Planned Parenthood Staffers Talk About Ripping Out Babies Body Parts Joke About Eyeballs Rolling Out

[Chuz Life]

Interesting to see libtarded denials and coping systems working simultaneously in real time. I'll be saving this thread for reference - for the next time I see libtardz talking about how much they care about children.

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

With that logic, are not people. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed the civil war amendments to end slavery and grant them full citizenship. Nor is slavery evil. Oh and women aren't people either or the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

This is supposedly the progressive compassion we hear so often. Democrats care for people. You know except for killing children and mutilating babies that avoid being killed so quickly.

This should demonstrate even more the evils of abortion.

Abortion
Human trafficking

Two of the great evils of our time.

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

To call a fetus a person is to not know what 1. a person is and 2. a fetus is.

What is the difference between a human fetus and a person who is in the fetal stage of their life?

Be specific.

 

[Chuz Life]

With that logic, are not people. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed the civil war amendments to end slavery and grant them full citizenship. Nor is slavery evil. Oh and women aren't people either or the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

This is supposedly the progressive compassion we hear so often. Democrats care for people. You know except for killing children and mutilating babies that avoid being killed so quickly.

This should demonstrate even more the evils of abortion.

Abortion
Human trafficking

Two of the great evils of our time.

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

To call a fetus a person is to not know what 1. a person is and 2. a fetus is.

A person is a person no matter how small.

To not know this is to know nothing at all.

Is using the morning after pills 1st degree murder in your opinion?

If not, what is it?

The morning after pill is a contraceptive. It prevents conception from taking place. As such, it can't kill a child because there never was a child conceived to BE killed.

 

[Chuz Life]

And if the brain never develops and the child is born with no functional brain at all. . . Only a brain stem. . . And they have no capacity for thoughts, no hope that they ever will.... etc.

Are THEY a human being?

Are they not a person?

They are human but not a person. Same as a fetus.

Guess again.

More than one state supreme court has already ruled that a child born with only a brain stem (ie no cerebral cortex, no ability to think, see, smell or feel pain.... never had it never will.... ) is still a person with the same fucking right to the equal protections of our laws that shitstains like you are entitled to.

That's a born person, not a 2 celled zygote.

That born person was once a two called zygote too. Same organism, same being... Same person.

Did we get you on record supporting the death penalty for the 'murder' of the unborn?

If not, what punishment would you like to see put in place?

I am comfortable with that working itself out over time as far as for what the exact punishment should be. However! I think we should have consistency in our laws.

It is ludicrous and indefensible to suggest that a person who accidentally kills a child in the womb during a bank robbery for example , would get life in prison or a death penalty..... But a woman who DELIBERATELY kills (figuratively speaking) that same child should get anything less?

That's BULLSHIT.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

To call a fetus a person is to not know what 1. a person is and 2. a fetus is.

A person is a person no matter how small.

To not know this is to know nothing at all.

Is using the morning after pills 1st degree murder in your opinion?

If not, what is it?

The morning after pill is a contraceptive. It prevents conception from taking place. As such, it can't kill a child because there never was a child conceived to BE killed.

Wrong. It can also interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg which makes it what you call a child killer.

Care to answer the question NOW?

 

[Chuz Life]

Interesting to see libtarded denials and coping systems working simultaneously in real time. I'll be saving this thread for reference - for the next time I see libtardz talking about how much they care about children.

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

With that logic, are not people. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed the civil war amendments to end slavery and grant them full citizenship. Nor is slavery evil. Oh and women aren't people either or the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

This is supposedly the progressive compassion we hear so often. Democrats care for people. You know except for killing children and mutilating babies that avoid being killed so quickly.

This should demonstrate even more the evils of abortion.

Abortion
Human trafficking

Two of the great evils of our time.

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

Why did the so-called pro-life movement throw a fit when Donald Trump said there needs to be punishment of the woman who has an abortion?

They didn't.

You only saw what the lame stream media wanted you to see.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are human but not a person. Same as a fetus.

Guess again.

More than one state supreme court has already ruled that a child born with only a brain stem (ie no cerebral cortex, no ability to think, see, smell or feel pain.... never had it never will.... ) is still a person with the same fucking right to the equal protections of our laws that shitstains like you are entitled to.

That's a born person, not a 2 celled zygote.

That born person was once a two called zygote too. Same organism, same being... Same person.

Did we get you on record supporting the death penalty for the 'murder' of the unborn?

If not, what punishment would you like to see put in place?

I am comfortable with that working itself out over time as far as for what the exact punishment should be. However! I think we should have consistency in our laws.

It is ludicrous and indefensible to suggest that a person who accidentally kills a child in the womb during a bank robbery for example , would get life in prison or a death penalty..... But a woman who DELIBERATELY kills (figuratively speaking) that same child should get anything less?

That's BULLSHIT.

That's a weasely answer for a simple question. If the fetus and a born child are the same, shouldn't the punishment for murdering either be the same?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

With that logic, are not people. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed the civil war amendments to end slavery and grant them full citizenship. Nor is slavery evil. Oh and women aren't people either or the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

This is supposedly the progressive compassion we hear so often. Democrats care for people. You know except for killing children and mutilating babies that avoid being killed so quickly.

This should demonstrate even more the evils of abortion.

Abortion
Human trafficking

Two of the great evils of our time.

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

Why did the so-called pro-life movement throw a fit when Donald Trump said there needs to be punishment of the woman who has an abortion?

They didn't.

You only saw what the lame stream media wanted you to see.

I read the quotes FROM people in the pro-life movement.

 

[Chuz Life]

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

To call a fetus a person is to not know what 1. a person is and 2. a fetus is.

A person is a person no matter how small.

To not know this is to know nothing at all.

Is using the morning after pills 1st degree murder in your opinion?

If not, what is it?

The morning after pill is a contraceptive. It prevents conception from taking place. As such, it can't kill a child because there never was a child conceived to BE killed.

Wrong. It can also interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg which makes it what you call a child killer.

Care to answer the question NOW?

I already answered the question.

If it prevents conception there never was a child. So, obviously if it prevents implantation of an already existing child. That would be a homicide.

 

[Chuz Life]

Guess again.

More than one state supreme court has already ruled that a child born with only a brain stem (ie no cerebral cortex, no ability to think, see, smell or feel pain.... never had it never will.... ) is still a person with the same fucking right to the equal protections of our laws that shitstains like you are entitled to.

That's a born person, not a 2 celled zygote.

That born person was once a two called zygote too. Same organism, same being... Same person.

Did we get you on record supporting the death penalty for the 'murder' of the unborn?

If not, what punishment would you like to see put in place?

I am comfortable with that working itself out over time as far as for what the exact punishment should be. However! I think we should have consistency in our laws.

It is ludicrous and indefensible to suggest that a person who accidentally kills a child in the womb during a bank robbery for example , would get life in prison or a death penalty..... But a woman who DELIBERATELY kills (figuratively speaking) that same child should get anything less?

That's BULLSHIT.

That's a weasely answer for a simple question. If the fetus and a born child are the same, shouldn't the punishment for murdering either be the same?

Ummm yeah.

Read what I posted again.

Our laws should be CONSISTENT.

Look it up if you need to.

 

[Chuz Life]

With that logic, are not people. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed the civil war amendments to end slavery and grant them full citizenship. Nor is slavery evil. Oh and women aren't people either or the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

This is supposedly the progressive compassion we hear so often. Democrats care for people. You know except for killing children and mutilating babies that avoid being killed so quickly.

This should demonstrate even more the evils of abortion.

Abortion
Human trafficking

Two of the great evils of our time.

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

Why did the so-called pro-life movement throw a fit when Donald Trump said there needs to be punishment of the woman who has an abortion?

They didn't.

You only saw what the lame stream media wanted you to see.

I read the quotes FROM people in the pro-life movement.

Well you have selective reading tendencies then, snowflake. What else can I say?

 

[NLT]

June is SAVE THE UNBORN BABY WHALES month!

For every $100 spent aborting a liberal's infant we'll give
$10 to save an unborn baby whale!
Yes, together we CAN save America!

​

 

[oreo]

I've got a great idea--why don't you just get Neutered? There are reasons for an abortion. And every abortion has it's own circumstance. Women really do not use abortion as a birth control measure--not when they're having to pay $1500--$1800 out of pocket for one.

1. So is the Republican party going to tell a woman who may have 2 kids at home to raise, along with a husband that she needs to die to give birth to a baby?
2. Is the Republican party going to tell a lucky to be alive a woman--who was brutally attacked that she needs to keep a rape baby until full term, when she is just tryiing to put her own life back together who may also have a family that she is raising and also a husband that may object to her carrying a rape baby to full term.
3. Is the Republican party going to tell the parents of a young girl who has been repeatedly raped by a relative that their daughter needs to risk her life to give birth to a baby?

The U.S. Supreme Court has made a decision and they made it 45 years ago. And it's says YOU have no RIGHT to interfere into the very personal private decisions that women and their famiies make. Roe v Wade is here to stay, and Niel Gorsuch the new U.S. Supreme Court justice informed you of that.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

There are options:

1) Have your child and provide for it.
2) Abort your child and pay for the abortion.
3) Don't get pregnant if you don't want the child.
4) If the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, the person in jail has to pay for the abortion.


There shouldn't be punch cards for abortion clinics. Abortion isn't birth control.

1. It's NONE of your BUSINESS
2. It's NONE of your BUSINESS
3. It's NONE of your BUSINESS
4. It's NONE of your BUSINESS

And the U.S. Supreme court is here to make certain it is NEVER any of your business.

Funny that you cvnts make it your business what soda sizes are legal to sell.

You'll have to pull a link out of your ass for that one. If you can't stfu

New York's Mayor Declares War on Soda

Is the Mayor of New York a WOMAN--LOL

 

[oreo]

Interesting to see libtarded denials and coping systems working simultaneously in real time. I'll be saving this thread for reference - for the next time I see libtardz talking about how much they care about children.

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

You mean children don't have equal rights as well under the Constitution, like voting and being able to marry dolt?

Neither marriage nor voting are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As with abortion and privacy, the right is implied.

Roe v Wade is based around the 14th amendment--and privacy was challenged at one point in time--because the word "privacy" is not in the constitution.

This topic came up in 2012 when Rick Santorum was continually stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning that your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide if you can use them or not.

Santorum is still arguing against a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Conneticut)-and your privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia


This is what you get out of religious nut cases.

Since this decision the Supreme Court considers privacy and will protect the individuals right to privacy. Privacy has a lot to do with Roe v Wade.

 

[deanrd]

The left stand for gruesome death on every issue, whether it is killing babies or defending Islamofascism.
Pure evil.

Lies.
It's Republicans that don't care about babies. They only support the fetus because they want to control women and take away their right to choose.

Even Sarah Palin spits on unwed mothers:

44 - Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

And her daughter had a different baby daddy for every kid.

 

[Chuz Life]

Interesting to see libtarded denials and coping systems working simultaneously in real time. I'll be saving this thread for reference - for the next time I see libtardz talking about how much they care about children.

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

You mean children don't have equal rights as well under the Constitution, like voting and being able to marry dolt?

Neither marriage nor voting are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As with abortion and privacy, the right is implied.

Roe v Wade is based around the 14th amendment--and privacy was challenged at one point in time--because the word "privacy" is not in the constitution.

This topic came up in 2012 when Rick Santorum was continually stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning that your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide if you use them or not.

Santorum is still arguing against a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Conneticut)-and your privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia


This is what you get out of religious nut cases.

Since this decision the Supreme Court considers privacy and will protect your right to privacy.

The question remains unanswered by the left. . .

Does anyone have the Constitutional right to violate the rights of another human being. . . . and then hide that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?"

Yes or no?

 

[oreo]

Interesting to see libtarded denials and coping systems working simultaneously in real time. I'll be saving this thread for reference - for the next time I see libtardz talking about how much they care about children.

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

You mean children don't have equal rights as well under the Constitution, like voting and being able to marry dolt?

Neither marriage nor voting are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As with abortion and privacy, the right is implied.

Roe v Wade is based around the 14th amendment--and privacy was challenged at one point in time--because the word "privacy" is not in the constitution.

This topic came up in 2012 when Rick Santorum was continually stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning that your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide if you use them or not.

Santorum is still arguing against a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Conneticut)-and your privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia


This is what you get out of religious nut cases.

Since this decision the Supreme Court considers privacy and will protect your right to privacy.

The question remains unanswered by the left. . .

Does anyone have the Constitutional right to violate the rights of another human being. . . . and then hide that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?"

Yes or no?

That's the point. The U.S. Supreme court does not consider a baby a human being until it's out of the womb. Then and only then does it have the same rights as a human being.

The PERSONHOOD BILL is a good example of this. This is the bill to end all abortions and that's what it is designed for. Abortion activists have paraded the Personhood bill around, and in my state of Colorado it has been soundly defeated on all 3 attempts. Giving a baby in the womb the same rights as one out of the womb has some serious complications to it. So-- since our laws cannot discriminate.

1. A common miscarriage would have to be investigated and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs and loses the baby would have to be investigated, and manslaughter charges could be made.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby--you could be charged with manslaughter.
4. Doctors and nurses delivering still born babies could get charged with manslaughter and or malfeasance.
5. Of course any doctor performing an abortion would be charged with murder.

A baby in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need to be prosecuting innocent people for accidents, illness's and mother nature. This is why a baby in the womb is referred to as a fetus until it is born--then it's a baby with all the rights of any other human being.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

You mean children don't have equal rights as well under the Constitution, like voting and being able to marry dolt?

Neither marriage nor voting are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As with abortion and privacy, the right is implied.

Roe v Wade is based around the 14th amendment--and privacy was challenged at one point in time--because the word "privacy" is not in the constitution.

This topic came up in 2012 when Rick Santorum was continually stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning that your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide if you use them or not.

Santorum is still arguing against a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Conneticut)-and your privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia


This is what you get out of religious nut cases.

Since this decision the Supreme Court considers privacy and will protect your right to privacy.

The question remains unanswered by the left. . .

Does anyone have the Constitutional right to violate the rights of another human being. . . . and then hide that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?"

Yes or no?

That's the point. The U.S. Supreme court does not consider a baby a human being until it's out of the womb. Then and only then does it have the same rights as a human being.

The PERSONHOOD BILL is a good example of this. This is the bill to end all abortions and that's what it is designed for. Abortion activists have paraded the Personhood bill around, and in my state of Colorado it has been soundly defeated on all 3 attempts. Giving a baby in the womb the same rights as one out of the womb has some serious complications to it. So-- since our laws cannot discriminate.

1. A common miscarriage would have to be investigated and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs and loses the baby would have to be investigated, and manslaughter charges could be made.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby--you could be charged with manslaughter.
4. Doctors and nurses delivering still born babies could get charged with manslaughter and or malfeasance.
5. Of course any doctor performing an abortion would be charged with murder.

A baby in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need to be prosecuting innocent people for accidents, illness's and mother nature. This is why a baby in the womb is referred to as a fetus until it is born--then it's a baby with all the rights of any other human being.

If a child in the womb is not a human being (not a "person") then all those who have already been convicted for MURDER and other homicide related crimes under our fetal HOMICIDE laws have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

Have you offered your expertise on this subject to any of their defense teams to try and get those convictions overturned? You should do so, immediately! You could charge them top dollar!

But, you should know... so far the United States Supreme Court has refused to overturn ANY of their convictions.

Hmmmmmm.

I wonder why that is.

 

[oreo]

You mean children don't have equal rights as well under the Constitution, like voting and being able to marry dolt?

Neither marriage nor voting are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As with abortion and privacy, the right is implied.

Roe v Wade is based around the 14th amendment--and privacy was challenged at one point in time--because the word "privacy" is not in the constitution.

This topic came up in 2012 when Rick Santorum was continually stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning that your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide if you use them or not.

Santorum is still arguing against a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Conneticut)-and your privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia


This is what you get out of religious nut cases.

Since this decision the Supreme Court considers privacy and will protect your right to privacy.

The question remains unanswered by the left. . .

Does anyone have the Constitutional right to violate the rights of another human being. . . . and then hide that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?"

Yes or no?

That's the point. The U.S. Supreme court does not consider a baby a human being until it's out of the womb. Then and only then does it have the same rights as a human being.

The PERSONHOOD BILL is a good example of this. This is the bill to end all abortions and that's what it is designed for. Abortion activists have paraded the Personhood bill around, and in my state of Colorado it has been soundly defeated on all 3 attempts. Giving a baby in the womb the same rights as one out of the womb has some serious complications to it. So-- since our laws cannot discriminate.

1. A common miscarriage would have to be investigated and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs and loses the baby would have to be investigated, and manslaughter charges could be made.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby--you could be charged with manslaughter.
4. Doctors and nurses delivering still born babies could get charged with manslaughter and or malfeasance.
5. Of course any doctor performing an abortion would be charged with murder.

A baby in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need to be prosecuting innocent people for accidents, illness's and mother nature. This is why a baby in the womb is referred to as a fetus until it is born--then it's a baby with all the rights of any other human being.

If a child in the womb is not a human being (not a "person") then all those who have already been convicted for MURDER and other homicide related crimes under our fetal HOMICIDE laws have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

Have you offered your expertise on this subject to any of their defense teams to try and get those convictions overturned? You should do so, immediately! You could charge them top dollar!

But, you should know... so far the United States Supreme Court has refused to overturn ANY of their convictions.

Hmmmmmm.

I wonder why that is.

That's a different circumstance under a completely different law. This is where a pregnant women is brutally assaulted and the baby is killed.

In fact we had an incident like this in Colorado. Many wanted the perpetrator charged with murder 1 because the fetus died--yet the pregnant mother who was stabbed lived.

"Prosecutors are weighing whether to file a murder charge against Lane, who won't face any formal charges until next week at the earliest, Garnett said.The prosecutor described the difficulty in determining charges.
"The issue of whether or not murder charges are appropriate involving a case involving the death of a fetus or a late-term pregnancy is always a difficult issue," Garnett said."Under Colorado law, essentially, there's no way murder charges can be brought if it's not established that the fetus lived as a child outside the body of the mother for some period of time. I don't know the answer yet as to whether that can be established, what our facts are here," Garnett said.That information will be a key part of the investigation, Garnett said.
Dozens of officers are working the case and awaiting medical information from an autopsy, Garnett added.
The definition of "lived as a child" is difficult, too, and whether that means one breath or one hour, Garnett said."The Supreme Court and the court of appeals will get to tell us that eventually. The law is not, as in many areas, terribly clear in terms of that," Garnett said."
Police: Fetus cut from woman who answers Craigslist ad - CNN.com

So the perpetrator in this incident was charged with unlawful termination of a pregnancy and attempted murder on the pregnant mother.
Dynel Lane charged with unlawful termination of pregnancy, attempted murder in Longmont attack

 

[Chuz Life]

Neither marriage nor voting are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As with abortion and privacy, the right is implied.

Roe v Wade is based around the 14th amendment--and privacy was challenged at one point in time--because the word "privacy" is not in the constitution.

This topic came up in 2012 when Rick Santorum was continually stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives. Meaning that your next door neighbor via a ballot will decide if you use them or not.

Santorum is still arguing against a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Griswold v Conneticut)-and your privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia


This is what you get out of religious nut cases.

Since this decision the Supreme Court considers privacy and will protect your right to privacy.

The question remains unanswered by the left. . .

Does anyone have the Constitutional right to violate the rights of another human being. . . . and then hide that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?"

Yes or no?

That's the point. The U.S. Supreme court does not consider a baby a human being until it's out of the womb. Then and only then does it have the same rights as a human being.

The PERSONHOOD BILL is a good example of this. This is the bill to end all abortions and that's what it is designed for. Abortion activists have paraded the Personhood bill around, and in my state of Colorado it has been soundly defeated on all 3 attempts. Giving a baby in the womb the same rights as one out of the womb has some serious complications to it. So-- since our laws cannot discriminate.

1. A common miscarriage would have to be investigated and an autopsy performed.
2. A pregnant woman falls down the stairs and loses the baby would have to be investigated, and manslaughter charges could be made.
3. You get into an accident with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby--you could be charged with manslaughter.
4. Doctors and nurses delivering still born babies could get charged with manslaughter and or malfeasance.
5. Of course any doctor performing an abortion would be charged with murder.

A baby in the womb is a very fragile life, and we don't need to be prosecuting innocent people for accidents, illness's and mother nature. This is why a baby in the womb is referred to as a fetus until it is born--then it's a baby with all the rights of any other human being.

If a child in the womb is not a human being (not a "person") then all those who have already been convicted for MURDER and other homicide related crimes under our fetal HOMICIDE laws have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

Have you offered your expertise on this subject to any of their defense teams to try and get those convictions overturned? You should do so, immediately! You could charge them top dollar!

But, you should know... so far the United States Supreme Court has refused to overturn ANY of their convictions.

Hmmmmmm.

I wonder why that is.

That's a different circumstance under a completely different law. This is where a pregnant women is brutally assaulted and the baby is killed.

In fact we had an incident like this in Colorado. Many wanted the perpetrator charged with murder 1 because the fetus died--yet the pregnant mother who was stabbed lived.

"Prosecutors are weighing whether to file a murder charge against Lane, who won't face any formal charges until next week at the earliest, Garnett said.The prosecutor described the difficulty in determining charges.
"The issue of whether or not murder charges are appropriate involving a case involving the death of a fetus or a late-term pregnancy is always a difficult issue," Garnett said."Under Colorado law, essentially, there's no way murder charges can be brought if it's not established that the fetus lived as a child outside the body of the mother for some period of time. I don't know the answer yet as to whether that can be established, what our facts are here," Garnett said.That information will be a key part of the investigation, Garnett said.
Dozens of officers are working the case and awaiting medical information from an autopsy, Garnett added.
The definition of "lived as a child" is difficult, too, and whether that means one breath or one hour, Garnett said."The Supreme Court and the court of appeals will get to tell us that eventually. The law is not, as in many areas, terribly clear in terms of that," Garnett said."
Police: Fetus cut from woman who answers Craigslist ad - CNN.com

So the perpetrator in this incident was charged with unlawful termination of a pregnancy and attempted murder on the pregnant mother.
Dynel Lane charged with unlawful termination of pregnancy, attempted murder in Longmont attack

The onus is on you dumbass - to explain how the "baby" is a "person" enough to be consider to be a MURDER victim when some robber kills it - even ACCIDENTALLY during a bank heist...... but that same baby is NOT a person if the Mom decides to Pay Planned Parenthood to KILL and remove it herself.

 

[RightyTighty]

Fetuses are not children. If they were, the Constitution as it's written would give them equal rights.

With that logic, are not people. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed the civil war amendments to end slavery and grant them full citizenship. Nor is slavery evil. Oh and women aren't people either or the 19th amendment would have been unnecessary.

This is supposedly the progressive compassion we hear so often. Democrats care for people. You know except for killing children and mutilating babies that avoid being killed so quickly.

This should demonstrate even more the evils of abortion.

Abortion
Human trafficking

Two of the great evils of our time.

One deals with human beings, aware persons, the other doesn't. nothing alike.

And children are human beings.

There are some people who are completely unaware. Should we be allowed to terminate their lives?

Besides, I wasn't the one arguing that unless the constitution mentions someone having rights, they aren't people.

To call a fetus a person is to not know what 1. a person is and 2. a fetus is.

What is the difference between a human fetus and a person who is in the fetal stage of their life?

Be specific.

A person is not a fetus. A person has a legal standing. They aren't subject to being spontaneously aborted before even being born and they aren't dependent upon a host who has a greater legal standing than they do. You want to grant to an undeveloped blob in a petri dish the same rights as a three-year-old or a thirty-year-old. Total nonsense.

And these fetal "murder" laws you are so fond of - were passed by anti-abortion people trying to make the fetus the same as a person, and they are not the same. You overvalue the fetus and undervalue the rights of the only being capable of giving it life, should she choose to do so.