20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Timmy]

And y'all fail to ask why these abortions happen. Namely , pregnancy can go horribly wrong . Nature is a real bitch . Lots of these abortions are because of severe issues wh the fetus and danger to the moms life .

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Have any convictions been overturned based on the argument that the fetus is not a person? Has the USSC upheld any such judgement and said that the fetal homicide law in questions makes fetuses persons under the 14th amendment? I'm guessing the answer is no. Certainly, a number of courts have upheld fetal homicide laws, while still accepting legal abortion. Here are some examples: Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life
Of particular interest is the Georgia case from that site, in which:

The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.”

The courts at various levels seem to agree that fetal homicide laws, and treating a fetus as a person when it comes to murder charges, is acceptable while Roe v Wade still stands. You may disagree with their reasoning (I disagree with it to some extent myself), but it is clearly there.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Luckily, there are not very many lawmakers who are as dense as you are on things like this. Using your idiotic logic, a person is not a person until they get a social security number, are counted as someone's dependent and they are counted in a census. (tough shit illegal aliens, huh)

There were no persons prior to the constructs of Social Security and Tax deductions. . .

Who knew?

 

[Chuz Life]

And y'all fail to ask why these abortions happen. Namely , pregnancy can go horribly wrong . Nature is a real bitch . Lots of these abortions are because of severe issues wh the fetus and danger to the moms life .

Most of them don't.

 

[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.

Have any convictions been overturned based on the argument that the fetus is not a person? Has the USSC upheld any such judgement and said that the fetal homicide law in questions makes fetuses persons under the 14th amendment? I'm guessing the answer is no. Certainly, a number of courts have upheld fetal homicide laws, while still accepting legal abortion. Here are some examples: Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life
Of particular instance is the Georgia case from that site, in which:

The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.”

The courts at various levels seem to agree that fetal homicide laws, and treating a fetus as a person when it comes to murder charges, is acceptable while Roe v Wade still stands. You may disagree with their reasoning (I disagree with it to some extent myself), but it is clearly there.

Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .

 

[bendog]

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?

Luckily, there are not very many lawmakers who are as dense as you are on things like this. Using your idiotic logic, a person is not a person until they get a social security number, are counted as someone's dependent and they are counted in a census. (tough shit illegal aliens, huh)

There were no persons prior to the constructs of Social Security and Tax deductions. . .

Who knew?

Wait a sec here. You're attempting some analogy to personhood under the 14th amend and soc sec or tax deductions? "Flesh" this out a little, please. It sound intriguing

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Have any convictions been overturned based on the argument that the fetus is not a person? Has the USSC upheld any such judgement and said that the fetal homicide law in questions makes fetuses persons under the 14th amendment? I'm guessing the answer is no. Certainly, a number of courts have upheld fetal homicide laws, while still accepting legal abortion. Here are some examples: Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life
Of particular instance is the Georgia case from that site, in which:

The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.”

The courts at various levels seem to agree that fetal homicide laws, and treating a fetus as a person when it comes to murder charges, is acceptable while Roe v Wade still stands. You may disagree with their reasoning (I disagree with it to some extent myself), but it is clearly there.

Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .

A thread you created on this site does not alter any court rulings. Right now, in the US, abortion is legal, and fetal homicide laws are constitutional, at the same time. A fetus can be considered a person in a state or even federal criminal law while not being considered a person with full 14th amendment protections.

 

[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.

Have any convictions been overturned based on the argument that the fetus is not a person? Has the USSC upheld any such judgement and said that the fetal homicide law in questions makes fetuses persons under the 14th amendment? I'm guessing the answer is no. Certainly, a number of courts have upheld fetal homicide laws, while still accepting legal abortion. Here are some examples: Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life
Of particular instance is the Georgia case from that site, in which:

The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.”

The courts at various levels seem to agree that fetal homicide laws, and treating a fetus as a person when it comes to murder charges, is acceptable while Roe v Wade still stands. You may disagree with their reasoning (I disagree with it to some extent myself), but it is clearly there.

Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .

A thread you created on this site does not alter any court rulings. Right now, in the US, abortion is legal, and fetal homicide laws are constitutional, at the same time. A fetus can be considered a person in a state or even federal criminal law while not being considered a person with full 14th amendment protections.

Thanks for helping me make the point of how important Trumps replacement of fucktardz like Ginsburg will be.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Luckily, there are not very many lawmakers who are as dense as you are on things like this. Using your idiotic logic, a person is not a person until they get a social security number, are counted as someone's dependent and they are counted in a census. (tough shit illegal aliens, huh)

There were no persons prior to the constructs of Social Security and Tax deductions. . .

Who knew?

Wait a sec here. You're attempting some analogy to personhood under the 14th amend and soc sec or tax deductions? "Flesh" this out a little, please. It sound intriguing

Not me.

Timmy!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Have any convictions been overturned based on the argument that the fetus is not a person? Has the USSC upheld any such judgement and said that the fetal homicide law in questions makes fetuses persons under the 14th amendment? I'm guessing the answer is no. Certainly, a number of courts have upheld fetal homicide laws, while still accepting legal abortion. Here are some examples: Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life
Of particular instance is the Georgia case from that site, in which:

The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.”

The courts at various levels seem to agree that fetal homicide laws, and treating a fetus as a person when it comes to murder charges, is acceptable while Roe v Wade still stands. You may disagree with their reasoning (I disagree with it to some extent myself), but it is clearly there.

Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .

A thread you created on this site does not alter any court rulings. Right now, in the US, abortion is legal, and fetal homicide laws are constitutional, at the same time. A fetus can be considered a person in a state or even federal criminal law while not being considered a person with full 14th amendment protections.

Thanks for helping me make the point of how important Trumps replacement of fucktardz like Ginsburg will be.

Assuming Ginsburg retires or passes before Trump is done with his presidency, it could be a huge deal. Trump appointing possible justices in no way guarantees a reversal of Roe v Wade, though.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Have any convictions been overturned based on the argument that the fetus is not a person? Has the USSC upheld any such judgement and said that the fetal homicide law in questions makes fetuses persons under the 14th amendment? I'm guessing the answer is no. Certainly, a number of courts have upheld fetal homicide laws, while still accepting legal abortion. Here are some examples: Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life
Of particular instance is the Georgia case from that site, in which:

The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.”

The courts at various levels seem to agree that fetal homicide laws, and treating a fetus as a person when it comes to murder charges, is acceptable while Roe v Wade still stands. You may disagree with their reasoning (I disagree with it to some extent myself), but it is clearly there.

Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .

A thread you created on this site does not alter any court rulings. Right now, in the US, abortion is legal, and fetal homicide laws are constitutional, at the same time. A fetus can be considered a person in a state or even federal criminal law while not being considered a person with full 14th amendment protections.

Thanks for helping me make the point of how important Trumps replacement of fucktardz like Ginsburg will be.

Assuming Ginsburg retires or passes before Trump is done with his presidency, it could be a huge deal. Trump appointing possible justices in no way guarantees a reversal of Roe v Wade, though.

Convictions under our growing numbers of fetal homicide laws will continue on (likely from now on)

Imagine a person convicted of MURDER under one of those laws - getting the appeal for their conviction in front of a SCOTUS that sees the same UNACCEPTABLE contradictions in the laws that I have pointed out.

Do you think they would sooner overturn our more than 30 more recent Fetal Homicide laws, or Roe?

 

[bendog]

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?

Luckily, there are not very many lawmakers who are as dense as you are on things like this. Using your idiotic logic, a person is not a person until they get a social security number, are counted as someone's dependent and they are counted in a census. (tough shit illegal aliens, huh)

There were no persons prior to the constructs of Social Security and Tax deductions. . .

Who knew?

Wait a sec here. You're attempting some analogy to personhood under the 14th amend and soc sec or tax deductions? "Flesh" this out a little, please. It sound intriguing

Not me.

Timmy!

Thanks. I'm somehow comforted that we're still with the every zygote is sacred argument.

 

[Coyote]

Thing is...all those factors could nake it more difficult to do it in the timeframe. If this should be a reasonable law then we should also remove all the barriers that prevent women from getting abortions.

But there is more to the question how best to provide abortion services than simply maximizing the availability of the service.

1) Abortion clinics should still meet the same rigorous standards any other clinic does.

Yes the same standards as comparable out patient clinics. That as is not the case however, with these laws.

2) The decision of the patient to be fully informed is paramount, so standards as to what that information is and how it is to be conveyed are as important as availability of the abortion.

I have had multiple out patient procedures including minor surgical procedures and use of anesthesia. I was fully informed and had to sign documents to that effect. At no time did i have a waiting period forced on me.

3) The lives of the unborn should be protected if they are deemed to be individual people by law, and so constraints should be applied at the state level as soon as the Roe v Wade nonsense is remedied.

Well there i disagree but thank you for at least being honest - its not about the mother, its about putting as many obstacles up as possible...up to and including the 5 month ban.

 

[Coyote]

And y'all fail to ask why these abortions happen. Namely , pregnancy can go horribly wrong . Nature is a real bitch . Lots of these abortions are because of severe issues wh the fetus and danger to the moms life .

The vast majority of abortions are done fairly early i think.

 

[bendog]

Thing is...all those factors could nake it more difficult to do it in the timeframe. If this should be a reasonable law then we should also remove all the barriers that prevent women from getting abortions.

But there is more to the question how best to provide abortion services than simply maximizing the availability of the service.

1) Abortion clinics should still meet the same rigorous standards any other clinic does.

Yes the same standards as comparable out patient clinics. That as is not the case however, with these laws.

2) The decision of the patient to be fully informed is paramount, so standards as to what that information is and how it is to be conveyed are as important as availability of the abortion.

I have had multiple out patient procedures including minor surgical procedures and use of anesthesia. I was fully informed and had to sign documents to that effect. At no time did i have a waiting period forced on me.

3) The lives of the unborn should be protected if they are deemed to be individual people by law, and so constraints should be applied at the state level as soon as the Roe v Wade nonsense is remedied.

Well there i disagree but thank you for at least being honest - its not about the mother, its about putting as many obstacles up as possible...up to and including the 5 month ban.

There you go. My daughter had outpatient ankle surgery some years ago, and an poor outcome would have entailed years and perhaps permanent of needed treatment for her to walk properly. But the chances of the outcome being different as an impatient were minimal. So, the medical regulators were fine with insurance paying only for outpatient.

It's not so much obstacles. States may permissibly put up obstacles if they demonstrably are effective and aimed at making sure women exercise truly informed constent, and even then strike a balance between a woman's right to control her own body and society's right to protect life. But the problem arises when states erect obstacles just to make it harder to obtain abortions - that is, when the goal is just to make it harder. To make women travel hundreds of miles for what is a pretty safe medical procedure on a fetus that the state cannot demonstrate has any ability to survive without the potential mother's willingness to provide her own body.

 

[RealDave]

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.

But it s OK to slaughter children with assault type weapons.

 

[RealDave]

1.3% of all abortions are between the 20 & 24th week.

Gestation age is figured from the day of the last period. The actual age of the fetus is two weeks less.

Just another bill to dupe their base into thinking they are actually doing something.

 

[Timmy]

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?

Luckily, there are not very many lawmakers who are as dense as you are on things like this. Using your idiotic logic, a person is not a person until they get a social security number, are counted as someone's dependent and they are counted in a census. (tough shit illegal aliens, huh)

There were no persons prior to the constructs of Social Security and Tax deductions. . .

Who knew?

Wait a sec here. You're attempting some analogy to personhood under the 14th amend and soc sec or tax deductions? "Flesh" this out a little, please. It sound intriguing

Not me.

Timmy!

I was responding to claim that the murder laws make the fetus a legal person .

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Luckily, there are not very many lawmakers who are as dense as you are on things like this. Using your idiotic logic, a person is not a person until they get a social security number, are counted as someone's dependent and they are counted in a census. (tough shit illegal aliens, huh)

There were no persons prior to the constructs of Social Security and Tax deductions. . .

Who knew?

Wait a sec here. You're attempting some analogy to personhood under the 14th amend and soc sec or tax deductions? "Flesh" this out a little, please. It sound intriguing

Not me.

Timmy!

I was responding to claim that the murder laws make the fetus a legal person .

Guess where I / we got that take on it from. . .

"If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot," says Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt.

Hint. She said that in opposition to Lacie and Connors (fetal homicide) law .

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

But it s OK to slaughter children with assault type weapons.

Really?

I thought we already have laws against that.