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

[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.

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]


More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

 

[Skylar]

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 us my choice?

Sad.

The argument is actually quite simple: a woman controls her body. You don't control it for her.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

In law there is an authority. You still haven't figured that out yet?

Which is why your ilk have made virtually no legal progress on your argument. You keep pretending that any pseudo-legal horseshit you make up is the law. And any portion of the actual law and actual court rulings you ignore ceases to exist.

And the courts don't pretend with you. Neither do I.

 

[Carla_Danger]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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. . .?

I seriously doubt your interested in a program that reduces teen pregnancies and abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

In law there is an authority. You still haven't figured that out yet?

Which is why your ilk have made virtually no legal progress on your argument. You keep pretending that any pseudo-legal horseshit you make up is the law. And any portion of the actual law and actual court rulings you ignore ceases to exist.

And the courts don't pretend with you. Neither do I.[/QUOTE]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

When I started fighting abortion, we had no laws at all which recognized children in the womb as human beings or as children, murder victims, etc.

Now we do and we are going to continue to build upon that precedent.

A fact that clearly makes you squirm every time you read it.

 

[Chuz Life]

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. . .?

I seriously doubt your interested in a program that reduces teen pregnancies and abortion.

Shows how little you know about me then.

 

[Skylar]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

 

[Chuz Life]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

There was a question?

What question?

 

[Chuz Life]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

You sure do like your fallacious arguments. Don't you.

Funnier still is how my comment about how some people treat the Bible as an authority unto itself has sailed right over your head.

 

[Skylar]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

 

[oreo]

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 heard that one of the most effective ways at stopping teenage pregnancies, were reality T.V. shows, that showed what life is like for a young single mother. Teenage pregnancies dropped off a cliff over this show.

Education is the way to stop unwanted pregnancies, the use of birth control contraceptives, etc. You do that then you dramatically reduce the number of abortions in this county.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Skylar]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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. . .?

I seriously doubt your interested in a program that reduces teen pregnancies and abortion.

Shows how little you know about me then.

True, and I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

 

[Chuz Life]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

Like I said, "right over your head"

 

[Skylar]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

 

[elektra]

The argument is actually quite simple: a woman controls her body. You don't control it for her.

Get used to the idea.

But if she doesnt want a baby, and gets pregnant, is she by definition, not controlling her body?

 

[Skylar]

More appeals to authority.

Got anything else?

Why don't you just answer the question.

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

Like I said, "right over your head"

Laughing...pretend that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones all you like. A judge will disabuse you of that misconception rather quickly by authoritatively picking a winner.

And again and again, its not you. Your ilk have a near perfect record of failure using this legal argument.

You don't get it. As I said.....you will.

 

[Chuz Life]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Have you always had reading comprehension problems? Or is this something new for you?

Show me where I ever claimed that any of our fetal homicide laws already make abortions illegal.

I can scroll back and quote several posts where I clearly said that those laws "for now" make exceptions to "for now" keep abortion legal.