Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Democrats will be deeply upset that they can no longer butcher unborn children.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
In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.
It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.
Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.
The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.
I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.
And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade
Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?
You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.
Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.
It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.
Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.
This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev
When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.
What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?
I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.
Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.
There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.
One is a human being and the other is not.
It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.
Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.
The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.
I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.
And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade
Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?
You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.
Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.
It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.
Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.
This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev
When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.
What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?
I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.
Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.
There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.
One is a human being and the other is not.
That's just it: personhood IS something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off with legislation, if it is not constitutional personhood. See corporations as persons for an example.
Murder is not a constitutionally defined term. Legislatures can define murder how they wish. Not all states have fetal homicide laws, so the definition of murder is not universal throughout the country.
The courts have, so far as I'm aware, been pretty vague on the definition of a person. There is no reason that definition must be the same for fetal homicide laws and the 14th amendment.
I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.
And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade
Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?
You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.
Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.
It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.
Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.
This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev
When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.
What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?
I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.
Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.
There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.
One is a human being and the other is not.
That's just it: personhood IS something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off with legislation, if it is not constitutional personhood. See corporations as persons for an example.
Murder is not a constitutionally defined term. Legislatures can define murder how they wish. Not all states have fetal homicide laws, so the definition of murder is not universal throughout the country.
The courts have, so far as I'm aware, been pretty vague on the definition of a person. There is no reason that definition must be the same for fetal homicide laws and the 14th amendment.
Read what the SCOTUS AND the pro abort lawyers said in Roe (read my sig. )
Then, feel free to explain why you think they were wrong.
Can you be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another HUMAN being?You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.
Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.
It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.
Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.
This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev
When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.
What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?
I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.
Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.
There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.
One is a human being and the other is not.
That's just it: personhood IS something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off with legislation, if it is not constitutional personhood. See corporations as persons for an example.
Murder is not a constitutionally defined term. Legislatures can define murder how they wish. Not all states have fetal homicide laws, so the definition of murder is not universal throughout the country.
The courts have, so far as I'm aware, been pretty vague on the definition of a person. There is no reason that definition must be the same for fetal homicide laws and the 14th amendment.
Read what the SCOTUS AND the pro abort lawyers said in Roe (read my sig. )
Then, feel free to explain why you think they were wrong.
It's not they who are wrong, but you, as your signature is not something that has happened. As I explained, there is a difference between a person as recognized by the 14th amendment and a person as created through law. I even provided a fairly in-depth breakdown in the link from scholarly commons. A state fetal homicide law does not change the definition of person per the 14th amendment as recognized by the USSC. Just as a corporation can be legally a "person" without being granted all constitutional protections, so can a fetus.
Legalities don't always follow common sense.
Can you be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another HUMAN being?Keep in mind that personhood does not have to be an all-encompassing thing. It's entirely possible for the court to consider personhood as understood by the 14th amendment to be different than personhood as understood by a state's fetal homicide laws.
This work provides some interesting argument that fetal person designations are similar to corporate person designations, and does not make them persons under the 14th.
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=caselrev
When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.
What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?
I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.
Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.
There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.
One is a human being and the other is not.
That's just it: personhood IS something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off with legislation, if it is not constitutional personhood. See corporations as persons for an example.
Murder is not a constitutionally defined term. Legislatures can define murder how they wish. Not all states have fetal homicide laws, so the definition of murder is not universal throughout the country.
The courts have, so far as I'm aware, been pretty vague on the definition of a person. There is no reason that definition must be the same for fetal homicide laws and the 14th amendment.
Read what the SCOTUS AND the pro abort lawyers said in Roe (read my sig. )
Then, feel free to explain why you think they were wrong.
It's not they who are wrong, but you, as your signature is not something that has happened. As I explained, there is a difference between a person as recognized by the 14th amendment and a person as created through law. I even provided a fairly in-depth breakdown in the link from scholarly commons. A state fetal homicide law does not change the definition of person per the 14th amendment as recognized by the USSC. Just as a corporation can be legally a "person" without being granted all constitutional protections, so can a fetus.
Legalities don't always follow common sense.
Before you answer. . . Keep in mind that our fetal Homicide laws already define children in the womb AS such.
Republicans won't be satisfied until women are tied to their beds as soon as they are determined to be pregnant and then forced to give birth no matter what their desires are in the matter.Democrats will be deeply upset that they can no longer butcher unborn children.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
A fetus isn't human until the umbilical cord is cut. Until then it's more an eggplant.
Capital punishment is naughty, because criminals require love, understanding and rehabilitation.
Sorry if my point was not clear, it was regards to the push to ban all abortions, starting with 20 weeks, most people have been clear about being against all abortions with some exceptions for rape incest.Coat Hangers? There's still 5 months during which a woman can have an abortion!The problem is that wealthy & those able to gather the money will fly to where its legal to abort. the poor will go back to coat hangers & back street abortions. those to poor or to scared will have an unwanted, unable to be cared for properly. end result more kids living on the street, more kids running wild & not learning how to do the right thing. look up the numbers of children now in foster care or living on the street. after there birth how much government support do you back? how much money time or effort are you willing to provide? going by what people post on this board very few are willing to help the poor & think you should pull your self up by your own boot straps, something quite difficult for a young child to do. we need better answers to the abortion problem.
That just proves my point.For now, until the zealots incrementally take those options away too.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.
I'm as conservative as can be but I've been for free birth control and after morning pills to PREVENT abortion. Anything to keep a woman from having to make the choice of an abortion.
I agree with you.
If this legislation passes and I'm not so sure about the Senate, everyone would be unhappy with it on both sides of the issue but hopefully all could eventually accept that it's a reasonable move in the right direction .
Can you be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another HUMAN being?When our fetal Homicide laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb. . . The personhood of the victim is being established by that charge. MURDER has a very clear legal definition of one person killing another person in a criminal act.
What other aspect of personhood would Trump that , in your view?
I submit that any law which says it's a crime of MURDER to kill it in ANY one set of circumstances means that it is a person in that respect in ANY and all other circumstances.
Personhood is not a switch that can be simply arbitrarily switched off and on with legislation.
There is a reason no one can be charged with MURDER for killing a corporation and they can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb.
One is a human being and the other is not.
That's just it: personhood IS something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off with legislation, if it is not constitutional personhood. See corporations as persons for an example.
Murder is not a constitutionally defined term. Legislatures can define murder how they wish. Not all states have fetal homicide laws, so the definition of murder is not universal throughout the country.
The courts have, so far as I'm aware, been pretty vague on the definition of a person. There is no reason that definition must be the same for fetal homicide laws and the 14th amendment.
Read what the SCOTUS AND the pro abort lawyers said in Roe (read my sig. )
Then, feel free to explain why you think they were wrong.
It's not they who are wrong, but you, as your signature is not something that has happened. As I explained, there is a difference between a person as recognized by the 14th amendment and a person as created through law. I even provided a fairly in-depth breakdown in the link from scholarly commons. A state fetal homicide law does not change the definition of person per the 14th amendment as recognized by the USSC. Just as a corporation can be legally a "person" without being granted all constitutional protections, so can a fetus.
Legalities don't always follow common sense.
Before you answer. . . Keep in mind that our fetal Homicide laws already define children in the womb AS such.
Does the constitution grant protections to human beings? Does the way a state law or federal law defines something supercede constitutional definitions as understood by the USSC?
Is there anything in the constitution that prevents a state or the federal government from creating a law that making killing a non-human animal murder?
Liar.Republicans won't be satisfied until women are tied to their beds as soon as they are determined to be pregnant and then forced to give birth no matter what their desires are in the matter.Democrats will be deeply upset that they can no longer butcher unborn children.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
Of course, once the kid is born they are on their own.
Surprised your nose didn't get in the way of your keyboard after your last lie.Liar.Republicans won't be satisfied until women are tied to their beds as soon as they are determined to be pregnant and then forced to give birth no matter what their desires are in the matter.Democrats will be deeply upset that they can no longer butcher unborn children.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
Of course, once the kid is born they are on their own.
Can you be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another HUMAN being?That's just it: personhood IS something that can be arbitrarily switched on and off with legislation, if it is not constitutional personhood. See corporations as persons for an example.
Murder is not a constitutionally defined term. Legislatures can define murder how they wish. Not all states have fetal homicide laws, so the definition of murder is not universal throughout the country.
The courts have, so far as I'm aware, been pretty vague on the definition of a person. There is no reason that definition must be the same for fetal homicide laws and the 14th amendment.
Read what the SCOTUS AND the pro abort lawyers said in Roe (read my sig. )
Then, feel free to explain why you think they were wrong.
It's not they who are wrong, but you, as your signature is not something that has happened. As I explained, there is a difference between a person as recognized by the 14th amendment and a person as created through law. I even provided a fairly in-depth breakdown in the link from scholarly commons. A state fetal homicide law does not change the definition of person per the 14th amendment as recognized by the USSC. Just as a corporation can be legally a "person" without being granted all constitutional protections, so can a fetus.
Legalities don't always follow common sense.
Before you answer. . . Keep in mind that our fetal Homicide laws already define children in the womb AS such.
Does the constitution grant protections to human beings? Does the way a state law or federal law defines something supercede constitutional definitions as understood by the USSC?
Is there anything in the constitution that prevents a state or the federal government from creating a law that making killing a non-human animal murder?
You are speaking in gibberish platitudes. The legal definition for a person has long been established as "a human being." The Supreme Court not only recognized that fact in Roe, forty years ago, as they anticipated a State could eventually establish a child in the womb AS a person... the same court today has been upholding our fetal HOMICIDE laws for over 10 years now.
Why do you suppose the exceptions to the fatal homicide laws are necessary to (for now) keep abortions legal?
Those exceptions fonts say the child is a human being / person in one situation but NOT another. It's always the same child / human being.
The exception simply says those laws can not be used to prosecute women who legally abort. . .
For
Now.
Can you be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another HUMAN being?Read what the SCOTUS AND the pro abort lawyers said in Roe (read my sig. )
Then, feel free to explain why you think they were wrong.
It's not they who are wrong, but you, as your signature is not something that has happened. As I explained, there is a difference between a person as recognized by the 14th amendment and a person as created through law. I even provided a fairly in-depth breakdown in the link from scholarly commons. A state fetal homicide law does not change the definition of person per the 14th amendment as recognized by the USSC. Just as a corporation can be legally a "person" without being granted all constitutional protections, so can a fetus.
Legalities don't always follow common sense.
Before you answer. . . Keep in mind that our fetal Homicide laws already define children in the womb AS such.
Does the constitution grant protections to human beings? Does the way a state law or federal law defines something supercede constitutional definitions as understood by the USSC?
Is there anything in the constitution that prevents a state or the federal government from creating a law that making killing a non-human animal murder?
You are speaking in gibberish platitudes. The legal definition for a person has long been established as "a human being." The Supreme Court not only recognized that fact in Roe, forty years ago, as they anticipated a State could eventually establish a child in the womb AS a person... the same court today has been upholding our fetal HOMICIDE laws for over 10 years now.
Why do you suppose the exceptions to the fatal homicide laws are necessary to (for now) keep abortions legal?
Those exceptions fonts say the child is a human being / person in one situation but NOT another. It's always the same child / human being.
The exception simply says those laws can not be used to prosecute women who legally abort. . .
For
Now.
I'm sorry, but the evidence does not support your opinion. You seem to have taken a quote about something that did not happen and extrapolated meaning from it that does not exist. Take the case of Burwell v Hobby Lobby, for example. In section B1 of the opinion, the court writes, "The term “person” sometimes encompasses artificial persons (as the Dictionary Act instructs), and it sometimes is limited to natural persons." That is only one quote from the opinion in which the court states that the term person can mean more than a human individual. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
The legal definition of person has not long been established to mean "a human being." I have provided multiple sources of evidence to support this.
