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

[Skylar]

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

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.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

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.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

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.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

 

[Skylar]

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?

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.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

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.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

Says you pretending you are the law and making up passages in the law it doesn't ever use. There's no mention of 'person' or 'personhood' related to the fetus at any stage of development.

Your source is you citing yourself. And you aren't nearly enough.

And of course, the very statute you're pretending to cite....says this:

(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

You can play pretend and ignore it all you like. But that's not a legal argument.

 

[Never3ndr]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

 

[Skylar]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

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.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

Says you pretending you are the law and making up passages in the law it doesn't ever use. There's no mention of 'person' or 'personhood' related to the fetus at any stage of development.

Your source is you citing yourself. And you aren't nearly enough.

And of course, the very statute you're pretending to cite....says this:

(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

You can play pretend and ignore it all you like. But that's not a legal argument.

You are engaged in a classic appeal to authority fallacious argument.

We are all well aware of the fact that our fetal homicide laws make exceptions (for now) to keep abortion legal.

What part did you think we are trying to change?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

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.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

Says you pretending you are the law and making up passages in the law it doesn't ever use. There's no mention of 'person' or 'personhood' related to the fetus at any stage of development.

Your source is you citing yourself. And you aren't nearly enough.

And of course, the very statute you're pretending to cite....says this:

(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

You can play pretend and ignore it all you like. But that's not a legal argument.

You are engaged in a classic appeal to authority fallacious argument.

I'm engaged in an accurate citation of the laws you pretend you're citing. And they simply don't say what you do.

You're not citing the law on personhood for fertilzed eggs. You're citing yourself. And you citing you isn't a legal argument.

Its an excuse for one.

We are all well aware of the fact that our fetal homicide laws make exceptions (for now) to keep abortion legal.

Really? Because you never mentioned it once in all your 'criminal killing' babble. Ignored it for about 5 posts and refusing to acknowledge it existed.

If you were offering us a genuine legal argument....why would you ignore this remarkably germane passage that utterly destroys your entire argument?

As I've said before, your argument requires an ignorant audience. Anyone even passingly familiar with the law you pretend to cite (like, say, any judge) would recognize the theory killing omissions and imaginary passages of your claims.

 

[Chuz Life]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

 

[Never3ndr]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

You realize that I literally stated that I simply don't care if the fetus has personhood. In fact, I don't actually disagree with this (when you think of murders of pregnant women or irresponsibility of pregnant women, it is really beneficial to give the fetus some rights so you can have legal leverage to take some sort of action).

On the other hand, as I stated I don't care. I'm not sure how thick you are, but whether or not you consider a fetus a person doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's part of the mother's body? Until you can show, in a provable way, that the fetus isn't attached to the mother than you really can't argue against my belief in the mother's right to choose trumps the fetus's right to life...its a belief based on my system of morality. Just like your belief in the sanctity of the fetus' life is based on your morality. I'm not telling you that you are immoral or that you are wrong...what I am saying is that it doesn't matter what sort of rationality you have built up to support your belief...at the end of the day it is your belief...not mine.

 

[Chuz Life]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

You realize that I literally stated that I simply don't care if the fetus has personhood. In fact, I don't actually disagree with this (when you think of murders of pregnant women or irresponsibility of pregnant women, it is really beneficial to give the fetus some rights so you can have legal leverage to take some sort of action).

On the other hand, as I stated I don't care. I'm not sure how thick you are, but whether or not you consider a fetus a person doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's part of the mother's body? Until you can show, in a provable way, that the fetus isn't attached to the mother than you really can't argue against my belief in the mother's right to choose trumps the fetus's right to life.

I understand your wants and your beliefs but the SCOTUS has already rejected your claim. They are the ones who said that once personhood is established for the child in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make.



The Supreme Court said that. Not me.

So, it's clear they have rejected YOUR claim that just because the child (put there by the actions of the mother and her partner) is attached that somehow she has a right to kill it.

I think the court rejects that argument at least in cases other than rape. . . because the child is only in the situation it is in because of the actions that the woman and her partner took to put it there.

No-one has the right to lure and entrap another person in a situation and then claim the right to kill them in an act of self defense.

 

[Never3ndr]

I understand your wants and your beliefs but the SCOTUS has already rejected your claim. They are the ones who said that once personhood is established for the child in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make.



The Supreme Court said that. Not me.

So, it's clear they have rejected YOUR claim that just because the child (put there by the actions of the mother and her partner) is attached that somehow she has a right to kill it.

I think the court rejects that argument at least in cases other than rape. . . because the child is only in the situation it is in because of the actions that the woman and her partner took to put it there.

No-one has the right to lure and entrap another person in a situation and then claim the right to kill them in an act of self defense.

What, exactly, does the SCOTUS or the legality of abortion have to do with my beliefs? You realize that, right now, abortion is legal yet you believe that it is wrong and are fighting against it. The legality or legal reasoning behind something has this much to do:

NOTHING

with your belief set.

 

[Chuz Life]

I understand your wants and your beliefs but the SCOTUS has already rejected your claim. They are the ones who said that once personhood is established for the child in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make.



The Supreme Court said that. Not me.

So, it's clear they have rejected YOUR claim that just because the child (put there by the actions of the mother and her partner) is attached that somehow she has a right to kill it.

I think the court rejects that argument at least in cases other than rape. . . because the child is only in the situation it is in because of the actions that the woman and her partner took to put it there.

No-one has the right to lure and entrap another person in a situation and then claim the right to kill them in an act of self defense.

What, exactly, does the SCOTUS or the legality of abortion have to do with my beliefs? You realize that, right now, abortion is legal yet you believe that it is wrong and are fighting against it. The legality or legal reasoning behind something has this much to do:

ZERO

with your belief set.

I suppose you are entitled to your beliefs. However, I thought you might at least consider what the Supreme court said about it. I mean, since they are the highest court in the land and all and since your belief that it doesn't matter if the child is a "person" or not will not likely be a view that the Supreme Court agrees with.

Again, given what they have already said and all. .

 

[Faun]

Every attempt has been made to stop legal abortion any way they can, and pretty much the same with free birth control. As usual, you want it both ways. Instead of making rational arguments you scream Baby Killers, Baby Killers, and demand women keep their legs closed as if we live in 1940 still...

If you damand others pay for your decisions, then yes, those others do have the right to scream 'Baby Killers, Baby Killers', and demand women 'keep their legs closed.' This ain't no free-for-all. You force your life on others, they do have the right to speak up.

You can speak up all ya want. Tax dollars are still going to feed kids. We don't let kids starve in America.

Then you support some freeloading mother telling you to butt out then making you look like a dumbass by having you pay for a choice she said was none of your business. I choose not to be an idiot. You do.

I choose to not let kids starve, regardless of their parents' decisions. If left to you, there would be homeless kids starving on the streets.

I didn't say that. I said i have the right to speak up. The moment you demand i pay for your children and you killing your babies, your life became my business. You forced it on me. Therefore i do have a say. I won't mind my business.

I will tell you to make better decisions and keep your damn legs closed. And i will push for more requirements of you for you receiving Tax Dollars. It's not a free-for-all. I will demand such things as Community Service and so on. You don't like that, too bad. Don't take the money. I'm not just gonna shut up and pay up. I'll be in your business. Deal with it.

Like I said, you have the right to speak up.

No one has to listen to you.

But rant away anyway, if it makes ya feel better.

 

[Faun]

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?

Having an unwanted baby or several, isn't a great idea. So don't do it. Don't be a dumb slut. But if you do choose to be a dumb slut, take responsibility for it. Don't demand others pay for your numerous children or killing your babies. Those are your decisions, you need to own them.

And if you do take the cash, don't think you can tell others to just shut up and 'mind their own business' ether. You made it their business the moment you demanded they take care of your children or pay for you killing your baby. Personally, i'd love to mind my own business. But you Entitlement Moochers keep dragging me into your trainwreck lives. I won't just shut up and pay up. You don't like that, don't take my money.

 

[Faun]

Every attempt has been made to stop legal abortion any way they can, and pretty much the same with free birth control. As usual, you want it both ways. Instead of making rational arguments you scream Baby Killers, Baby Killers, and demand women keep their legs closed as if we live in 1940 still...

If you damand others pay for your decisions, then yes, those others do have the right to scream 'Baby Killers, Baby Killers', and demand women 'keep their legs closed.' This ain't no free-for-all. You force your life on others, they do have the right to speak up.

You can speak up all ya want. Tax dollars are still going to feed kids. We don't let kids starve in America.

Then you support some freeloading mother telling you to butt out then making you look like a dumbass by having you pay for a choice she said was none of your business. I choose not to be an idiot. You do.

I choose to not let kids starve, regardless of their parents' decisions. If left to you, there would be homeless kids starving on the streets.

I choose not to be an idiot and let someone tell me what they do is their business then support the choices they made. Apparently you do.

If they are, it's your fault. You think it's OK for someone to tell you to butt out then you're willing to pay for a choice you were told is none of your business. If you think that's OK, prove it by finding all those in that situation and paying them with YOUR money. I don't think it's OK. I, unlike you, am not stupid.

More evidence that if left up to you and your ilk, kids would be starving in the street, wasn't really necessary. But thanks anyway.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

You realize that I literally stated that I simply don't care if the fetus has personhood. In fact, I don't actually disagree with this (when you think of murders of pregnant women or irresponsibility of pregnant women, it is really beneficial to give the fetus some rights so you can have legal leverage to take some sort of action).

On the other hand, as I stated I don't care. I'm not sure how thick you are, but whether or not you consider a fetus a person doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's part of the mother's body? Until you can show, in a provable way, that the fetus isn't attached to the mother than you really can't argue against my belief in the mother's right to choose trumps the fetus's right to life.

I understand your wants and your beliefs but the SCOTUS has already rejected your claim. They are the ones who said that once personhood is established for the child in the womb, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make.



The Supreme Court said that. Not me.

So, it's clear they have rejected YOUR claim that just because the child (put there by the actions of the mother and her partner) is attached that somehow she has a right to kill it.

I think the court rejects that argument at least in cases other than rape. . . because the child is only in the situation it is in because of the actions that the woman and her partner took to put it there.

No-one has the right to lure and entrap another person in a situation and then claim the right to kill them in an act of self defense.

Your video clip doesn't prove anything, except maybe that since the fetus has no constitutional rights as a person, abortion can be a right. As it is now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

State personhood amendments were defeated soundly in Colorado, North Dakota, and even in Mississippi, the latter being the most conservative state in the union.

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps should be given free abortions on demand and $10 from Crime Stop.

It would be a mistake to think I'm trying to be funny

 

[elektra]

I remember when, the Supreme Court supported Slavery, how right they were.

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

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.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.