20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Coyote]

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.

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.

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?

You are dodging the issue.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

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?

You are dodging the issue.

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.

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.

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?

I'm calling you on your ignorance.

How can the child be dying if it is already dead?

 

[jc456]

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.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

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.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Your comment reminds me. . .

I should start a thread on the death penalty some day.

 

[Flopper]

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

The bill will die in the Senate just as dozens of other have over the years. Republicans have a hard time getting 52 votes and certainly won't get 60.

No biggie. We will just have to gear up and try again.

And abortion legislation will continue to fail because while Americans may hate abortion they is no consensus on whether it should be legal or not. Even Republicans who are leaders in the antiabortion fight such as Rep. Tim Murphy are willing to turn to abortion when an unwanted pregnancy effects them or their family.

Abortion rates have been falling since there peak of 29 million a year in 1980 to 14 million today and they will continue to fall as the stigma of child birth out of wedlock falls. Someday abortion may once again be illegal but not till Americans feel there is no need for the practice.

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

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?

You are dodging the issue.

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.

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.

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?

I'm calling you on your ignorance.

How can the child be dying if it is already dead?

Dodge. Again. Shall i reword it for to satisfy your game?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

The bill will die in the Senate just as dozens of other have over the years. Republicans have a hard time getting 52 votes and certainly won't get 60.

No biggie. We will just have to gear up and try again.

And abortion legislation will continue to fail because while Americans may hate abortion they are is no consensus on whether it should be legal or not. Even Republicans who are leaders in the antiabortion fight such as Rep. Tim Murphy are willing to turn to abortion when an unwanted pregnancy effects them or their family.

Abortion rates have been falling since there peak of 29 million a year in 1980 to 14 million and they will continue to fall as the stigma of child birth out of wedlock falls. Someday abortion may once again be illegal but not till Americans feel there is no need for it.

Be honest.

Do you expect that any of that information is going to change me efforts?

If your answer is no. . . Then, why waste your time posting it?

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

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.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

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?

You are dodging the issue.

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.

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.

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?

I'm calling you on your ignorance.

How can the child be dying if it is already dead?

Dodge. Again. Shall i reword it for to satisfy your game?

Anyone who wants to can scroll back and see that you said both the child was dead and that it was dying. . Reword it all you want to. It still can't be both.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

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.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

Already answered this just a few posts back.

 

[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?

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.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

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.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

 

[jc456]

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.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

Unfortunately there are still a significant number of people (a majority) on your side if the debate who still deny what you just said. . . That a human fetus is in fact "a human being." A child.

So I thank you for helping me educate those who still try to maintain that denial.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life. It's really simple, not sure why the supreme court had a problem with life. it grows because it is alive. It wouldn't if it was dead. and what is a pregnancy then?

I understand your point and frustration.

While I do see dangers in over simplifying the issue, People do tend to over complicate it as well.

 

[jc456]

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.

OMG, you are back to this again? I've never claimed a difference between a human fetus and a human being in the fetal stage of development, as those are simply two ways to say the same thing. I have said this to you before, when you made the same basic statement. In fact, I cannot recall a single poster claiming that a human fetus is different from a human being in the fetal stage of development.

You are not educating anyone, except perhaps in your ability to belabor a meaningless point.

the one and only point I ever make is this, is the embroy/ fetus alive? if it is alive, then someone is killing it to end it's life. It therefore is life and murder.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

I agree! The criminal penalties are outrageous. However, I might not have a problem with the 20 weeks under some circumstances.

1. Make contraception available and affordable to all women. The EO that (I won't call him President) Trump signed allowing employers to deny contraception to workers is unconscionable , hypocritical and just plain stupid

2. Invest in meaningful sex education - not this abstinence only horseshit that does not work.

3. Ensure that women who become pregnant have the financial and social supports that will encourage them to carry the child to term. That means access to affordable pre school and day care services, housing assistance, nutritional programs and stop demonizing them if they have to fall back on a social safety net.

4. Ensure that reproductive and pediatric health care is available to all women to ensure the health and well being of the child before and after birth. Stop the war on planned parenthood

Far to many conservatives are just pro embryo and not pro life.

5 Lastly, access to abortion should be available and conveniently located without the draconian and mean rules such as requiring and invasive ultrasound or a funeral for a embryo.

 

[Coyote]

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?

You are dodging the issue.

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?

I'm calling you on your ignorance.

How can the child be dying if it is already dead?

Dodge. Again. Shall i reword it for to satisfy your game?

Anyone who wants to can scroll back and see that you said both the child was dead and that it was dying. . Reword it all you want to. It still can't be both.

You are using this as an excuse to dodge the real issue I presented. How long are you going to play this childish game?

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

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.

well at least you call it a child. which means it is alive. I believe in the death penalty. I feel that if a human has no respect for other humans and takes their life, that person forfeits his/ her life. seem fair? I believe that person is a walking birth defect.

Should a woman pregnant with a child diagnosed with such severe birth defects it will die at birth be forced to carry it to term against her will?

So, what is the difference exactly?

Between what?

 

[Coyote]

Pregnancy carries very real risks and complication for the mother. Forcing her to carry a fetus with such severe defects it will die at birth to term is an example of how callous some prolifers can be. Some women will others cant. They shouldnt be forced to. Every week and month of pregnancy is a reminder that they will not have a living child at the end of what is normally a celebratory time.