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

[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.

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

Are our laws infallible?

 

[elektra]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Some end up with broken necks or their spine cut in half with medical snips.

 

[Skylar]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).

 

[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.

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

Are our laws infallible?

Are you? As you're insisting we replace our laws with your judgment.

 

[Chuz Life]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).

Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?

I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.

 

[Chuz Life]

I see. . .

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

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

Are our laws infallible?

Are you? As you're insisting we replace our laws with your judgment.

Quote where I ever made that claim.

Indeed, quote where I have said to "replace our laws" with anything other than better (more Constitutional) laws.

 

[Skylar]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).

Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?

I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.

Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.

Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.

Here's the Roe Decision......

Roe v. Wade

Show me.

 

[Skylar]

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

Are our laws infallible?

Are you? As you're insisting we replace our laws with your judgment.

Quote where I ever made that claim.

Indeed, quote where I have said to "replace our laws" with anything other than better (more Constitutional) laws.

'more constitutional laws'....according to who?

Certainly not the law. Or the courts. Or precedent. So who then?

 

[Faun]

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

For as many times as this is demanded, I can probably find another example to answer it.

"The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union says the state's fetal homicide law directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Roe v. Wade held that for constitutional purposes, a fetus is not a person.

Arguing that the law has ''profound implications'' that go beyond the arena of criminal homicide, the civil liberties group wrote in a brief that ''if fetuses are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it is difficult to imagine how any state could constitutionally permit abortion.''

It's been 28 years since that guy was charged with murdering a fetus and here you are, no closer to outlawing abortion than you were then. I guess you're committed to failure.

 

[Faun]

If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.

???? I got balls, I am a guy, my avatar is the record label, not the greek god or the comic book hero.
Elektra Records Official Website

Oops, my bad. You post like a girl so I figured you were one.

 

[Skylar]

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

For as many times as this is demanded, I can probably find another example to answer it.

"The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union says the state's fetal homicide law directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Roe v. Wade held that for constitutional purposes, a fetus is not a person.

Arguing that the law has ''profound implications'' that go beyond the arena of criminal homicide, the civil liberties group wrote in a brief that ''if fetuses are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it is difficult to imagine how any state could constitutionally permit abortion.''

It's been 28 years since that guy was charged with murdering a fetus and here you are, no closer to outlawing abortion than you were then. I guess you're committed to failure.

And every single time his ilk have used that 'logic' in court, its been rejected as legally invalid.

His record of failure is perfect. Even his 'conflict' between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws vanishes the moment you ask him to quote the conflict in Roe.

So much for 'progress'.

 

[Chuz Life]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).

Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?

I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.

Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.

Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.

Here's the Roe Decision......

Roe v. Wade

Show me.

Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.

Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.

 

[Faun]

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.

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

Are our laws infallible?

Are you the decider of which laws are?

 

[elektra]

If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.

???? I got balls, I am a guy, my avatar is the record label, not the greek god or the comic book hero.
Elektra Records Official Website

Oops, my bad. You post like a girl so I figured you were one.

Right, you are attracted to men. It is simple to see.

 

[SmokeALib]

Why are leftist women so damn slutty that they need to kill their own babies? Is it because they don't have either the brains or the morals to do the right thing in the first place?

 

[Skylar]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).

Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?

I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.

Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.

Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.

Here's the Roe Decision......

Roe v. Wade

Show me.

Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.

Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.

If you believe it should be, make your case.

Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.

Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.

History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.

 

[Faun]

If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.

???? I got balls, I am a guy, my avatar is the record label, not the greek god or the comic book hero.
Elektra Records Official Website

Oops, my bad. You post like a girl so I figured you were one.

Right, you are attracted to men. It is simple to see.

Well that makes even less sense than anything else you've spewed.

 

[Skylar]

And so you don't forget the wasteland of claims you've made and then abandoned....

More constitutional laws *according to who*? Not the law, no the courts, not precedent, not the Supreme Court. So....who?

And where in Roe is the 'conflict' with Federal Fetal Protection laws. Last time I asked you to show me the conflict......

......you started babbling about 'appeal to authority' fallacies. But couldn't show us any such conflict. If even you're going to ignore your own pseudo-legal babble, surely you can understand why we treat your claims the same way.

 

[Chuz Life]

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.

Ah. Well then the answer to your question is obvious: Abortion isn't the same as child molestation (definition 2).

Did I claim it met definition two? Dullard?

I'm betting that you were unaware until now - that there are more than one form of molestation and that not all molestations are sexual.

Abortion isn't any form of 'child molestation' in our law. As you well know.

Oh, and I noticed you just completely ran from my question regarding where the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws could be found.

Here's the Roe Decision......

Roe v. Wade

Show me.

Here again, your argument against what SHOULD be in a law is to point out the fact that it is currently NOT in the law.

Again, in the law there is an authority. Contrary to your claims, legal interpretations are not like Biblical ones. And abortion isn't any kind of child molestation in our system of law. Nor would any judge every equate them.

If you believe it should be, make your case.

Yours is a Classic appeal to authority fallacious defense of the status quo.

Again, in the law there is an authority. And your legal reasoning has been found to be univerally invalid. Every single time its been used in court to challenged abortion.....you've lost.

History is not a fallacy of logic. No matter how hard you want to ignore it.

By the definition I provided (ref. number one)

Do aborted children escape unmolested from the womb after an abortion procedure?

Yes or no?

 

[Chuz Life]

I see. . .

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

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

Are our laws infallible?

Are you the decider of which laws are?

According to our first Amendment, we all have the right to assume that role and to petition our government for a redress of those concerns.

So...

Yeah.