20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Picaro]

Obama must be completely bummed...

Well, you know those neo-pagan vermin just hate it when those uppity Xian Deplorables ruin their buzzes by denying them their ritual sacrifices, and it hits them especially hard when hillary lost and they could be facing RICO indictments to boot, instead of their dream of holding Soviet style show trials and executing those who refused to cave in to PC Nazism.

 

[Picaro]

Good.

Hope it becomes law.

It is disgusting that some idiot can have her own child cut up into little pieces inside her womb without any pain killer at all.

These poor children cry out from the grave for justice, and it is coming for them all.

The degenerate Muslim deviant Obama supported abortion at the time of birth, he was such a sick fuck; the procedure there is jamming a pair of scissors into the child's brain before the child is all the way out of the birth canal.

But even that isn't enough to sate the blood lust of the vermin. This is The Next New Thing the vermin will be touting, along with 'normalizing' pedophile rape of children:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

....

[/B]

Hey, if you get bored with the kid before it turns 2, just kill it, it isn't 'human' yet, according to 'science'; it's just a blob of stuff, no different than a fetus ... this is an easy sell to the deviants already desensitized into accepting abortion on demand and such idiocy as homosexuality being 'normal' n stuff'.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

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.

Maybe hearing the Supreme Court justices along with the pro abort attorney (Sara Weddington) will get your attention a little better than I can.

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can you be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than another HUMAN being?

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.

Maybe hearing the Supreme Court justices along with the pro abort attorney (Sara Weddington) will get your attention a little better than I can.

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

Try selling that denial bullshit to any of those already convicted of MURDER under a fetal homicide law that are trying to get their convictions overturned by claiming the child they killed was NOT a person.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

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.

sigh. . .

stupid ass auto correcting phone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Maybe hearing the Supreme Court justices along with the pro abort attorney (Sara Weddington) will get your attention a little better than I can.

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

Try selling that denial bullshit to any of those already convicted of MURDER under a fetal homicide law that are trying to get their convictions overturned by claiming the child they killed was NOT a person.

lol, if the fetus is already legally a person, why are the anti-abortion nuts constantly trying to get personhood laws and/or amendments passed?

 

[Pete7469]

The last thing I give a shit about right now is abortion or queer issues.

REPEAL OBOZOCARE!!!

PASS TAX REFORM!!!

SECURE THE MOTHER FUCKING BORDERS!!

 

[Aletheia4u]

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

 

[easyt65]

I seem to recall a legal case several years ago (just a few) in which a pregnant woman was killed. She was 'far enough along' for the baby to have survived outside the womb, but both mother and child died in the crime.

The prosecutor charged the criminal with 2 (TWO) counts of murder. This incensed the pro-abortionists when this was reported. The Pro-Abortion crowd bussed in people to this trial to protest - not the murder of this woman and her baby - the fact that the prosecutor was claiming the 'fetus' was actually a PERSON - a HUMAN BEING who had rights - by charging the murderer with 2 counts. THEY WERE AFRAID THAT IF THE JUDGE ALLOWED IT AND THE CRIMINAL WAS CONVICTED OF BOTH MURDERS IT WOULD SET LEGAL PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE CASES THAT A 'FETUS' (AS THEY CALLED THE BABY) INSIDE THE WOMB ACTUALLY A PERSON.

I don't know about you, but I find that a little despicable, that women would flock to a courthouse, not to stand in support of another woman, one who had been murdered and her unborn baby killed in the attack as well. They came to disrespect the life that was inside her, to declare the life that was taken within her meant almost nothing - not even worth a criminal charge against the murderer. Protecting their own continued right to murder babies themselves was more important.

They did not come to stand with the VICTIM - they came to stand 'in defense' (in art) of the murderer, 'defending' his murder of the baby as not having been a murder at all.

Again, I don't know about you, but I find that rather sick.


(I am trying to find the exact case I am talking about - I believe the Judge tossed the 2nd charge, the charge for murder of the unborn baby. I will see if I can find it.)

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Maybe hearing the Supreme Court justices along with the pro abort attorney (Sara Weddington) will get your attention a little better than I can.

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

Try selling that denial bullshit to any of those already convicted of MURDER under a fetal homicide law that are trying to get their convictions overturned by claiming the child they killed was NOT a person.

lol, if the fetus is already legally a person, why are the anti-abortion nuts constantly trying to get personhood laws and/or amendments passed?

Because, in as much as our fetal HOMICIDE laws do establish the personhood of " children in the womb" (at least) in situations where they are killed in a criminal act,. . . Those laws (for now) are also denying personhood, rights and protections to those same children. . . By (unconstitutionally) making exceptions to try to keep abortions legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I seem to recall a legal case several years ago (just a few) in which a pregnant woman was killed. She was 'far enough along' for the baby to have survived outside the womb, but both mother and child died in the crime.

The prosecutor charged the criminal with 2 (TWO) counts of murder. This incensed the pro-abortionists when this was reported. The Pro-Abortion crowd bussed in people to this trial to protest - not the murder of this woman and her baby - the fact that the prosecutor was claiming the 'fetus' was actually a PERSON - a HUMAN BEING who had rights - by charging the murderer with 2 counts. THEY WERE AFRAID THAT IF THE JUDGE ALLOWED IT AND THE CRIMINAL WAS CONVICTED OF BOTH MURDERS IT WOULD SET LEGAL PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE CASES THAT A 'FETUS' (AS THEY CALLED THE BABY) INSIDE THE WOMB ACTUALLY A PERSON.

I don't know about you, but I find that a little despicable, that women would flock to a courthouse, not to stand in support of another woman, one who had been murdered and her unborn baby killed in the attack as well. They came to disrespect the life that was inside her, to declare the life that was taken within her meant almost nothing - not even worth a criminal charge against the murderer. Protecting their own continued right to murder babies themselves was more important.

They did not come to stand with the VICTIM - they came to stand 'in defense' (in art) of the murderer, 'defending' his murder of the baby as not having been a murder at all.

Again, I don't know about you, but I find that rather sick.


(I am trying to find the exact case I am talking about - I believe the Judge tossed the 2nd charge, the charge for murder of the unborn baby. I will see if I can find it.)

So if abortion were illegal, a woman having an abortion should be considered to have committed the crime of murder?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Maybe hearing the Supreme Court justices along with the pro abort attorney (Sara Weddington) will get your attention a little better than I can.

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

Try selling that denial bullshit to any of those already convicted of MURDER under a fetal homicide law that are trying to get their convictions overturned by claiming the child they killed was NOT a person.

lol, if the fetus is already legally a person, why are the anti-abortion nuts constantly trying to get personhood laws and/or amendments passed?

Because, in as much as our fetal HOMICIDE laws do establish the personhood of " children in the womb" (at least) in situations where they are killed in a criminal act,. . . Those laws (for now) are also denying personhood, rights and protections to those same children. . . By (unconstitutionally) making exceptions to try to keep abortions legal.

In Alabama, you can be charged with fetal homicide for killing a fetus at any stage of the pregnancy,

BUT, abortion is still legal.

See the ridiculousness of that? Alabama is effectively legalizing murder by their own definitions.

 

[easyt65]

So if abortion were illegal, a woman having an abortion should be considered to have committed the crime of murder?

I find it amazing that liberals have to ask such questions...

If having abortions were outlawed - made illegal - then any woman who had an abortion would legally have committed a crime.

If a law was passed defining abortions as 'murder' THEN and ONLY THEN would any woman who had an abortion be considered to have committed 'murder'.

Abortions will NOT be made illegal.

Babies who have not come out of the womb will remain without rights, if pro-Abortionists have their way, even if they are capable of surviving outside the womb. Hopefully, however, the 'Late Term Abortion Ban' will pass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if abortion were illegal, a woman having an abortion should be considered to have committed the crime of murder?

I find it amazing that liberals have to ask such questions...

If having abortions were outlawed - made illegal - then any woman who had an abortion would legally have committed a crime.

If a law was passed defining abortions as 'murder' THEN and ONLY THEN would any woman who had an abortion be considered to have committed 'murder'.

Abortions will NOT be made illegal.

Babies who have not come out of the womb will remain without rights, if pro-Abortionists have their way, even if they are capable of surviving outside the womb. Hopefully, however, the 'Late Term Abortion Ban' will pass.

I find it unamazing that you could say that much and not answer the question.

 

[easyt65]

I find it unamazing that you could say that much and not answer the question.

I find it further amazing that you can be so Intellectually Dishonest and try to insult someone else while at the same time admitting that you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

 

[martybegan]

To me the feds should stay out of this, it's a State level issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

I seem to recall a legal case several years ago (just a few) in which a pregnant woman was killed. She was 'far enough along' for the baby to have survived outside the womb, but both mother and child died in the crime.

The prosecutor charged the criminal with 2 (TWO) counts of murder. This incensed the pro-abortionists when this was reported. The Pro-Abortion crowd bussed in people to this trial to protest - not the murder of this woman and her baby - the fact that the prosecutor was claiming the 'fetus' was actually a PERSON - a HUMAN BEING who had rights - by charging the murderer with 2 counts. THEY WERE AFRAID THAT IF THE JUDGE ALLOWED IT AND THE CRIMINAL WAS CONVICTED OF BOTH MURDERS IT WOULD SET LEGAL PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE CASES THAT A 'FETUS' (AS THEY CALLED THE BABY) INSIDE THE WOMB ACTUALLY A PERSON.

I don't know about you, but I find that a little despicable, that women would flock to a courthouse, not to stand in support of another woman, one who had been murdered and her unborn baby killed in the attack as well. They came to disrespect the life that was inside her, to declare the life that was taken within her meant almost nothing - not even worth a criminal charge against the murderer. Protecting their own continued right to murder babies themselves was more important.

They did not come to stand with the VICTIM - they came to stand 'in defense' (in art) of the murderer, 'defending' his murder of the baby as not having been a murder at all.

Again, I don't know about you, but I find that rather sick.


(I am trying to find the exact case I am talking about - I believe the Judge tossed the 2nd charge, the charge for murder of the unborn baby. I will see if I can find it.)

So if abortion were illegal, a woman having an abortion should be considered to have committed the crime of murder?

It is what it fucking is.

 

[Chuz Life]

Maybe hearing the Supreme Court justices along with the pro abort attorney (Sara Weddington) will get your attention a little better than I can.

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

Try selling that denial bullshit to any of those already convicted of MURDER under a fetal homicide law that are trying to get their convictions overturned by claiming the child they killed was NOT a person.

lol, if the fetus is already legally a person, why are the anti-abortion nuts constantly trying to get personhood laws and/or amendments passed?

Because, in as much as our fetal HOMICIDE laws do establish the personhood of " children in the womb" (at least) in situations where they are killed in a criminal act,. . . Those laws (for now) are also denying personhood, rights and protections to those same children. . . By (unconstitutionally) making exceptions to try to keep abortions legal.

In Alabama, you can be charged with fetal homicide for killing a fetus at any stage of the pregnancy,

BUT, abortion is still legal.

See the ridiculousness of that? Alabama is effectively legalizing murder by their own definitions.

I'm glad you agree that we can't have it both ways.

Either the child in the womb is a human being / person who is entitled to their own Constitutional rights and protections or they are not.

 

[Timmy]

That didn't add anything to the discussion. IF a fetus were determined to be a person under the 14th amendment, things would be different. However, such a determination has not been made.

Try selling that denial bullshit to any of those already convicted of MURDER under a fetal homicide law that are trying to get their convictions overturned by claiming the child they killed was NOT a person.

lol, if the fetus is already legally a person, why are the anti-abortion nuts constantly trying to get personhood laws and/or amendments passed?

Because, in as much as our fetal HOMICIDE laws do establish the personhood of " children in the womb" (at least) in situations where they are killed in a criminal act,. . . Those laws (for now) are also denying personhood, rights and protections to those same children. . . By (unconstitutionally) making exceptions to try to keep abortions legal.

In Alabama, you can be charged with fetal homicide for killing a fetus at any stage of the pregnancy,

BUT, abortion is still legal.

See the ridiculousness of that? Alabama is effectively legalizing murder by their own definitions.

I'm glad you agree that we can't have it both ways.

Either the child in the womb is a human being / person who is entitled to their own Constitutional rights and protections or they are not.

What constitutional protection ? Does a zygote have a social security #? Are they counted in the census ? Can u claim it as a dependent on your taxes ? If a pregnant women flys to the US, is the fetus now American citizen ?

Can't have it both ways right?

 

[bendog]

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

Democrats will be deeply upset that they can no longer butcher unborn children.

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.

Of course, once the kid is born they are on their own.

And they need to give birth quietly and without medical care paid for by others.