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

[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.

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

Pretty much. Chuzzy just blinked.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

 

[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.

I see. . .

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

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

 

[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.

I see. . .

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

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Your 'defense' is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Enjoy irrelevance. You don't make that choice. She does. Each time. Every time.

There's nothing you can do about it.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Your 'defense' is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Enjoy irrelevance. You don't make that choice. She does. Each time. Every time.

There's nothing you can do about it.

Your knee-jerk reactions to my posts does not support your claims about the (your perceived) irrelevance of my efforts. To the contrary, your incessant whining and attempts to muddy the waters, appeals to authority and your attacks on me the messenger rather than to concede even the smallest of points tells me that you actually are genuinely concerned about the validity of my points.

Thankfully, I don't need anything more from you in the way of a response or reaction to know my points are valid myself.

That said, I kind of appreciate all your attempts to discourage my efforts. So far, you have been a good foil for my views.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Your 'defense' is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Enjoy irrelevance. You don't make that choice. She does. Each time. Every time.

There's nothing you can do about it.

Your knee-jerk reactions to my posts does not support your claims about irrelevance of my efforts. To the contrary, your incessant whining and attempts to muddy the waters, appeal to authority and to attack me the messenger rather than to concede even the smallest of points tells me that you actually are genuinely concerned about the validity of my points.

I don't think 'knee jerk' means what you think it means. What I did was read and cite the actual Roe v. Wade rulnig, finding the specific references that refuted your specific pieces of pseudo-legal horseshit. Not only did I destroy your entire argument regarding 'compelling interests' being 'wide open' for the States (so completely I might add....that you refuse to even discuss your former claims), I systematically dismantled your entire basis of argument.

How you might ask?

Simple: I noticed that you were lying your ass off regarding your 'quote' from the 'Supreme Court'. You were in fact citing Stewart and NOT the majority ruling on Roe. With no point or legal principle you cited being reflected in the actual Roe ruling.

I took away your entire 'conflict' between Roe and your imaginary version of the Federal Fetal Protection laws. Now when I ask you to cite the conflict in Roe....you start babbling about 'knee jerks' and 'defending children'.

But you have no actual citation backing your imaginary pseudo-legal horseshit.

That's not 'knee jerk'. That's a systematic, logical and factual evisceration of the ludicrous nonsense you'd convinced yourself of. Using better sources, accurate citations of law, accurate citations of the court rulings, better reasoning and a vastly deeper command of the law.

See how that works?

Thankfully, I don't need anything more from you in the way of a response or reaction to know my points are valid myself.

That said, I kind of appreciate all your attempts to discourage my efforts. So far, you have been a good foil for my views.

So good in fact that you've abandoned your claims and no longer have a 'conflict' between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

I'm glad I could help. Just drop me a line whenever you need more of the same.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Why don't you make yourself useful, and go out and defend some children that are already born.

 

[Chuz Life]

I see. . .

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

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Your 'defense' is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Enjoy irrelevance. You don't make that choice. She does. Each time. Every time.

There's nothing you can do about it.

Your knee-jerk reactions to my posts does not support your claims about irrelevance of my efforts. To the contrary, your incessant whining and attempts to muddy the waters, appeal to authority and to attack me the messenger rather than to concede even the smallest of points tells me that you actually are genuinely concerned about the validity of my points.

I don't think 'knee jerk' means what you think it means. What I did was read and cite the actual Roe v. Wade rulnig, finding the specific references that refuted your specific pieces of pseudo-legal horseshit. Not only did I destroy your entire argument regarding 'compelling interests' being 'wide open' for the States (so completely I might add....that you refuse to even discuss your former claims), I systematically dismantled your entire basis of argument.

How you might ask?

Simple: I noticed that you were lying your ass off regarding your 'quote' from the 'Supreme Court'. You were in fact citing Stewart and NOT the majority ruling on Roe. With no point or legal principle you cited being reflected in the actual Roe ruling.

I took away your entire 'conflict' between Roe and your imaginary version of the Federal Fetal Protection laws. Now when I ask you to cite the conflict in Roe....you start babbling about 'knee jerks' and 'defending children'.

But you have no actual citation backing your imaginary pseudo-legal horseshit.

That's not 'knee jerk'. That's a systematic, logical and factual evisceration of the ludicrous nonsense you'd convinced yourself of. Using better sources, accurate citations of law, accurate citations of the court rulings, better reasoning and a vastly deeper command of the law.

See how that works?

Thankfully, I don't need anything more from you in the way of a response or reaction to know my points are valid myself.

That said, I kind of appreciate all your attempts to discourage my efforts. So far, you have been a good foil for my views.

So good in fact that you've abandoned your claims and no longer have a 'conflict' between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

I'm glad I could help. Just drop me a line whenever you need more of the same.

No. You basically have done little more than to cite the portions of the law that YOU think is an authority unto itself. You act as though the exceptions made in our fetal homicide laws which (for now) prohibit the prosecution of abortions is in itself infallible and can not be challenged.

Your position is tantamount to someone using the Bible as an authority unto itself.

As for my observation about how our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe? I shared a link earlier to one of the sources for my views on that - but here it is again for anyone who missed it.

"abortion-rights supporters are finding it increasingly difficult to claim credibly that a fetus just a few weeks, or even days, from delivery is not entitled to at least some protections under the law--but they vigorously argue against such laws anyway, fearing that giving a fetus rights will lead to the collapse of abortion protections. "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, thenRoe will be moot," says Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt."

 

[elektra]

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

It is funny though, huh. A debate you call this? I guess it is a debate, with liars and deniers who demand no responsibility for the choices they make. The only argument offered has no basis in medicine, it is simply I want to do this, it is my choice?

Sad.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Why don't you make yourself useful, and go out and defend some children that are already born.

We already have laws against the abuse, neglect, murders and the molestation of children who who are already born.

I'm going to continue to seek the same protections of our laws for those who you and your ilk are in denial of.

Just so you know, it's not open for negotiation.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You might want to Chuz your battles more wisely.

 

[Chuz Life]

You might want to Chuz your battles more wisely.

When I first started fighting abortion, we could only have dreamed of having laws which recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and laws which would make the killing of that "child" a crime in ANY respect.

The battles were much more difficult then than they are now - Especially with the legal precedent we now have set in our Fetal Homicide laws. The debate about whether or not an abortion kills a "child" has already been legally won.

I wish things would move more quickly than they have been moving so far. . . but overall, I would say our "battles" have been chosen poorly.

If baby steps are all we can get, then that's what we will do.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Why don't you make yourself useful, and go out and defend some children that are already born.

We already have laws against the abuse, neglect, murders and the molestation of children who who are already born.

I'm going to continue to seek the same protections of our laws for those who you and your ilk are in denial of.

Just so you know, it's not open for negotiation.

You'd be more productive if you spent your time fighting for necessary funding for programs that actually work in reducing teen pregnancy and abortions.

Here's a program that works.

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...op-with-birth-control-initiative-491563587572

 

[oreo]

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

Yep a district court would slap it down as soon as it was passed. There is a thing called the U.S. Supreme Court and it is the law of the land, including in Oklahoma. If I were a taxpayer of that state, I would get a little angry with this state Senator for wasting time and taxpayer dollars over an issue that was settled by the high court 45 years ago.

A woman's right to choose is here to stay. We have had several Republican administrations over the last 45 years, a full house under G.W. Bush, new court appointees, etc. and nothing has changed. Even Republican administrations have refused to give a litmus test on abortion to court nominees. The U.S. Supreme court has been considered a right leaning court for decades now, and it was a right leaning court that gave us Roe V Wade.

The Republican Party loses elections by dragging already settled U.S. Supreme court issues on political platforms. U.S. Supreme Court issues are just that. These issues have no business being on a political platform, because there's not a dang thing any politician, including the POTUS can do about them.

In 2012 women went running into Obama's column securing a 2nd term for him, over abortion, who's not going to pay for birth control pills, that then went into what is legal legitimate rape questions. Republicans lost women by double digits, younger women by a whopping 36 points. Women were basically offended into Barack Obama's column. Romney's fate was sealed long before he even became the nominee over this issue.
Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

You cannot legislate your version of morality from Washington D.C. or Oklahoma.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

Yep a district court would slap it down as soon as it was passed. There is a thing called the U.S. Supreme Court and it is the law of the land, including in Oklahoma, and if I were a taxpayer of that state, I would get a little angry with Senator for wasting time and taxpayer dollars over an issue that was settled by the high court 45 years ago.

He's only been in office since 2014. He's got to get in bed with the religious fundies.

 

[Chuz Life]

I see. . .

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

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Why don't you make yourself useful, and go out and defend some children that are already born.

We already have laws against the abuse, neglect, murders and the molestation of children who who are already born.

I'm going to continue to seek the same protections of our laws for those who you and your ilk are in denial of.

Just so you know, it's not open for negotiation.

You'd be more productive if you spent your time fighting for necessary funding for programs that actually work in reducing teen pregnancy and abortions.

Here's a program that works.

Colorado Teen Pregnancy Rates Drop With Birth Control Initiative - NBC News

I see no reason why I can not do both fight abortion AND support other programs to reduce unplanned pregnancy rates at the same time.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Why don't you make yourself useful, and go out and defend some children that are already born.

We already have laws against the abuse, neglect, murders and the molestation of children who who are already born.

I'm going to continue to seek the same protections of our laws for those who you and your ilk are in denial of.

Just so you know, it's not open for negotiation.

You'd be more productive if you spent your time fighting for necessary funding for programs that actually work in reducing teen pregnancy and abortions.

Here's a program that works.

Colorado Teen Pregnancy Rates Drop With Birth Control Initiative - NBC News

I see no reason why I can not do both fight abortion AND support other programs to reduce unplanned pregnancy rates at the same time.

Republican's don't want that program.

 

[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

Yep a district court would slap it down as soon as it was passed. There is a thing called the U.S. Supreme Court and it is the law of the land, including in Oklahoma, and if I were a taxpayer of that state, I would get a little angry with Senator for wasting time and taxpayer dollars over an issue that was settled by the high court 45 years ago.

So when the Supreme Court (when they were deciding Roe) said that a State COULD establish the personhood of a child in the womb. . . were they lying?

(feel the puppet strings being pulled, sky?) LOL

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Why don't you make yourself useful, and go out and defend some children that are already born.

We already have laws against the abuse, neglect, murders and the molestation of children who who are already born.

I'm going to continue to seek the same protections of our laws for those who you and your ilk are in denial of.

Just so you know, it's not open for negotiation.

You'd be more productive if you spent your time fighting for necessary funding for programs that actually work in reducing teen pregnancy and abortions.

Here's a program that works.

Colorado Teen Pregnancy Rates Drop With Birth Control Initiative - NBC News

I see no reason why I can not do both fight abortion AND support other programs to reduce unplanned pregnancy rates at the same time.

Republican's don't want that program.

And that should matter to me because. . .?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Your 'defense' is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

Enjoy irrelevance. You don't make that choice. She does. Each time. Every time.

There's nothing you can do about it.

Your knee-jerk reactions to my posts does not support your claims about irrelevance of my efforts. To the contrary, your incessant whining and attempts to muddy the waters, appeal to authority and to attack me the messenger rather than to concede even the smallest of points tells me that you actually are genuinely concerned about the validity of my points.

I don't think 'knee jerk' means what you think it means. What I did was read and cite the actual Roe v. Wade rulnig, finding the specific references that refuted your specific pieces of pseudo-legal horseshit. Not only did I destroy your entire argument regarding 'compelling interests' being 'wide open' for the States (so completely I might add....that you refuse to even discuss your former claims), I systematically dismantled your entire basis of argument.

How you might ask?

Simple: I noticed that you were lying your ass off regarding your 'quote' from the 'Supreme Court'. You were in fact citing Stewart and NOT the majority ruling on Roe. With no point or legal principle you cited being reflected in the actual Roe ruling.

I took away your entire 'conflict' between Roe and your imaginary version of the Federal Fetal Protection laws. Now when I ask you to cite the conflict in Roe....you start babbling about 'knee jerks' and 'defending children'.

But you have no actual citation backing your imaginary pseudo-legal horseshit.

That's not 'knee jerk'. That's a systematic, logical and factual evisceration of the ludicrous nonsense you'd convinced yourself of. Using better sources, accurate citations of law, accurate citations of the court rulings, better reasoning and a vastly deeper command of the law.

See how that works?

Thankfully, I don't need anything more from you in the way of a response or reaction to know my points are valid myself.

That said, I kind of appreciate all your attempts to discourage my efforts. So far, you have been a good foil for my views.

So good in fact that you've abandoned your claims and no longer have a 'conflict' between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

I'm glad I could help. Just drop me a line whenever you need more of the same.

No. You basically have done little more than to cite the portions of the law that YOU think is an authority unto itself.

An assumption disproven by the fact that the actual law matches the portions of the rulings I cite....and not your pseudo-legal horseshit.

For example, abortion is legal in 50 of 50 States. Per your interpretations, its murder. Its not an 'interpretation' that you're laughably wrong. As no law nor court recognizes your conclusions. While every law and court recognizes mine.

Remember, in matters of the law there is an authority. There is a leviathan. And its not you.

You act as though the exceptions made in our fetal homicide laws which (for now) prohibit the prosecution of abortions is in itself infallible and can not be challenged.

Not on the basis of that law it can't. And its that law you're citing. As what you're doing is arbitrarily ignoring any portion of the law that is inconvenient to your claims. You don't like a section...so you pretend it doesn't exist.

That's not a legal argument. That's just garden variety willful ignorance. You can play pretend all you like. It doesn't matter.

Your position is tantamount to someone using the Bible as an authority unto itself.

Here's the difference. If you and I disagree on the interpretation of the Bible....god doesn't come break the tie. In court, if your pseudo-legal horseshit doesn't match the law....its rejected by the courts. As there is a definitive legal authority. You keep offering us your *assumptions* and willful ignorance as legal evidence. Where you arbitrarily ignore anything you don't like.

And neither are legal evidence. As regardless of how inconvenient to your argument a part of Roe v Wade or a given law is....they don't vanish just because you don't like them. As your ilk keep learning whenever they use your brand of pseudo-legal horseshit in actual court.

Which is why every law and court recognizes the argument that I've offered. And no court nor law recognizes the argument you've offered.

See how that works?

As for my observation about how our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe? I shared a link earlier to one of the sources for my views on that - but here it is again for anyone who missed it.

"abortion-rights supporters are finding it increasingly difficult to claim credibly that a fetus just a few weeks, or even days, from delivery is not entitled to at least some protections under the law--but they vigorously argue against such laws anyway, fearing that giving a fetus rights will lead to the collapse of abortion protections. "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, thenRoe will be moot," says Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt."

That was in 2003. And still your argument has made no legal headway. That's a solid decade of near perfect failure. Why? Because the Roe argument doesn't match your assumptions. There is no 'conflict' between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Which is why whenever I ask you to show us the 'conflict', the beating heart of your entire argument....

......you always avoid the question, fail to show us the conflict, and try to change the topic. Which is why its been almost 13 years since that quote. And your ilk have made virtually no legal progress on the matter.[/quote]