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

[Chuz Life]

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.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

 

[Skylar]

By the way, I don't care if you laugh at me. The collision course between Roe and our fetal homicide laws is already in motion. I provided the link earlier about how those convicted are appealing on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision. Oh, you'll talk about the 'conflict', promise us its 'in motion', insist that it the court's must address it.

But when we ask you to *show us* the conflict.........well, you're on a cell phone. And you can't be expected to support your argument. And various other sundry excuses.

Why would the Roe decision be threatened by a conflict that you can't even show us?

You can take me completely out of the picture and that process will continue to unfold as more cases are made and presented.

Unless it isn't. As remember....your source on the legal outcome is you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Shall we review the giant, truck sized holes in your argument. Like say, Fetal Protection law you cited destroying your entire argument? Or the fact that your 'quote' from the Roe v. Wade decision isn't actually in the Roe v. Wade decision? Or that you can't even show us the 'conflict' you've based your entire argument around?

These are not remedial failures. But profound collapses in your reasoning.

 

[Skylar]

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?

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

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.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

Are you still going to go with the 'compelling interests' are 'wide open' on abortion schtick? Because I noticed you jumped back from the steaming rhetorical pile of horseshit and now refuse to even discuss it. That happened right around the time I pulled the *actual* quotes from the Roe Decision on the matter.

And 'poof'. You and your 'wide open' argument just disappeared.

What happened, Chuz? Your argument from this morning is so very different from your argument of this afternoon.

 

[Faun]

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?

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

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.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

No they don't.

Even in Roe, the Court ruled that the government has the right to intervention when there is a compelling interest.

That leaves the door wide open for what is and what is not a "compelling interest"

Umm... The only compelling interests mentioned in that ruling were in regard to the mother, not be unborn child.

 

[Faun]

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.

Take responsibility for your decisions in life. It's not everyone else's fault. Think very deeply and intelligently before shitting out 5-6 kids. And don't demand Taxpayers pay for you killing your babies. Most Americans don't wanna be forced to pay for dumb sluts being dumb sluts. Being a dumb slut is a choice. But I'll mind my own business if you allow me to.

Not everyone is responsible and we don't let children starve just because they may have irresponsible parents.

Conservatives sure are heartless, I'll grant you that.

 

[Skylar]

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.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

No they don't.

Even in Roe, the Court ruled that the government has the right to intervention when there is a compelling interest.

That leaves the door wide open for what is and what is not a "compelling interest"

Umm... The only compelling interests mentioned in that ruling were in regard to the mother, not be unborn child.

Oh, Chuz knows. He just really hopes you don't.

As always, Chuzzy's argument is based on the ignorance of his audience. If you've actually read the Roe ruling, you know he's completely full of shit.

It explains why his argument has such an absymal record in court. As judges have actually read the rulings they're adjudicating. Making them a less than ideal audience for Chuzzy's brand of pseudo-legal horseshit.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

No they don't.

Even in Roe, the Court ruled that the government has the right to intervention when there is a compelling interest.

That leaves the door wide open for what is and what is not a "compelling interest"

Umm... The only compelling interests mentioned in that ruling were in regard to the mother, not be unborn child.

Umm...the Supreme Court arbitrarily set the point at viability. As modern technology anvances, so does the point of viability.

This is related to the "compelling interest ' the court was talking about

 

[Skylar]

Oh Chuzzy.......can you show us the conflict in Roe with Federal Fetal Protection laws now?

Its only been 2 days. And your first attempt was such an abysmal failure.....with you citing Stewart rather than the Roe v. Wade ruling.

2nd times the charm?

 

[Faun]

Again, thanks for nothing.

Do you often struggle with responding to posts?

No problem, a struggle? Hardly, maybe my pocket did it, i am on the telephone.

I see your struggles with posting continue. Now you're double posting.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. I don't like conservatives, especially the phony Christian types.

 

[Faun]

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?

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

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.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Chuz is the same poor, hapless soul that cited Federal Fetal Protection laws as justification for criminalizing abortion. Despite the fact that these same laws explicitly exempt abortion from any part of the law.

So you're exactly dealing with a titan of consistency or logic here.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

I see. . .

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Chuz is the same poor, hapless soul that cited Federal Fetal Protection laws as justification for criminalizing abortion. Despite the fact that these same laws explicitly exempt abortion from any part of the law.

So you're exactly dealing with a titan of consistency or logic here.

Those are some pretty serious personal attacks.

Are any of them worse than being a child molesting baby killer?

I think not.

 

[Skylar]

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

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

That's what your elaborate pseudo-legal argument has devolved into?

Laughing....I take it you're not used to talking people familiar with the laws and cases you pretend to 'cite', are you?

 

[elektra]

Again, thanks for nothing.

Do you often struggle with responding to posts?

No problem, a struggle? Hardly, maybe my pocket did it, i am on the telephone.

I see your struggles with posting continue. Now you're double posting.

I see you struggle to be clever, whats wrong, you need a little attention from me?

 

[Skylar]

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Chuz is the same poor, hapless soul that cited Federal Fetal Protection laws as justification for criminalizing abortion. Despite the fact that these same laws explicitly exempt abortion from any part of the law.

So you're exactly dealing with a titan of consistency or logic here.

Those are some pretty serious personal attacks.

Are any of them worse than being a child molesting baby killer?

I think not.

Did I inaccurately relay the situation? Of course not. You cited the Federal Fetal Protection laws as your justification for criminalizing abortion. And you laughably ignored that fact that the laws explicitly exempt abortion from the entire law.

You're wildly inconsistent. And your legal logic is nonsense. Watch, I'll make you demonstrate it again:

Show us the conflict in Roe v. Wade with Federal Fetal proection laws.

See how easy that was? Its the cornerstone of your entire argument. And yet.........crickets. That's not a legal argument, Chuz. Your elaborate pseudo-legal fantasy is just your imagination. And even you can't find the 'conflict' you've based all your hopes on.

You're simply not prepared for a legal conversation.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Chuz is the same poor, hapless soul that cited Federal Fetal Protection laws as justification for criminalizing abortion. Despite the fact that these same laws explicitly exempt abortion from any part of the law.

So you're exactly dealing with a titan of consistency or logic here.

Those are some pretty serious personal attacks.

Are any of them worse than being a child molesting baby killer?

I think not.

I guess that's the end of this debate. Thanks for playing. lol

 

[Chuz Life]

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

That's what your elaborate pseudo-legal argument has devolved into?

Laughing....I take it you're not used to talking people familiar with the laws and cases you pretend to 'cite', are you?

All you have is an appeal to authority.

Your nervous laughter is a dead give away.

Still waiting on an answer as to why planned parenthood and the aclu opposed the fetal homicide laws, by the way.

The answer to that should answer some of your own questions about how the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

 

[Skylar]

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

That's what your elaborate pseudo-legal argument has devolved into?

Laughing....I take it you're not used to talking people familiar with the laws and cases you pretend to 'cite', are you?

All you have is an appeal to authority.

You mean cite the actual law and the actual cases rather than whatever pseudo-legal horseshit you make up?

Um, yeah. So does every court. See, in the law there is a leviathan. There is an authority. And its not you.

This is why your ilk have a near perfect record of failure with your argument. As you keep citing your imagination as the law. And it isn't.

Your nervous laughter is a dead give away.

Still waiting on an answer as to why planned parenthood and the aclu opposed the fetal homicide laws, by the way.

The answer to that should answer some of your own questions about how the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

And you'll get the same answer you did last time: Ask the ACLU.

See, when I want to know something, I go to the source. When you want to know something, you go to your imagination.

Our arguments are not equal.