Fetal Homicide Laws are...

[Chuz Life]

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.’

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

 

[bgrouse]

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 Comments during Roe. . . That "once a state establishes personhood for a child in the womb. . .The case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make?"

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

Who knows? Maybe it's the same reason lawmakers and judges pretend banning guns in states like NJ and CA are not in violation of the second amendment.

 

[bgrouse]

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.’

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

 

[Chuz Life]

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 Comments during Roe. . . That "once a state establishes personhood for a child in the womb. . .The case FOR abortion becomes near IMPOSSIBLE to make?"

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

Who knows? Maybe it's the same reason lawmakers and judges pretend banning guns in states like NJ and CA are not in violation of the second amendment.

LoL- Who knows?

THEY know.

Even if YOU don't.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.’

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

 

[bgrouse]

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.’

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

 

[Chuz Life]

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.’

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

 

[bgrouse]

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.’

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

 

[Chuz Life]

If a child in the embryo/ fetal stage of their life is not a person and has no rights as you claim. . . Then how do you reconcile your denial with the actual fact that a person can be (and many already have been) charged with MURDER for killing said child in a criminal act?

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

 

[Faun]

If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons cow why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.

Doesn't the US constitution, guarantee the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness? "LIFE" does start at conception, just there are some people in the US who hate people, born or unborn. That is why they will allow murderers , rapists, and child molesters to live and hurt or kill US citizens who follow the law.

View attachment 136268

Just like with abortion, it's not illegal for the mother of said eagle to terminate her unborn.

 

[bgrouse]

Courts act in mysterious ways sometimes. Can you answer why you consider it to be a person? I assume conception is when you believe the life of a person starts.

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

 

[Chuz Life]

I like to answer questions like that with a question of my own.

1. What is the legal definition for a natural perzon?

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

 

[bgrouse]

One medical definition I've seen of when a person loses personhood (and all associated rights, essentially becoming a piece of meat) is lack of brain activity.

"A patient may be legally dead because of lack of brain function but still have a heartbeat when on a mechanical ventilator."

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?

 

[Chuz Life]

Which begs th question. . .

How many doctors would pull the plug on a patient that has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical child in the womb has?

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?

There is no research necessary, I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Don't you?

 

[bgrouse]

I doubt many really care. Doctors do it for the money and simply follow protocol: they do what they're told.

So is that your definition of a living person? Human meat that has a chance of acquiring brain function?

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?

There is no research necessary, I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Don't you?

So what's the legal definition for what a natural person is?

 

[Chuz Life]

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?

There is no research necessary, I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Don't you?

So what's the legal definition for what a natural person is?

What do you think it is?

Take a guess.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons cow why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.

Doesn't the US constitution, guarantee the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness? "LIFE" does start at conception, just there are some people in the US who hate people, born or unborn. That is why they will allow murderers , rapists, and child molesters to live and hurt or kill US citizens who follow the law.

View attachment 136268

Just like with abortion, it's not illegal for the mother of said eagle to terminate her unborn.

So liberal women are animals? That explains everything....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Your ignorance is showing. Any doctor that would pull the plug on a patient who has even half as good a prognosis that a typical child in the womb has, knows they will be jailed if caught doing so.

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?

There is no research necessary, I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Don't you?

So what's the legal definition for what a natural person is?

Naturally when you have XX chromosomes, you are a female. But not with insane people.
Naturally when you have XY Chromosomes, you are a male. But not with insane people.
But with liberalism, there are no adults in the room and liberals hate conflict, so they go to their safe spaces, and allow their children to tell them what they want to be. Insane people don't take responsibility so the kids grow up fucked up in the head.

 

[Faun]

If you voted that our fetal HOMICIDE laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, please explains your reasons cow why they are not Constitutional and tell us what your are doing or intend to do about it.

Doesn't the US constitution, guarantee the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness? "LIFE" does start at conception, just there are some people in the US who hate people, born or unborn. That is why they will allow murderers , rapists, and child molesters to live and hurt or kill US citizens who follow the law.

View attachment 136268

Just like with abortion, it's not illegal for the mother of said eagle to terminate her unborn.

So liberal women are animals? That explains everything....

LOL

You're an idiot to think Liberals are the only ones getting abortions.

 

[bgrouse]

Why are you dodging the question?

I already gave you (referred you to) the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Did you forget already?

So can you answer the question or do I have to do your research for you now?

There is no research necessary, I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Don't you?

So what's the legal definition for what a natural person is?

What do you think it is?

Take a guess.

I think you're full of shit and guess that you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise you would have provided the definition already.