20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Borillar]

Yeah, you're the ones wanting to control every aspect of women's reproductive health, but we're the fascists. LOL.

Another lie. All I want people to do is stop killing babies for no reason other than they were irresponsible.

Nobody is killing "babies". They are terminating pregnancies, at which point, it is a fetus. As for responsibility, they ARE taking responsibility in not bringing another unwanted person into being. They may be unable to care for it or unfit to care for it. The fetus may have serious birth defects that the prospective parents are unequipped to deal with. We just want the choice to be left to the prospective parents and their doctor. You apparently think that children belong to the state, or at least think the state should be the final arbiter of human reproduction.

Again, your denials have already been defeated. Your side lost. Our fetal homicide laws already define and recognize "children in the womb" in ANY STAGE of development as human beings.

Now, you can gripe, complain, both and moan about it all you might want to. ... but unless and until you convince lawmakers to change that definition, you can rest assured that prolifers and antiaborts like me are going to USE that definition to further challenge Roe.

Rotsa ruck. All these fetal homicide laws exclude abortion. What is your end game anyway? Are you going to put women in jail for getting an abortion? Death penalty? If a woman travels to another state where abortion is legal, will she be persecuted when she comes home? If a woman has a miscarriage, will she have to prove somehow that she isn't to blame? Will you demand that employers provide maternity leave? Will you ensure that poor women have access to prenatal treatment? Would you force a prepubescent girl to go through a full term pregnancy? Jail for smoking a cigarette while pregnant? For having an alcoholic beverage? Maternity police going around making sure pregnant women are in compliance? And what are you going to do once the precious, wonderful fetuses are born and turn into societal leeches and parasites?

Let's make a deal.


I will gladly answer all those question if you will publically accept and agree that a child's life begins at and by conception and when you also agree that legalized abortion on demand violates the Constitutional rights of those aborted.

Well, I don't believe any of that, but lets say I do for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Another lie. All I want people to do is stop killing babies for no reason other than they were irresponsible.

Nobody is killing "babies". They are terminating pregnancies, at which point, it is a fetus. As for responsibility, they ARE taking responsibility in not bringing another unwanted person into being. They may be unable to care for it or unfit to care for it. The fetus may have serious birth defects that the prospective parents are unequipped to deal with. We just want the choice to be left to the prospective parents and their doctor. You apparently think that children belong to the state, or at least think the state should be the final arbiter of human reproduction.

Again, your denials have already been defeated. Your side lost. Our fetal homicide laws already define and recognize "children in the womb" in ANY STAGE of development as human beings.

Now, you can gripe, complain, both and moan about it all you might want to. ... but unless and until you convince lawmakers to change that definition, you can rest assured that prolifers and antiaborts like me are going to USE that definition to further challenge Roe.

Rotsa ruck. All these fetal homicide laws exclude abortion. What is your end game anyway? Are you going to put women in jail for getting an abortion? Death penalty? If a woman travels to another state where abortion is legal, will she be persecuted when she comes home? If a woman has a miscarriage, will she have to prove somehow that she isn't to blame? Will you demand that employers provide maternity leave? Will you ensure that poor women have access to prenatal treatment? Would you force a prepubescent girl to go through a full term pregnancy? Jail for smoking a cigarette while pregnant? For having an alcoholic beverage? Maternity police going around making sure pregnant women are in compliance? And what are you going to do once the precious, wonderful fetuses are born and turn into societal leeches and parasites?

Let's make a deal.


I will gladly answer all those question if you will publically accept and agree that a child's life begins at and by conception and when you also agree that legalized abortion on demand violates the Constitutional rights of those aborted.

Well, I don't believe any of that, but lets say I do for the purposes of this discussion.

Let's not then, and say we did.

 

[Montrovant]

Except a zygote can be human and still not be a baby.

That's more of a semantics argument really. The more important argument would be the differences between a zygote and an infant, or a zygote and a fetus at a later stage of development, things like that. A zygote is a single cell that is formed from the joining of a sperm with an ovum. While a stage of human development, it is vastly different from an infant or even a fetus. Whether someone believes that a fertilized egg deserves the same protections as a person who has been born or not, I don't think it's hard to see the argument that a zygote is different from an infant or even a fetus.

George Carlin is an odd choice for a quote in an abortion discussion if you are opposed to abortion.

Fascism is never more clearly illustrated than when one human being or group of human beings looks at another and declares that because they are not like "me" they are lesser being and unworthy of even the most basic of human rights.

Let me present an odd hypothetical: You are in a home where a fire has broken out. You only have time to quickly pick something up and run out. There are 2 zygotes inside of coolers which are alive, and there are 2 infants. You cannot carry all of them, you can only pick up 2. Would you have a difficult time deciding?

Obviously that is a ridiculous scenario, but I use it only to highlight that I think the vast majority of people place a different value on a zygote and an infant. A zygote is a single cell. It has no heart, no brain, no organs at all. It has no body. It is a single cell. You may consider a zygote equal to a fetus, equal to an infant, equal to a child, equal to an adult. That's your prerogative. I don't think it's likely that you will convince most people that a zygote is equal to a human being at all stages of development, though. I certainly can't imagine placing the same value on a single cell that I do an adult or an infant.

What do you suppose a couple who has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant would do. . . Especially if the two frozen embryos (no one freezes zygotes) were theirs and the infants were the responsibility of someone else?

The point is that children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued or by how much they tug at anyone's heart strings.

Actually, I think the vast majority of couples in that situation would save the infants, if the choice had to be made.

Children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued, but they are contingent upon whether they constitute persons under the Constitution. In the case of a zygote (which, by the way, I would not call a child; child is a stage of life after being born), the Supreme Court has ruled that is not a person under the 14th amendment.

Again, your denials have already been defeated by our many fetal homicide laws which for ten years now, the Supreme Court has so far refused to overturn them.

My denials have been defeated? Has Roe v Wade been overturned? Has abortion become illegal? I think that, in this case, you are the one with a denial issue.

As of now, the various courts in this country have accepted fetal homicide laws so long as they do not infringe on abortion; the consensus among the courts seems to be that fetal homicide laws are acceptable but do not, in any way, change the decision in Roe. You keep arguing that fetal homicide laws make Roe invalid, but the courts disagree with you.

 

[Coyote]

I cannot accept the killing of an innocent sentient person for any reason. I admit that my position is internally inconsistent with abortion. This is omething I will need to work out.

Can those of you who support the death penalty and oppose abortion say as much?

Absolutely.

How can you support the death penalty knowing innocent people are executed?

.. as long as it's not me I feel okay about it, considering the astronomical odds.

I put myself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel ... I dont think the odds are so astronomical anymore given the number of exonerations weve seen.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fascism is never more clearly illustrated than when one human being or group of human beings looks at another and declares that because they are not like "me" they are lesser being and unworthy of even the most basic of human rights.

Let me present an odd hypothetical: You are in a home where a fire has broken out. You only have time to quickly pick something up and run out. There are 2 zygotes inside of coolers which are alive, and there are 2 infants. You cannot carry all of them, you can only pick up 2. Would you have a difficult time deciding?

Obviously that is a ridiculous scenario, but I use it only to highlight that I think the vast majority of people place a different value on a zygote and an infant. A zygote is a single cell. It has no heart, no brain, no organs at all. It has no body. It is a single cell. You may consider a zygote equal to a fetus, equal to an infant, equal to a child, equal to an adult. That's your prerogative. I don't think it's likely that you will convince most people that a zygote is equal to a human being at all stages of development, though. I certainly can't imagine placing the same value on a single cell that I do an adult or an infant.

What do you suppose a couple who has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant would do. . . Especially if the two frozen embryos (no one freezes zygotes) were theirs and the infants were the responsibility of someone else?

The point is that children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued or by how much they tug at anyone's heart strings.

Actually, I think the vast majority of couples in that situation would save the infants, if the choice had to be made.

Children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued, but they are contingent upon whether they constitute persons under the Constitution. In the case of a zygote (which, by the way, I would not call a child; child is a stage of life after being born), the Supreme Court has ruled that is not a person under the 14th amendment.

Again, your denials have already been defeated by our many fetal homicide laws which for ten years now, the Supreme Court has so far refused to overturn them.

My denials have been defeated? Has Roe v Wade been overturned? Has abortion become illegal? I think that, in this case, you are the one with a denial issue.

I don't deny that abortions are for now "legal." I know full well that they are "legal." I couldn't challenge the Constitutionality of their legality, otherwise.

You, on the other hand are still trying to deny that a child in womb is a child, a human being, etc. Despite the fact that our fetal homicide laws say they are.

As of now, the various courts in this country have accepted fetal homicide laws so long as they do not infringe on abortion; the consensus among the courts seems to be that fetal homicide laws are acceptable but do not, in any way, change the decision in Roe. You keep arguing that fetal homicide laws make Roe invalid, but the courts disagree with you.

Your selective comprehension is getting the best of you. I never once claimed that our Fetal Homicide laws already make Roe invalid. You have me confused with the former President of Planned Parenthood (Goria Feldt) on that one.

 

[Montrovant]

I cannot accept the killing of an innocent sentient person for any reason. I admit that my position is internally inconsistent with abortion. This is omething I will need to work out.

Can those of you who support the death penalty and oppose abortion say as much?

Absolutely.

How can you support the death penalty knowing innocent people are executed?

.. as long as it's not me I feel okay about it, considering the astronomical odds.

I put myself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel ... I dont think the odds are so astronomical anymore given the number of exonerations weve seen.

And it isn't as though the guilty cannot be punished without the death penalty: people can still be sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

 

[Chuz Life]

I cannot accept the killing of an innocent sentient person for any reason. I admit that my position is internally inconsistent with abortion. This is omething I will need to work out.

Can those of you who support the death penalty and oppose abortion say as much?

Absolutely.

How can you support the death penalty knowing innocent people are executed?

.. as long as it's not me I feel okay about it, considering the astronomical odds.

I put myself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel ... I dont think the odds are so astronomical anymore given the number of exonerations weve seen.

Too bad you can't do the same for innocent children in the womb.

 

[Coyote]

I cannot accept the killing of an innocent sentient person for any reason. I admit that my position is internally inconsistent with abortion. This is omething I will need to work out.

Can those of you who support the death penalty and oppose abortion say as much?

Absolutely.

How can you support the death penalty knowing innocent people are executed?

.. as long as it's not me I feel okay about it, considering the astronomical odds.

I put myself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel ... I dont think the odds are so astronomical anymore given the number of exonerations weve seen.

Too bad you can't do the same for innocent children in the womb.

In the vast majority of abortions it is not developed enough to have any feelings. That is one important difference.

Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of a condemned innocent man as eadily as a zygote?

 

[Coyote]

I cannot accept the killing of an innocent sentient person for any reason. I admit that my position is internally inconsistent with abortion. This is omething I will need to work out.

Can those of you who support the death penalty and oppose abortion say as much?

Absolutely.

How can you support the death penalty knowing innocent people are executed?

.. as long as it's not me I feel okay about it, considering the astronomical odds.

I put myself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel ... I dont think the odds are so astronomical anymore given the number of exonerations weve seen.

And it isn't as though the guilty cannot be punished without the death penalty: people can still be sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

Exactly.

 

[Montrovant]

Let me present an odd hypothetical: You are in a home where a fire has broken out. You only have time to quickly pick something up and run out. There are 2 zygotes inside of coolers which are alive, and there are 2 infants. You cannot carry all of them, you can only pick up 2. Would you have a difficult time deciding?

Obviously that is a ridiculous scenario, but I use it only to highlight that I think the vast majority of people place a different value on a zygote and an infant. A zygote is a single cell. It has no heart, no brain, no organs at all. It has no body. It is a single cell. You may consider a zygote equal to a fetus, equal to an infant, equal to a child, equal to an adult. That's your prerogative. I don't think it's likely that you will convince most people that a zygote is equal to a human being at all stages of development, though. I certainly can't imagine placing the same value on a single cell that I do an adult or an infant.

What do you suppose a couple who has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant would do. . . Especially if the two frozen embryos (no one freezes zygotes) were theirs and the infants were the responsibility of someone else?

The point is that children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued or by how much they tug at anyone's heart strings.

Actually, I think the vast majority of couples in that situation would save the infants, if the choice had to be made.

Children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued, but they are contingent upon whether they constitute persons under the Constitution. In the case of a zygote (which, by the way, I would not call a child; child is a stage of life after being born), the Supreme Court has ruled that is not a person under the 14th amendment.

Again, your denials have already been defeated by our many fetal homicide laws which for ten years now, the Supreme Court has so far refused to overturn them.

My denials have been defeated? Has Roe v Wade been overturned? Has abortion become illegal? I think that, in this case, you are the one with a denial issue.

I don't deny that abortions are for now "legal." I know full well that they are "legal." I couldn't challenge the Constitutionality of their legality, otherwise.

You, on the other hand are still trying to deny that a child in womb is a child, a human being, etc. Despite the fact that our fetal homicide laws say they are.

As of now, the various courts in this country have accepted fetal homicide laws so long as they do not infringe on abortion; the consensus among the courts seems to be that fetal homicide laws are acceptable but do not, in any way, change the decision in Roe. You keep arguing that fetal homicide laws make Roe invalid, but the courts disagree with you.

Your selective comprehension is getting the best of you. I never once claimed that our Fetal Homicide laws already make Roe invalid. You have me confused with the former President of Planned Parenthood (Goria Feldt) on that one.

You have claimed that the fetal homicide laws are going to make Roe invalid. Unless you are arguing that a fetal homicide law yet to be created will do so, your argument is basically that fetal homicide laws already make Roe invalid, but the court hasn't gotten around to realizing it yet. I'm trying to explain that the courts have already considered fetal homicide laws in the context of Roe and found that both can exist; calling a fetus a person in a fetal homicide law is irrelevant to Roe's determination that a fetus is not a person under the 14th. I have given links to multiple relevant court cases.

It's entirely possible that a Supreme Court will overturn Roe at some point. However, I'm confident that the court that does so will not give their reason as having to abide by the definition of person in fetal homicide laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

Absolutely.

How can you support the death penalty knowing innocent people are executed?

.. as long as it's not me I feel okay about it, considering the astronomical odds.

I put myself in their shoes and imagine how it must feel ... I dont think the odds are so astronomical anymore given the number of exonerations weve seen.

Too bad you can't do the same for innocent children in the womb.

In the vast majority of abortions it is not developed enough to have any feelings. That is one important difference.

If you think that empathy is limited to having feelings for things that can also have their own feelings? That explains a lot.

Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of a condemned innocent man as eadily as a zygote?

Absolutely, I can.

Believe, I would feel a lot better about the legality of abortions if our laws afforded the child about to be aborted even half the "due process" and presumption of innocence, appeals, defense team, etc. . . that a typical accused and convicted 'murderer' on death Roe receives.

 

[Chuz Life]

What do you suppose a couple who has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant would do. . . Especially if the two frozen embryos (no one freezes zygotes) were theirs and the infants were the responsibility of someone else?

The point is that children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued or by how much they tug at anyone's heart strings.

Actually, I think the vast majority of couples in that situation would save the infants, if the choice had to be made.

Children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued, but they are contingent upon whether they constitute persons under the Constitution. In the case of a zygote (which, by the way, I would not call a child; child is a stage of life after being born), the Supreme Court has ruled that is not a person under the 14th amendment.

Again, your denials have already been defeated by our many fetal homicide laws which for ten years now, the Supreme Court has so far refused to overturn them.

My denials have been defeated? Has Roe v Wade been overturned? Has abortion become illegal? I think that, in this case, you are the one with a denial issue.

I don't deny that abortions are for now "legal." I know full well that they are "legal." I couldn't challenge the Constitutionality of their legality, otherwise.

You, on the other hand are still trying to deny that a child in womb is a child, a human being, etc. Despite the fact that our fetal homicide laws say they are.

As of now, the various courts in this country have accepted fetal homicide laws so long as they do not infringe on abortion; the consensus among the courts seems to be that fetal homicide laws are acceptable but do not, in any way, change the decision in Roe. You keep arguing that fetal homicide laws make Roe invalid, but the courts disagree with you.

Your selective comprehension is getting the best of you. I never once claimed that our Fetal Homicide laws already make Roe invalid. You have me confused with the former President of Planned Parenthood (Goria Feldt) on that one.

You have claimed that the fetal homicide laws are going to make Roe invalid.

Where? QUOTE it.

That was a quote from Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood. Not me.

My position is that our fetal homicide laws WILL BE USED TO CHALLENGE ROE.

Her fears were that the Fetal Homicide laws would make Roe moot.

Her fears MOTIVATE me.

Unless you are arguing that a fetal homicide law yet to be created will do so, your argument is basically that fetal homicide laws already make Roe invalid, but the court hasn't gotten around to realizing it yet.

My Argument is that a child in the womb is a person, a human being and that we already have laws and legal definitions that define and recognize them as such. My observation is how that argument will be use to challenge Roe in the future.

I'm trying to explain that the courts have already considered fetal homicide laws in the context of Roe and found that both can exist; calling a fetus a person in a fetal homicide law is irrelevant to Roe's determination that a fetus is not a person under the 14th. I have given links to multiple relevant court cases.

That doesn't discourage me in the least.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are no limits on the number of times that Roe can be challenged.

It's entirely possible that a Supreme Court will overturn Roe at some point. However, I'm confident that the court that does so will give their reason as having to abide by the definition of person in fetal homicide laws.

Paging Dr, Freud!

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, I think the vast majority of couples in that situation would save the infants, if the choice had to be made.

Children's rights are not contingent upon how much they are wanted or valued, but they are contingent upon whether they constitute persons under the Constitution. In the case of a zygote (which, by the way, I would not call a child; child is a stage of life after being born), the Supreme Court has ruled that is not a person under the 14th amendment.

Again, your denials have already been defeated by our many fetal homicide laws which for ten years now, the Supreme Court has so far refused to overturn them.

My denials have been defeated? Has Roe v Wade been overturned? Has abortion become illegal? I think that, in this case, you are the one with a denial issue.

I don't deny that abortions are for now "legal." I know full well that they are "legal." I couldn't challenge the Constitutionality of their legality, otherwise.

You, on the other hand are still trying to deny that a child in womb is a child, a human being, etc. Despite the fact that our fetal homicide laws say they are.

As of now, the various courts in this country have accepted fetal homicide laws so long as they do not infringe on abortion; the consensus among the courts seems to be that fetal homicide laws are acceptable but do not, in any way, change the decision in Roe. You keep arguing that fetal homicide laws make Roe invalid, but the courts disagree with you.

Your selective comprehension is getting the best of you. I never once claimed that our Fetal Homicide laws already make Roe invalid. You have me confused with the former President of Planned Parenthood (Goria Feldt) on that one.

You have claimed that the fetal homicide laws are going to make Roe invalid.

Where? QUOTE it.

That was a quote from Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood. Not me.

My position is that our fetal homicide laws WILL BE USED TO CHALLENGE ROE.

Her fears were that the Fetal Homicide laws would make Roe moot.

Her fears MOTIVATE me.

Unless you are arguing that a fetal homicide law yet to be created will do so, your argument is basically that fetal homicide laws already make Roe invalid, but the court hasn't gotten around to realizing it yet.

My Argument is that a child in the womb is a person, a human being and that we already have laws and legal definitions that define and recognize them as such. My observation is how that argument will be use to challenge Roe in the future.

I'm trying to explain that the courts have already considered fetal homicide laws in the context of Roe and found that both can exist; calling a fetus a person in a fetal homicide law is irrelevant to Roe's determination that a fetus is not a person under the 14th. I have given links to multiple relevant court cases.

That doesn't discourage me in the least.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are no limits on the number of times that Roe can be challenged.

It's entirely possible that a Supreme Court will overturn Roe at some point. However, I'm confident that the court that does so will give their reason as having to abide by the definition of person in fetal homicide laws.

Paging Dr, Freud!

LOL, pretty horrible typo on my part there! Fixed it.

 

[Nia88]

Morons. Women who get abortions past 20 weeks due so for medical reasons. Often the pregnancy is literally killing the woman or the baby is fetus is severely deformed.

Women don't have late term abortions for the heck of it.

 

[Montrovant]

If you think that empathy is limited to having feelings for things that can also have their own feelings? That explains a lot.

That's kind of the definition of empathy.

the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation

empathy Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Definition of EMPATHY

The ability to identify with or understand the perspective, experiences, or motivations of another individual and to comprehend and share another individual's emotional state.

empathy

Empathy is usually defined as being able to experience the emotions or feelings of another. Sympathy, on the other hand, holds no such requirement to experience the same feelings.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you think that empathy is limited to having feelings for things that can also have their own feelings? That explains a lot.

That's kind of the definition of empathy.

the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation

empathy Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Definition of EMPATHY

The ability to identify with or understand the perspective, experiences, or motivations of another individual and to comprehend and share another individual's emotional state.

empathy

Empathy is usually defined as being able to experience the emotions or feelings of another. Sympathy, on the other hand, holds no such requirement to experience the same feelings.

Are you going to quote the full fucking definitions or are you going to admit that you are cherry picking them to make a semantic argument?

 

[Coyote]

Does empathy end with due process then?

 

[Montrovant]

If you think that empathy is limited to having feelings for things that can also have their own feelings? That explains a lot.

That's kind of the definition of empathy.

the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation

empathy Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Definition of EMPATHY

The ability to identify with or understand the perspective, experiences, or motivations of another individual and to comprehend and share another individual's emotional state.

empathy

Empathy is usually defined as being able to experience the emotions or feelings of another. Sympathy, on the other hand, holds no such requirement to experience the same feelings.

Are you going to quote the full fucking definitions or are you going to admit that you are cherry picking them to make a semantic argument?

I provided 3 different links. Is there something wrong with them that you need me to quote the entire definition from each source?

Of course this is a semantics argument, I'm talking about the definition of a word.

I thought I was pretty clear at the end when I said empathy is usually defined as being able to experience the emotions or feelings of another. That isn't the full range of possible definitions of the word, but I think it is a good general definition for how it is commonly used. I think that sympathy would be a better word choice than empathy when talking about abortion, because it's hard, if not impossible, for someone to experience what it is like to be a fetus, particularly at an early stage of development; experiencing what someone else does is what empathy usually is about.

Are you going to quit getting so upset because someone points out that you may have chosen the wrong word?

 

[Borillar]

Nobody is killing "babies". They are terminating pregnancies, at which point, it is a fetus. As for responsibility, they ARE taking responsibility in not bringing another unwanted person into being. They may be unable to care for it or unfit to care for it. The fetus may have serious birth defects that the prospective parents are unequipped to deal with. We just want the choice to be left to the prospective parents and their doctor. You apparently think that children belong to the state, or at least think the state should be the final arbiter of human reproduction.

Again, your denials have already been defeated. Your side lost. Our fetal homicide laws already define and recognize "children in the womb" in ANY STAGE of development as human beings.

Now, you can gripe, complain, both and moan about it all you might want to. ... but unless and until you convince lawmakers to change that definition, you can rest assured that prolifers and antiaborts like me are going to USE that definition to further challenge Roe.

Rotsa ruck. All these fetal homicide laws exclude abortion. What is your end game anyway? Are you going to put women in jail for getting an abortion? Death penalty? If a woman travels to another state where abortion is legal, will she be persecuted when she comes home? If a woman has a miscarriage, will she have to prove somehow that she isn't to blame? Will you demand that employers provide maternity leave? Will you ensure that poor women have access to prenatal treatment? Would you force a prepubescent girl to go through a full term pregnancy? Jail for smoking a cigarette while pregnant? For having an alcoholic beverage? Maternity police going around making sure pregnant women are in compliance? And what are you going to do once the precious, wonderful fetuses are born and turn into societal leeches and parasites?

Let's make a deal.


I will gladly answer all those question if you will publically accept and agree that a child's life begins at and by conception and when you also agree that legalized abortion on demand violates the Constitutional rights of those aborted.

Well, I don't believe any of that, but lets say I do for the purposes of this discussion.

Let's not then, and say we did.

Doesn't surprise me. Few anti-abortion zealots want to go there and explain the logical outcomes and consequences of their desires. Ladies, if zealots like ChuzBirth(or else) have their way, expect to be charged with murder if you get an abortion. Expect your rights to be secondary to a fetus you will be forced to carry whether you want it or not. Expect no help from the government either before or after birth, only punishment. Men, no easy outs any longer. You get a girl pregnant, you're on the hook for the next 18-21 years. Taxpayers, you're on the hook too. All these extra kids means more schools, roads, hospitals, police, firemen, welfare, etc.

Who knows? Maybe in a hundred years we'll find ourselves in a situation like China where they can't take care of their huge population and have to go to forced population controls.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does empathy end with due process then?

Of course not.