb" recognized by the courts.

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws are just one of many incremental steps towards that end.

 

[Skylar]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Its actually good to see. Much of the republican creep on abortion rights has been under the thin veneer of 'plausible deniability' on their motives to stop abortion.

This removes any plausibility and makes their goals apparent. Even the more conservative portions of the supreme court have little tolerance for this kind of pseudo-legal horseshit. Conservatives are over playing their hand.

The United States Constitution clearly states that all "persons" are equally entitled to the protections of our laws.

As the Supreme court indicated when it was deciding Roe, that means that if a child in the womb (a human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person" - then as the Court said. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make.

No amount of personal attacks, hand wringing or even outright threats are going to deter those of us who are fighting to have the personhood of "children in the womb" recognized by the courts.

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

 

[Londoner]

Why can't these fetuses sue their mothers for smoking or drinking alcohol?

Any mother who smokes when their child is in the womb is not only stupid, but should be put in jail.

 

[Skylar]

Why can't these fetuses sue their mothers for smoking or drinking alcohol?

Any mother who smokes when their child is in the womb is not only stupid, but should be put in jail.

Why isn't a potentially heavy flow investigated as a possible homocide?

Why isn't invetro fertilization treated as child endangerment at best and 2nd degree murder at worse?

Probably because most people are rational.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why can't these fetuses sue their mothers for smoking or drinking alcohol?

Any mother who smokes when their child is in the womb is not only stupid, but should be put in jail.

What happens if she eats wrong, or gets sick? Mommy goes to jail?

 

[Chuz Life]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Its actually good to see. Much of the republican creep on abortion rights has been under the thin veneer of 'plausible deniability' on their motives to stop abortion.

This removes any plausibility and makes their goals apparent. Even the more conservative portions of the supreme court have little tolerance for this kind of pseudo-legal horseshit. Conservatives are over playing their hand.

The United States Constitution clearly states that all "persons" are equally entitled to the protections of our laws.

As the Supreme court indicated when it was deciding Roe, that means that if a child in the womb (a human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person" - then as the Court said. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make.

No amount of personal attacks, hand wringing or even outright threats are going to deter those of us who are fighting to have the personhood of "children in the womb" recognized by the courts.

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

So, the murder charge under our fetal homicide laws automatically establish the fact that the victim killed is / was a person.

For now, those laws are making exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal. However the precedence is set. The personhood status of the child has been fixed and now all we have to do is defeat the "exceptions" that are for now keeping abortions legal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Its actually good to see. Much of the republican creep on abortion rights has been under the thin veneer of 'plausible deniability' on their motives to stop abortion.

This removes any plausibility and makes their goals apparent. Even the more conservative portions of the supreme court have little tolerance for this kind of pseudo-legal horseshit. Conservatives are over playing their hand.

The United States Constitution clearly states that all "persons" are equally entitled to the protections of our laws.

As the Supreme court indicated when it was deciding Roe, that means that if a child in the womb (a human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person" - then as the Court said. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make.

No amount of personal attacks, hand wringing or even outright threats are going to deter those of us who are fighting to have the personhood of "children in the womb" recognized by the courts.

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

So, the murder charge under our fetal homicide laws automatically establish the fact that the victim killed is / was a person.

For now, those laws are making exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal. However the precedence is set. The personhood status of the child has been fixed and now all we have to do is defeat the "exceptions" that are for now keeping abortions legal.

Dots like this . . ., aren't people. Common sense. . .

 

[Skylar]

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

Can you show me the law stating that a fertilized egg is a person? I've reviewed the laws. It doesn't. It recognizes them as a 'member of the species homo sapien'. It never indicates that a fertilized egg is a person.

So I ask again, who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

The Federal Fetal Homicide laws don't recognize abortion as 'criminal killing'. Nor that a fertilized egg is a person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Making the use of the Federal Fetal Homicide laws to justify recognizing abortion as 'criminal killing' quite the circular argument.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Its actually good to see. Much of the republican creep on abortion rights has been under the thin veneer of 'plausible deniability' on their motives to stop abortion.

This removes any plausibility and makes their goals apparent. Even the more conservative portions of the supreme court have little tolerance for this kind of pseudo-legal horseshit. Conservatives are over playing their hand.

The United States Constitution clearly states that all "persons" are equally entitled to the protections of our laws.

As the Supreme court indicated when it was deciding Roe, that means that if a child in the womb (a human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person" - then as the Court said. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make.

No amount of personal attacks, hand wringing or even outright threats are going to deter those of us who are fighting to have the personhood of "children in the womb" recognized by the courts.

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

So, the murder charge under our fetal homicide laws automatically establish the fact that the victim killed is / was a person.

For now, those laws are making exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal. However the precedence is set. The personhood status of the child has been fixed and now all we have to do is defeat the "exceptions" that are for now keeping abortions legal.

Dots like this . . ., aren't people. Common sense. . .

Weren't you once that small yourself? I know I was.

It's a biological fact.

 

[Chuz Life]

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

Can you show me the law stating that a fertilized egg is a person? I've reviewed the laws. It doesn't. It recognizes them as a 'member of the species homo sapien'. It never indicates that a fertilized egg is a person.

So I ask again, who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

The Federal Fetal Homicide laws don't recognize abortion as 'criminal killing'. Nor that a fertilized egg is a person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Making the use of the Federal Fetal Homicide laws to justify recognizing abortion as 'criminal killing' quite the circular argument.

Our fetal homicide laws do more than just define and recognize a "child in the womb" as a human being / member of the species homo sapien. Those laws also make it a crime of MURDER to kill said "child" in a criminal act.

It is the charge of murder which establishes the "personhood" status of the child targeted or killed.

Try to keep up.

As for circular reasoning, a lot of things in law are argued that way. "Personhood" is itself a legal construct in many respects, isn't it?

 

[Skylar]

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

Can you show me the law stating that a fertilized egg is a person? I've reviewed the laws. It doesn't. It recognizes them as a 'member of the species homo sapien'. It never indicates that a fertilized egg is a person.

So I ask again, who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

The Federal Fetal Homicide laws don't recognize abortion as 'criminal killing'. Nor that a fertilized egg is a person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Making the use of the Federal Fetal Homicide laws to justify recognizing abortion as 'criminal killing' quite the circular argument.

Our fetal homicide laws do more than just define and recognize a "child in the womb" as a human being / member of the species homo sapien. Those laws also make it a crime of MURDER to kill said "child" in a criminal act.

So you admit that the Federal Homoicide laws don't recognize a fertilized egg as a person. Or even use the term 'person' to describe a fetus at any stage of development.

Well that's progress.

As for the Fetal Homicide laws, you're aware that they explicitly don't apply to abortion or any of the laws surrounding abortion, right?

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Seems a rather egregious omission in a legal discussion. Did you simply not know this about the Federal Fetal Homicide laws, or did you intentionally withhold that information?

So I ask again, (third time) who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Its a remarkably simple question. I wouldn't have thought it would take you three posts to answer it. But here we are. Do try and keep up.

 

[Chuz Life]

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

Can you show me the law stating that a fertilized egg is a person? I've reviewed the laws. It doesn't. It recognizes them as a 'member of the species homo sapien'. It never indicates that a fertilized egg is a person.

So I ask again, who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

The Federal Fetal Homicide laws don't recognize abortion as 'criminal killing'. Nor that a fertilized egg is a person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Making the use of the Federal Fetal Homicide laws to justify recognizing abortion as 'criminal killing' quite the circular argument.

Our fetal homicide laws do more than just define and recognize a "child in the womb" as a human being / member of the species homo sapien. Those laws also make it a crime of MURDER to kill said "child" in a criminal act.

So you admit that the Federal Homoicide laws don't recognize a fertilized egg as a person. Or even use the term 'person' to describe a fetus at any stage of development.

Well that's progress.

As for the Fetal Homicide laws, you're aware that they explicitly don't apply to abortion or any of the laws surrounding abortion, right?

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Seems a rather egregious omission in a legal discussion. Did you simply not know this about the Federal Fetal Homicide laws, or did you intentionally withhold that information?

So I ask again, (third time) who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Its a remarkably simple question. I wouldn't have thought it would take you three posts to answer it. But here we are. Do try and keep up.

Our fetal homicide laws establish the personhood of children in the womb by making it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act.

Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

The very fact that fetal homicide laws even have to make an exception to keep abortions legal should tell you about the personhood status of the child.

It's the very reason why planned parenthood opposed the fetal homicide laws when they were being proposed.

 

[Skylar]

And who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

Can you show me the law stating that a fertilized egg is a person? I've reviewed the laws. It doesn't. It recognizes them as a 'member of the species homo sapien'. It never indicates that a fertilized egg is a person.

So I ask again, who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

The Federal Fetal Homicide laws don't recognize abortion as 'criminal killing'. Nor that a fertilized egg is a person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Making the use of the Federal Fetal Homicide laws to justify recognizing abortion as 'criminal killing' quite the circular argument.

Our fetal homicide laws do more than just define and recognize a "child in the womb" as a human being / member of the species homo sapien. Those laws also make it a crime of MURDER to kill said "child" in a criminal act.

So you admit that the Federal Homoicide laws don't recognize a fertilized egg as a person. Or even use the term 'person' to describe a fetus at any stage of development.

Well that's progress.

As for the Fetal Homicide laws, you're aware that they explicitly don't apply to abortion or any of the laws surrounding abortion, right?

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Seems a rather egregious omission in a legal discussion. Did you simply not know this about the Federal Fetal Homicide laws, or did you intentionally withhold that information?

So I ask again, (third time) who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Its a remarkably simple question. I wouldn't have thought it would take you three posts to answer it. But here we are. Do try and keep up.

Our fetal homicide laws establish the personhood of children in the womb by making it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act.

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.

Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

You can't get around that.

Oh, and you're not even going to acknowledge that these laws explicitly exempt abortion from any portion of them, are you?

But why would we ignore this amazingly germane fact? Why would any rational person?

 

[Chuz Life]

Our Federal Fetal Homicide law does. . . By making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill a "child in the womb" in Any stage of development" in a criminal act.

Can you show me the law stating that a fertilized egg is a person? I've reviewed the laws. It doesn't. It recognizes them as a 'member of the species homo sapien'. It never indicates that a fertilized egg is a person.

So I ask again, who has found that a fertilized egg is a person?

The legal definition of murder is one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

The Federal Fetal Homicide laws don't recognize abortion as 'criminal killing'. Nor that a fertilized egg is a person.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Making the use of the Federal Fetal Homicide laws to justify recognizing abortion as 'criminal killing' quite the circular argument.

Our fetal homicide laws do more than just define and recognize a "child in the womb" as a human being / member of the species homo sapien. Those laws also make it a crime of MURDER to kill said "child" in a criminal act.

So you admit that the Federal Homoicide laws don't recognize a fertilized egg as a person. Or even use the term 'person' to describe a fetus at any stage of development.

Well that's progress.

As for the Fetal Homicide laws, you're aware that they explicitly don't apply to abortion or any of the laws surrounding abortion, right?

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

Seems a rather egregious omission in a legal discussion. Did you simply not know this about the Federal Fetal Homicide laws, or did you intentionally withhold that information?

So I ask again, (third time) who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Its a remarkably simple question. I wouldn't have thought it would take you three posts to answer it. But here we are. Do try and keep up.

Our fetal homicide laws establish the personhood of children in the womb by making it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act.

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

You can't get around that.

So, for the fifth time.....who says that a fertilized egg is a person?[/QUOTE]


Our fetal homicide laws don't have to use the word person when it already uses the word child and human being and when they make it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act.

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.