20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Chuz Life]

Not sure with the fuck religion has to do with the fact that a child's life begins at conception and (if we are to take the Constituion seriously) that is when their rights should begin as well. For the most partn Our fetal homicide laws already recognize that as fact, too.

Religion doesn't have shit to do with it.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?

Does the Constituion say that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . Or does it say only persons we can no longer find reasons to deny?

The constitution does not define persons specifically, so far as I am aware. The USSC decided that a fetus does not constitute a person under the 14th in Roe. I would guess that a fetus cannot be a natural born citizen, either, since it has not been born.

Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.

The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the constitution talks about life and rights beginning at conception. I know the constitution mentions birth, but I didn't realize conception was in there. Could you point me to the relevant passage(s)?

Does the Constituion say that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . Or does it say only persons we can no longer find reasons to deny?

The constitution does not define persons specifically, so far as I am aware. The USSC decided that a fetus does not constitute a person under the 14th in Roe. I would guess that a fetus cannot be a natural born citizen, either, since it has not been born.

Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.

The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does the Constituion say that all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. . . Or does it say only persons we can no longer find reasons to deny?

The constitution does not define persons specifically, so far as I am aware. The USSC decided that a fetus does not constitute a person under the 14th in Roe. I would guess that a fetus cannot be a natural born citizen, either, since it has not been born.

Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.

The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

 

[Montrovant]

The constitution does not define persons specifically, so far as I am aware. The USSC decided that a fetus does not constitute a person under the 14th in Roe. I would guess that a fetus cannot be a natural born citizen, either, since it has not been born.

Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.

The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

 

[Faun]

Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.

The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

And in at least some of the cases on fetal homicide, the convictions were upheld on appeal because the courts determined they were guilty of killing a fetus, not a human being and not a person.

 

[Chuz Life]

Our state and federal fetal homicide laws establish that a child in the womb is a person.....enough AT LEAST to warrant a charge of MURDER against anyone who kills one in a criminal act.

The question for the SCOTUS will be clear. How can the child be considered to be a person when a criminal even accidentally kills it but NOT a person when the mom pays some proabort to kill it intentionally?

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

 

[skye]

All these Satanists

making this Sacrifices killings of babies

makes any human being vomit
Be Damned ....all you Satanist be damned ....scum

 

[Faun]

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Depends on the state. In California, for example, one can be charged with “murder” for unlawfully killing a “fetus.”

CHAPTER 1. Homicide

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.​

 

[oreo]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

You do realise that a lot of these late term abortions are done because the fetus died, and or it has severe abnormalities.

In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

And as usual you have left out one critical factor. The mother's life, who may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise.

A number of states have already restricted late term abortions. But if they fail to take into consideration the health of the woman & the fetus--the Federal court will overrule it.

"In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that

• even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the woman;
• “health” in this context includes physical and mental health;
• only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
• states may not require additional physicians to confirm the attending physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk in cases of medical emergency.

Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception.
State Policies on Later Abortions

Women really don't use abortion as a birth control measure--not when they're having to pay out $1200.00 to $1700.00 for an abortion..

Now we'll see what the U.S. Supreme court does with this one, but if it's like most of the other state bills--it will be overruled immediately. That is, if it meets the muster of the Senate and Trump signs it into law.

 

[Chuz Life]

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Depends on the state. In California, for example, one can be charged with “murder” for unlawfully killing a “fetus.”

CHAPTER 1. Homicide

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.​

Any fetus?

A dog fetus?

A cat fetus?

 

[Faun]

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Depends on the state. In California, for example, one can be charged with “murder” for unlawfully killing a “fetus.”

CHAPTER 1. Homicide

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.​

Any fetus?

A dog fetus?

A cat fetus?

Not a person, as defined by the 14th Amendment. And defined as separate from murdering a human being.

 

[Political Junky]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose. I don't care if it's 20 weeks, its still not a living being and is not murder. Women shouldn't be penalized for getting pregnant by a man. A man and woman make a mistake, the man gets no punishment yet Republicans want to treat the woman like a vile criminal for accidentally getting pregnant. Enough suppression of women in this country, it is awful. Women have the right to be sexually liberal and not get punished for it. The man can get as many women pregnant and get a slap on the wrist the woman if she is sexually active and accidentally gets pregnant well shame on her for being sexually active according to Republicans, they want to persecute her and treat her like a vile villain just for wanting an abortion. It really is awful the way this country insists to treat women in this day and age.

Sad very sad this bill got passed in the House.

Birth control and the morning after pill. Those options are out there and available.

Many on he Far Right hate both.

 

[Montrovant]

As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, using evidence, including from the Supreme Court, there is more than one kind of legal "person."

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

 

[Coyote]

Abortion for fetal defects is a slippery slope...at what point is it ok or is it never ok?

I knew someone who's baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, no brain. The baby would have died at birth. She and her husband chose abortion.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

 

[Chuz Life]

What kind can get you a MURDER charge for killing them in a criminal act?

Look, I've shown you multiple instances of various courts saying that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v Wade. You seem to think that sentiment will be reversed. That's fine, but the fact is that there is no evidence of that sentiment being reversed at this time. The judicial system is, I am confident, aware of the various fetal homicide laws or other laws which define a fetus as a person, and also aware of the decision in Roe. The Supreme Court ruled in Webster v Reproductive Health Services that to "offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade" (emphasis mine). Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

The courts of the United States have ruled, on multiple occasions, that laws which treat a fetus as a person can coexist with Roe. That may change at some point, but you keep talking about fetal homicide laws as though the courts have not yet considered them when it comes to Roe v Wade. They have.

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Other than born human beings and human fetuses? No, no others can get you a murder charge, since the only other humans would be dead ones.

Why don't you just get to the gotcha point you think you are making?

There is no gotcha point.

You are simply helping me to educate others.

Could you explain what the physiological difference is between a human being / person / child who is in the fetal stage of their life and a human fetus?

That would be interesting.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion for fetal defects is a slippery slope...at what point is it ok or is it never ok?

I knew someone who's baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, no brain. The baby would have died at birth. She and her husband chose abortion.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

 

[jc456]

The President will sign it but blood lust Democrats/Rino's, that's doubtful...

---------------------------------



Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would criminalize abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for instances where the life of the mother is at risk and in cases involving rape or incest.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 237 for and 189 against, largely on party lines.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is similar to legislation that failed in 2013and 2015, has support from the White House this time around.


House passes ban on abortion after 20 weeks - CNNPolitics

Its a crying shame women have to be suppressed like this. A women's right to choose. I don't care if it's 20 weeks, its still not a living being and is not murder. Women shouldn't be penalized for getting pregnant by a man. A man and woman make a mistake, the man gets no punishment yet Republicans want to treat the woman like a vile criminal for accidentally getting pregnant. Enough suppression of women in this country, it is awful. Women have the right to be sexually liberal and not get punished for it. The man can get as many women pregnant and get a slap on the wrist the woman if she is sexually active and accidentally gets pregnant well shame on her for being sexually active according to Republicans, they want to persecute her and treat her like a vile villain just for wanting an abortion. It really is awful the way this country insists to treat women in this day and age.

Sad very sad this bill got passed in the House.

sure it is living, why do they call it pregnant?

 

[Chuz Life]

As much as I enjoy watching you squirm. . . I just want to know what KIND of person can you get a charge of MURDER for killing them in criminal act.

You said there are several kinds of persons. . . So, name the ones that net a killer a charge of MURDER.

That's all.

That would be based on the particular law, subject to USSC review. Any human being who has been born and is still alive can get you a murder charge in all 50 states, so far as I know. In some, killing a fetus in the womb can lead to murder charges. In no state does abortion constitute murder.

I'm not sure what you think I'm "squirming" about. I've provided evidence for my arguments. You keep saying, "But, but, fetal homicide laws!"

What other human beings can get the killer a MURDER CHARGE, homey?

None. Right?

Depends on the state. In California, for example, one can be charged with “murder” for unlawfully killing a “fetus.”

CHAPTER 1. Homicide

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.​

Any fetus?

A dog fetus?

A cat fetus?

Not a person, as defined by the 14th Amendment. And defined as separate from murdering a human being.

The 14th amendment defines "persons?"

Quote it.

 

[Coyote]

Abortion for fetal defects is a slippery slope...at what point is it ok or is it never ok?

I knew someone who's baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, no brain. The baby would have died at birth. She and her husband chose abortion.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

Abortion for fetal defects is a slippery slope...at what point is it ok or is it never ok?

I knew someone who's baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, no brain. The baby would have died at birth. She and her husband chose abortion.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

Abortion for fetal defects is a slippery slope...at what point is it ok or is it never ok?

I knew someone who's baby was diagnosed with anencephaly, no brain. The baby would have died at birth. She and her husband chose abortion.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

That would be a false equivalency. So in effect a woman carring a child with such severe defects it will die at birth would have carry it to term knowing it is dead? That is cold.

 

[Chuz Life]

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

If it would have died at birth. . . The reason for killing it is. . . What?

Should a woman be forced to carry it to term?

She shouldn't be forced to do anything.

However, if she violates a child's rights AT ANY AGE. . . She should be held accountable for that.

In this particular situation shoul she be forcrd to carry it to term by the law?

The answer is still the same.

Furthermore, i reject the idea that Denying women the right or ability to pay Planned Parenthood to murder their child is tantamount to "forcing a woman to carry to term."

It's like trying to claim that laws against child molestation are only an attempt to force child rapists into celibacy.

That would be a false equivalency. So in effect a woman carring a child with such severe defects it will die at birth would have carry it to term knowing it is dead? That is cold.

Biology fail.

How can it be dying if it is already dead?

P.s. Life is hard and harsh reality and truth are often times, cold. Many doctors have determined that the grieving process after losing a loved one is healthier for an individual than sterilizing the experience and trying to eliminate or minimize the emotions is.