Fetal Homicide Laws are...

[bgrouse]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

 

[Moonglow]

Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.

Cite the law or go away..Use federal code annotated please..

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 136291

Then why does God get a pass when he does it?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

At one time, before you libtards started executing liberal babies by the 10s' of 1000s, people used to take responsibility for ones actions, you know if you got pregnant, then the man would marry the woman and live to raise that child. But since you libfucks HATE children, which is why you execute them in or out of the womb, you want to fuck women, and not be held responsible for it. You know that is true, because the only people out in front of the Abortion clinics protest for abortions are the old white guys. Like Bill Clinton....

 

[bgrouse]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

At one time, before you libtards started executing liberal babies by the 10s' of 1000s, people used to take responsibility for ones actions, you know if you got pregnant, then the man would marry the woman and live to raise that child. But since you libfucks HATE children, which is why you execute them in or out of the womb, you want to fuck women, and not be held responsible for it. You know that is true, because the only people out in front of the Abortion clinics protest for abortions are the old white guys. Like Bill Clinton....

They ARE being responsible. They're taking care of the unwanted side effects at the abortion clinic and returning the situation to the prior state.

 

[Chuz Life]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

 

[bgrouse]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

 

[Chuz Life]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If she never wanted the baby, she should of kept the aspiring held between her Knees. When she opened them up, like a liberal slut, she then invited her Choice to get pregnant. The pill states that it is 99% effective. That 1% still is a chance. Dumbasses, will be dumbasses, and follow liberalism to destruction.

 

[Chuz Life]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If she never wanted the baby, she should of kept the aspiring held between her Knees. When she opened them up, like a liberal slut, she then invited her Choice to get pregnant. The pill states that it is 99% effective. That 1% still is a chance. Dumbasses, will be dumbasses, and follow liberalism to destruction.

I can agree with some that but not all of it. There are plenty of sluts on all sides of the political spectrum, for one. Also, there are just as many pitiful excuses for men who premise the world, coerce, manipulate and even force women into having sex. . . The, when she gets pregnant? Those same men force, coerce and push them into killing the child with an abortion.

To me, those so called men are worse than any slut is on any side of the political divide.

 

[bgrouse]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

 

[bgrouse]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If she never wanted the baby, she should of kept the aspiring held between her Knees. When she opened them up, like a liberal slut, she then invited her Choice to get pregnant. The pill states that it is 99% effective. That 1% still is a chance. Dumbasses, will be dumbasses, and follow liberalism to destruction.

Having sex is an invitation to the fetus the same way keeping your door unlocked is an invitation for someone to come in (it isn't). Yeah, there's a chance, and it exists because of your decisions, but it's not an invitation.

 

[Chuz Life]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

Sex is how babies are made. Everybody knows that and if they are coherent at all, they know the risks when they assume the risks. Unlike a criminal who happens on an unlocked door, a prenatal child does not create that dependent relationship themself. That child is only where it is and in the physical relationship that it is in, because the biological parents put them there.

So, your premise is flawed.

 

[Chuz Life]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.

 

[bgrouse]

What right does the fetus have to be in the body of the mother?

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

Sex is how babies are made. Everybody knows that and if they are coherent at all, they know the risks when they assume the risks. Unlike a criminal who happens on an unlocked door, a prenatal child does not create that dependent relationship themself. That child is only where it is and in the physical relationship that it is in, because the biological parents put them there.

So, your premise is flawed.

Driving through a bad neighborhood is a known way to get robbed/killed, but it in no way places criminal responsibility on the victim even if the risk is well known, and it shouldn't.

If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.

Is that an offer? Hmm, let's see, so if 3 very young children break into your home because you failed to stop them and start draining some of your blood to feed themselves (let's say they do it painlessly and without permanently harming you, unlike the average pregnancy and birth), you feel you should be legally obligated to allow them to do it until they're no longer children (possible 10+ years into the future)?

I guess I disagree with you. I think I should be able to kick people out of my home if I don't want them there even if they're poor or young.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you break into my car, do you have a right to be in my car?

No.


But, if I invite you into my car and or put you into my car, myself. . . . You would then have a right to be in the car.

Wouldn't you.

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

Sex is how babies are made. Everybody knows that and if they are coherent at all, they know the risks when they assume the risks. Unlike a criminal who happens on an unlocked door, a prenatal child does not create that dependent relationship themself. That child is only where it is and in the physical relationship that it is in, because the biological parents put them there.

So, your premise is flawed.

Driving through a bad neighborhood is a known way to get robbed/killed, but it in no way places criminal responsibility on the victim even if the risk is well known, and it shouldn't.

If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.

Is that an offer? Hmm, let's see, so if 3 very young children break into your home because you failed to stop them and start draining some of your blood to feed themselves (let's say they do it painlessly and without permanently harming you, unlike the average pregnancy and birth), you feel you should be legally obligated to allow them to do it until they're no longer children (possible 10+ years into the future)?

I guess I disagree with you. I think I should be able to kick people out of my home if I don't want them there even if they're poor or young.

Logic is just not your thing, is it.

Do you really need for me to explain the difference to you- between you grabbing a child and connecting it to yourself and you waking up to some kid magically connecting themself to you after first breaking into your house?

 

[bgrouse]

Only until I'm asked to leave, at which point I must leave immediately. And that's only if we entertain your notion that an invitation ever took place, which is unlikely given that a woman that gets an abortion likely never wanted the kid in the first place.

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

Sex is how babies are made. Everybody knows that and if they are coherent at all, they know the risks when they assume the risks. Unlike a criminal who happens on an unlocked door, a prenatal child does not create that dependent relationship themself. That child is only where it is and in the physical relationship that it is in, because the biological parents put them there.

So, your premise is flawed.

Driving through a bad neighborhood is a known way to get robbed/killed, but it in no way places criminal responsibility on the victim even if the risk is well known, and it shouldn't.

If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.

Is that an offer? Hmm, let's see, so if 3 very young children break into your home because you failed to stop them and start draining some of your blood to feed themselves (let's say they do it painlessly and without permanently harming you, unlike the average pregnancy and birth), you feel you should be legally obligated to allow them to do it until they're no longer children (possible 10+ years into the future)?

I guess I disagree with you. I think I should be able to kick people out of my home if I don't want them there even if they're poor or young.

Logic is just not your thing, is it.

Do you really need for me to explain the difference to you- between you grabbing a child and connecting it to yourself and you waking up to some kid magically connecting themself to you after first breaking into your house?

Nobody grabbed the child. Grabbing implies some sort of intent to grab. This is not the case with unintentional pregnancy. The intent of sex between two people who don't want a kid is pleasure, not pregnancy, so it is closer to a situation where you leave your door inadequately secured to allow yourself ease of access in and out of the house (intent) and someone happens to come in thanks to your failure to sufficiently secure the door (unintended consequence).

It makes no sense to then force the homeowner to house and feed the person for months or years at his own expense.

 

[bgrouse]

The other question is: is it even a person? When does a person's life begin and what criteria did you use to determine this?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just a quick poll to see what USMB member's thoughts are on our State and Federal laws, which define a human fetus as a "child in the womb" - recognizes them as hUman beings and make it a crime of MURDER to kill one during a criminal act.

Such laws are Constitutional because they acknowledge the privacy rights of women and don’t seek to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Indeed, these laws protect the rights of women, not an embryo/fetus, because as a fact of settled, accepted Constitutional law an embryo/fetus has no ‘rights.’

 

[Chuz Life]

If you are in my car - invited by myself or as a result of my actions that directly put you there, My right to get you back out of my car is LIMITED.

Yes, I could ask you to leave, but I would have to do so without violating any of your rights.

For example, if I changed my mind and wanted you out of the car - and you refused, So I decided to push you out while going 65 mph. . .

I would be charged with your murder. Wouldn't I?

I'd say it's more comparable to recklessly leaving your door unlocked, having an uninvited "guest" enter your home, having said guest start eating the food in your fridge, and then holding you responsible for feeding that guest until he's ready to survive on his own. Should we hold you responsible for murder if you kick him out and he starves to death?

Sex is how babies are made. Everybody knows that and if they are coherent at all, they know the risks when they assume the risks. Unlike a criminal who happens on an unlocked door, a prenatal child does not create that dependent relationship themself. That child is only where it is and in the physical relationship that it is in, because the biological parents put them there.

So, your premise is flawed.

Driving through a bad neighborhood is a known way to get robbed/killed, but it in no way places criminal responsibility on the victim even if the risk is well known, and it shouldn't.

If you leave your door unlocked and very young child makes it's way in, you most certainly would be charged with MURDER if you kicked him or her back out and they died as a result.

Is that an offer? Hmm, let's see, so if 3 very young children break into your home because you failed to stop them and start draining some of your blood to feed themselves (let's say they do it painlessly and without permanently harming you, unlike the average pregnancy and birth), you feel you should be legally obligated to allow them to do it until they're no longer children (possible 10+ years into the future)?

I guess I disagree with you. I think I should be able to kick people out of my home if I don't want them there even if they're poor or young.

Logic is just not your thing, is it.

Do you really need for me to explain the difference to you- between you grabbing a child and connecting it to yourself and you waking up to some kid magically connecting themself to you after first breaking into your house?

Nobody grabbed the child. Grabbing implies some sort of intent to grab. This is not the case with unintentional pregnancy. The intent of sex between two people who don't want a kid is pleasure, not pregnancy, so it is closer to a situation where you leave your door inadequately secured to allow yourself ease of access in and out of the house (intent) and someone happens to come in thanks to your failure to sufficiently secure the door (unintended consequence).

It makes no sense to then force the homeowner to house and feed the person for months or years at his own expense.

If all that pap were true (and it's not). . . Then, how would you explain the Supreme courts Comments during Roe. . . That, "once a state establishes personhood for a child in the womb. . .The case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make?"

Also, maybe you can explain why the pro abortion lawyer in the case (Sarah Weddington) actually AGREED WITH the justice when he said it.