CDZ Abortion

[Publius1787]

It's us code 1841. I can't link to it right now.

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's us code 1841. I can't link to it right now.

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

 

[Publius1787]

It's us code 1841. I can't link to it right now.

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

That only applies to the law itself. outside the law it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Once again, to get it universally applied congress will need to pass a "finding of fact." Thats not going to happen. Besides, you don't want abortion to be outlawed. Sooo many ignoramuses spreading their legs for a quick lay in order to satisfy their instant gratification impulses having babies they can't afford only produced more welfare queens/babies and thus more Democrats.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's us code 1841. I can't link to it right now.

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

That only applies to the law itself. outside the law it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Once again, to get it universally applied congress will need to pass a "finding of fact." Thats not going to happen. Besides, you don't want abortion to be outlawed. Sooo many ignoramuses spreading their legs for a quick lay in order to satisfy their instant gratification impulses having babies they can't afford only produced more welfare queens/babies and thus more Democrats.

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you are posting or if you are simply trolling or just feeling argumentative.

For abortions to be banned and the parenthood of children in the womb to be established, there will be no more need for a "finding of fact" than was required to establish the same basis under our Fetal Homicide Laws.

Indeed, with the premise already set in the Fetal Homicide Laws. . . It will take even less effort than it did before.

Just because our Fetal Homicide Laws (for now) have language to prohibit the prosecutions of women for abortions. . . There is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from using the Fetal Homicide Laws as a basis for further legislation; Including language to remove the exceptions that they now have.

As far as my "wants?"

None of this is about my "wants."

It's about the Constitution and the basic biological facts.

I "want" it to be true that an abortion does not violate the rights of the children killed.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

 

[Publius1787]

It's us code 1841. I can't link to it right now.

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

That only applies to the law itself. outside the law it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Once again, to get it universally applied congress will need to pass a "finding of fact." Thats not going to happen. Besides, you don't want abortion to be outlawed. Sooo many ignoramuses spreading their legs for a quick lay in order to satisfy their instant gratification impulses having babies they can't afford only produced more welfare queens/babies and thus more Democrats.

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you are posting or if you are simply trolling or just feeling argumentative.

For abortions to be banned and the parenthood of children in the womb to be established, there will be no more need for a "finding of fact" than was required to establish the same basis under our Fetal Homicide Laws.

Indeed, with the premise already set in the Fetal Homicide Laws. . . It will take even less effort than it did before.

Just because our Fetal Homicide Laws (for now) have language to prohibit the prosecutions of women for abortions. . . There is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from using the Fetal Homicide Laws as a basis for further legislation; Including language to remove the exceptions that they now have.

As far as my "wants?"

None of this is about my "wants."

It's about the Constitution and the basic biological facts.

I "want" it to be true that an abortion does not violate the rights of the children killed.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

We've been over the U.S. Constitution (Dead silent on abortion), and we've been over personhood (only applies for the purpose of the bill you mentioned and findings of fact). Personally, I don't care if abortion is legal or not. It's a political, not constitutional, question.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's us code 1841. I can't link to it right now.

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

That only applies to the law itself. outside the law it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Once again, to get it universally applied congress will need to pass a "finding of fact." Thats not going to happen. Besides, you don't want abortion to be outlawed. Sooo many ignoramuses spreading their legs for a quick lay in order to satisfy their instant gratification impulses having babies they can't afford only produced more welfare queens/babies and thus more Democrats.

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you are posting or if you are simply trolling or just feeling argumentative.

For abortions to be banned and the parenthood of children in the womb to be established, there will be no more need for a "finding of fact" than was required to establish the same basis under our Fetal Homicide Laws.

Indeed, with the premise already set in the Fetal Homicide Laws. . . It will take even less effort than it did before.

Just because our Fetal Homicide Laws (for now) have language to prohibit the prosecutions of women for abortions. . . There is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from using the Fetal Homicide Laws as a basis for further legislation; Including language to remove the exceptions that they now have.

As far as my "wants?"

None of this is about my "wants."

It's about the Constitution and the basic biological facts.

I "want" it to be true that an abortion does not violate the rights of the children killed.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

We've been over the U.S. Constitution (Dead silent on abortion), and we've been over personhood (only applies for the purpose of the bill you mentioned and findings of fact). Personally, I don't care if abortion is legal or not. It's a political, not constitutional, question.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, in as much as Roe v Wade was a decision handed down by the Supreme Court on abortion. . . so will future legislation, decisions and abortion related cases be ruled on by the Court as well.

 

[Publius1787]

I suppose you missed section C of that law. Funny things happen when you actually read what the law says. The law basically states that the death of a fetus can be punished as a murder, but only if the act was committed by anyone but the mother.

18 U.S. Code § 1841

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1)
of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2)
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3)
of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

That only applies to the law itself. outside the law it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Once again, to get it universally applied congress will need to pass a "finding of fact." Thats not going to happen. Besides, you don't want abortion to be outlawed. Sooo many ignoramuses spreading their legs for a quick lay in order to satisfy their instant gratification impulses having babies they can't afford only produced more welfare queens/babies and thus more Democrats.

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you are posting or if you are simply trolling or just feeling argumentative.

For abortions to be banned and the parenthood of children in the womb to be established, there will be no more need for a "finding of fact" than was required to establish the same basis under our Fetal Homicide Laws.

Indeed, with the premise already set in the Fetal Homicide Laws. . . It will take even less effort than it did before.

Just because our Fetal Homicide Laws (for now) have language to prohibit the prosecutions of women for abortions. . . There is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from using the Fetal Homicide Laws as a basis for further legislation; Including language to remove the exceptions that they now have.

As far as my "wants?"

None of this is about my "wants."

It's about the Constitution and the basic biological facts.

I "want" it to be true that an abortion does not violate the rights of the children killed.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

We've been over the U.S. Constitution (Dead silent on abortion), and we've been over personhood (only applies for the purpose of the bill you mentioned and findings of fact). Personally, I don't care if abortion is legal or not. It's a political, not constitutional, question.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, in as much as Roe v Wade was a decision handed down by the Supreme Court on abortion. . . so will future legislation, decisions and abortion related cases be ruled on by the Court as well.

I'll be the first to tell you Roe was ass backwards, but for perhaps different reasons than you. Abortion should not be an item for the Supreme Court.

 

[Chuz Life]

Section c only says that law not be used to prosecute abotions and that is the part that we are trying to change.

The part that defines a child in the womb is the part that we were talking about and that part is not being challenged.

That only applies to the law itself. outside the law it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Once again, to get it universally applied congress will need to pass a "finding of fact." Thats not going to happen. Besides, you don't want abortion to be outlawed. Sooo many ignoramuses spreading their legs for a quick lay in order to satisfy their instant gratification impulses having babies they can't afford only produced more welfare queens/babies and thus more Democrats.

I can't tell if you actually believe the things you are posting or if you are simply trolling or just feeling argumentative.

For abortions to be banned and the parenthood of children in the womb to be established, there will be no more need for a "finding of fact" than was required to establish the same basis under our Fetal Homicide Laws.

Indeed, with the premise already set in the Fetal Homicide Laws. . . It will take even less effort than it did before.

Just because our Fetal Homicide Laws (for now) have language to prohibit the prosecutions of women for abortions. . . There is nothing to prohibit lawmakers from using the Fetal Homicide Laws as a basis for further legislation; Including language to remove the exceptions that they now have.

As far as my "wants?"

None of this is about my "wants."

It's about the Constitution and the basic biological facts.

I "want" it to be true that an abortion does not violate the rights of the children killed.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

We've been over the U.S. Constitution (Dead silent on abortion), and we've been over personhood (only applies for the purpose of the bill you mentioned and findings of fact). Personally, I don't care if abortion is legal or not. It's a political, not constitutional, question.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, in as much as Roe v Wade was a decision handed down by the Supreme Court on abortion. . . so will future legislation, decisions and abortion related cases be ruled on by the Court as well.

I'll be the first to tell you Roe was ass backwards, but for perhaps different reasons than you. Abortion should not be an item for the Supreme Court.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that (in bold.) Besides, I don't see how you (or anyone else) would ever be able to put the genie back into the bottle on that.

Whether you think the Supreme Court SHOULD have ever got involved with the abortion issue is now a moot point. They did get involved and we have to deal with the reality of that fact now.