Why is abortion the way of the world?

[Chuz Life]

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work).

As the legal definition of a natural "person" is "a human being" and as you have already agreed that "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being."

How does a MURDER charge and or conviction under any one of the nation's fetal HOMICIDE laws, not do as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated?

How do they (fetal homicide laws) NOT legally establish the personhood of the child that was killed?

The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

The Constitutional challenge will come much sooner than that. I expect that it will come not long after Trump replaces Ginsburg (with Amy Barrett imo). . . And it will more likely be an appeal from some idiot who thinks he should not have been convicted of a murder, because his alleged victim was either NOT a human being or not a natural person.

Very interesting times ahead.

 

[koshergrl]

[
They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

Who are they? Which shit should I be challenging, the 'they' who go after women or the women who drug their babies in utero?

The state. Prosecutors and child welfare.

Did you really not know or are you actually that out of touch that you have to have everything spoon fed to you?

This mom popped half a Valium while pregnant and they took away her baby.

True. I knew a girl once whose boyfriend was a big pothead. Someone anonymously reported to DCS that she was taking drugs while she was pregnant. DCS showed up at her doorstep and ordered her to get drug-tested. She came back positive for trace amounts of marijuana, about what you might get if someone smoked a joint in the same room with you. They made her drug test every week for the rest of her pregnancy, and then when she had the baby, she had to go to court and jump through months worth of hoops to "prove" that she was a fit mother.

True story, folks. DCS in AZ is death on marijuana, for some reason.

They do it here in Oregon, too.

It has nothing to do with the law. It's a bunch of social justice warrior nitwits who lie in order to steal babies. It's that simple. I've been watching them at it for years.

 

[mamooth]

They go after women who drug their babies in utero now.
Why don't you fucktards challenge that shit?

We do. What retardation made you think otherwise?

Civil liberties organizations and medical organizations, which are overwhelmingly liberal, all says such stupid laws are wrong. It's mainly conservative authoritarian do-gooders that push such laws.

 

[mamooth]

The 14th clearly says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." Be they citizens or not.

PETA would say that proves cows are entitled to equal protection.

Aside from "BECAUSE I SAY SO!", what makes you different from PETA? After all, you both use the same argument. You make up a crazy revisionist definition of person, and claim that anyone who doesn't follow it, including the founders, is morally defective.

 

[Chuz Life]

The 14th clearly says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." Be they citizens or not.

PETA would say that proves cows are entitled to equal protection.

Aside from "BECAUSE I SAY SO!", what makes you different from PETA? After all, you both use the same argument. You make up a crazy revisionist definition of person, and claim that anyone who doesn't follow it, including the founders, is morally defective.

I would like to ask PETA. . .

If meat is murder. . . What then is an abortion?

I'm willing to bet that most hypocrite PETAtardz are pro abortion.

 

[FA_Q2]

The question I would ask, then, is how you can be so sure of a worldview precept's origins when you do not even ascribe to that precept yourself? Claiming that a persons belief is based on one thing or the other is presuming you understand their mind better than they do.

I think it is a universal fact that peoples actions don't always match their words.

This is true and also has nothing to do with what I stated. You are declaring that you know the underlying motivations behind a person's worldview - that has literally nothing to do with saying one thing and doing another.

Essentially, your position requires that you MUST be religious in order to support the right to life position. That is blatantly false and. again, damages the debate. Such a position reveals more about your position than it does about others.

 

[FA_Q2]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.

Biology 101 stuff right there.

A zygote is not a "complete organizism". It's only just begun to develop. It's not alive, has no heartbeat, and cannot survive outside its host. It's cells aren't multi-functional, and they aren't maintaining life processes.

Organism dictionary definition | organism defined

It is alive by any definition and maintains its own life processes. The lack of a heartbeat is a silly assertion, most life on this planet does not have a heart let alone a heart beat. There are also a whole host of living organisms that cannot survive outside a host body.

You state it 'has only just begun to develop.' Since you are claiming it is not an organism, I have to wonder what is actually developing?

 

[FA_Q2]

There are are many reasons abortion is justified.

I don’t see how abortion can ever be justified.

I believe abortion is rationalized.

But it is never moral to end a human life.

Hence the need for those that support the right to chose to redefine what it is that an abortion accomplishes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?

A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.

Biology 101 stuff right there.

A zygote is not a "complete organizism". It's only just begun to develop. It's not alive, has no heartbeat, and cannot survive outside its host. It's cells aren't multi-functional, and they aren't maintaining life processes.

Organism dictionary definition | organism defined

If it's a "complete organism" and a "child" then treat it as such.

Remove it from the woman's body so that complete organism is a child all on its own. Like all human life on this planet.

If it can't survive without being attached to a woman's uterus, it's not viable human life.

Period.

I keep asking those anti choice people if a fertilized egg is human life explain an ectopic pregnancy. That fertilized egg will never become a human being. All that fertilized egg will do is kill the woman if an abortion is performed.

I've never gotten a reply from anti choice people about ectopic pregnancies. I guess they just don't want to admit that a fertilized egg isn't a human being.

The fact that a pregnancy is going to end in failure and/or death of one or both of those involved has, literally, nothing to do with a fetus being a human being. There is no logical way to unite those 2 thoughts - they are not related.

 

[FA_Q2]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

 

[alang1216]

As the legal definition of a natural "person" is "a human being" and as you have already agreed that "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being."

You're mixing legal and scientific terminology. I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific.

Apples and oranges.

 

[alang1216]

The question I would ask, then, is how you can be so sure of a worldview precept's origins when you do not even ascribe to that precept yourself? Claiming that a persons belief is based on one thing or the other is presuming you understand their mind better than they do.

I think it is a universal fact that peoples actions don't always match their words.

This is true and also has nothing to do with what I stated. You are declaring that you know the underlying motivations behind a person's worldview - that has literally nothing to do with saying one thing and doing another.

Essentially, your position requires that you MUST be religious in order to support the right to life position. That is blatantly false and. again, damages the debate. Such a position reveals more about your position than it does about others.

I'm saying that not all but a lot of the people saying life begins at conception start from a religious or mystical point of reference. They can't point to anything about the fertilized egg that makes it special and worthy of protection except it's place in some kind of grander scheme. When I think grand schema I think religion or some kind of supernatural (non-science) mindset.

 

[alang1216]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

 

[Chuz Life]

As the legal definition of a natural "person" is "a human being" and as you have already agreed that "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being."

You're mixing legal and scientific terminology. I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific.

Apples and oranges.

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

 

[alang1216]

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

Sure I can. And no, I never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws. I just read the Lindsey's Federal law and note that it explicitly states that no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

Personally, as I stated before, I have no problem with any fetal homicide laws so long as they don't infringe on a woman's right to an abortion. If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

 

[Chuz Life]

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

Sure I can. And no, I never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws. I just read the Lindsey's Federal law and note that it explicitly states that no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

Personally, as I stated before, I have no problem with any fetal homicide laws so long as they don't infringe on a woman's right to an abortion. If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

It's very telling how you keep moving the goal posts.

You said;

" I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific. "

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define childten in the womb AS human beings in ANY stage of development.

Yes, they also make an exception to (for now) keep sbortions legal.

But that has nothing to do with your fucking comment. You claimed that there are no LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being and there ARE.

Fucking Christ, why is it always so hard to get abortion proponents to stay on point?

 

[alang1216]

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

Sure I can. And no, I never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws. I just read the Lindsey's Federal law and note that it explicitly states that no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

Personally, as I stated before, I have no problem with any fetal homicide laws so long as they don't infringe on a woman's right to an abortion. If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

It's very telling how you keep moving the goal posts.

You said;

" I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific. "

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define childten in the womb AS human beings in ANY stage of development.

Yes, they also make an exception to (for now) keep sbortions legal.

But that has nothing to do with your fucking comment. You claimed that there are no LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being and there ARE.

Fucking Christ, why is it always so hard to get abortion proponents to stay on point?

I claimed I didn't KNOW of any LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being. Apparently I was wrong. I should have assumed that since the writers of these laws are looking to subvert Roe v. Wade they would try to blur the line between science and the law.

 

[koshergrl]

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

Sure I can. And no, I never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws. I just read the Lindsey's Federal law and note that it explicitly states that no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

Personally, as I stated before, I have no problem with any fetal homicide laws so long as they don't infringe on a woman's right to an abortion. If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

It's very telling how you keep moving the goal posts.

You said;

" I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific. "

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define childten in the womb AS human beings in ANY stage of development.

Yes, they also make an exception to (for now) keep sbortions legal.

But that has nothing to do with your fucking comment. You claimed that there are no LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being and there ARE.

Fucking Christ, why is it always so hard to get abortion proponents to stay on point?

I claimed I didn't KNOW of any LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being. Apparently I was wrong. I should have assumed that since the writers of these laws are looking to subvert Roe v. Wade they would try to blur the line between science and the law.

Science is unequivocal.
A human is a human from the moment of conception.

 

[jillian]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Is it? What percentage of women have abortions.

It’s just none of your business wackadoodke.

 

[alang1216]

Science is unequivocal.
A human is a human from the moment of conception.

I have a very unscientific view of what it means to be human and the value I place on life.