Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's true.It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .
How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"
The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.
You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.
Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.
Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.
Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.
True or false.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.That's true.It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .
How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"
The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.
You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.
Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.
Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.
Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.
True or false.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
That's true.That's true.It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .
How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"
The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.
You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.
Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.
Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.
Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.
True or false.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.That's true.It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?
Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.
Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.
Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.
True or false.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.That's true.Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.
Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.
True or false.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.That's true.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
Unlike the definition I posted, at no point does the section with the definition you posted provide the definition of a person or natural person. It only defines "unborn child," "child in utero," and "child, who is in utero."No shit! Definitions used in law are often defined in the text of the law, often in the "definitions" section. Your entire premise of finding the "legal definition" of a natural person in a "legal dictionary" is therefore totally moronic, but totally expected from you.Keep running away....The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.
Your attempt to make this about me is cute.
Petty, but cute.
The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."
You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.
can you.
Ummmm. . . .
Nice try Libtard.
From your own page.
"
Like This?
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 {MURDER}, 1112 {MANSLAUGHTER}, and 1113 {Attempted MURDER / MANSLAUGHTER} of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
You can be charged with murder for not killing anyone at all.Again, I ask. . . .
How does this FEDERAL LAW NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"
The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.
You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.
What constitutional text would it violate to result in the death of a fetus by not allowing it to suck your blood/nutrients?Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.That's true.
True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?
That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.That's true.
In most cases, abortions ARE (for now) legal.
This thread is not directly about abortions, however. Its about our fetal Homicide laws and whether or not those laws are Constitutional.
True or False. . . (Under the Federal Fetal Homicide law cited) All children in the womb are recognized and defined as such "in any stage of development" whether they are legally killed in a LEGAL abortion or not.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
Then he can refer to those who legally got an abortion and are NOT in prison, a group far, FAR more numerous than the one that's in jail.Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?That's true.
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?So, how does the combination of that definition and the fact that it applies to ALL children in the womb and the fact that a person can be charged with MURDER for killing one NOT equate to an establishment of PERSONHOOD for "children in the womb?"
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
You're the one dealing with hypotheticals. Using your own reasoning, if murder is what's given for killing a natural person, then obviously the legal definition of a natural human does NOT include a fetus that a mother consents to abort.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
You're the one dealing with hypotheticals. Using your own reasoning, if murder is what's given for killing a natural person, then obviously the legal definition of a natural human does NOT include a fetus that a mother consents to abort.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt."So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
I asked you back in post #108 what constitutional text was violated. You ignored that and kept dragging out your hypotheticals that you can't even rationally apply.You're the one dealing with hypotheticals. Using your own reasoning, if murder is what's given for killing a natural person, then obviously the legal definition of a natural human does NOT include a fetus that a mother consents to abort.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
Try paying attention, Sparky. This thread is about our fetal Homicide laws and the Constitutionality thereof. It may play into the abortion debate eventually but it can also be debated on its own.
Neither dubious nor diverting. Trying to understand your concerns over constitutionally. Of course they're Constitutional. All laws are Constitutional until overturned by the judicial branch.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.Let's say that it does establish "personhood" for children in the womb, so what?
"So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
He only cares about what the government has to say when it agrees with his agenda. That's what. Now he's going to continue being evasive since his position has been thoroughly debunked.Neither dubious nor diverting. Trying to understand your concerns over constitutionally. Of course they're Constitutional. All laws are Constitutional until overturned by the judicial branch.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt."So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
So again, for the third and last time.... so what?
Exactly.Neither dubious nor diverting. Trying to understand your concerns over constitutionally. Of course they're Constitutional. All laws are Constitutional until overturned by the judicial branch.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt."So what if it does" does not answer the question. Either our fetal HOMICIDE laws (including the one cited) actually do establish the personhood of "children in the womb" or they don't.
The comes the question in the op... are those laws "Constitutional? "
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
So again, for the third and last time.... so what?
Exactly.Neither dubious nor diverting. Trying to understand your concerns over constitutionally. Of course they're Constitutional. All laws are Constitutional until overturned by the judicial branch.That brings us back to.... so what?Actually, it does answer the question. For the sake of progressing your argument, it grants you the benefit of the doubt.
You punted.
Figures.
To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
So again, for the third and last time.... so what?
Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.
The thread premise is attempting – and failing – to advance the ‘argument’ that because fetal ‘homicide’ laws seek to punish those who cause the death of a fetus are subject to criminal prosecution, then abortion should likewise be rendered illegal.
This ‘argument’ fails as a false comparison fallacy.
Fetal ‘homicide’ laws protect the right of the mother to decide the outcome of her pregnancy, should she either wish to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term.
Indeed, such laws have provisions which exclude lawful abortions from the scope of the law, as we see in this measure from Colorado:
“For purposes of a prosecution of a homicide or assault offense, the bill does not apply to:
An act committed by the mother of her unborn child;
A medical procedure performed by a physician or other
licensed medical professional at the request of a mother of
her unborn child or the mother's legal guardian; or
The lawful dispensation or administration of lawfully
prescribed medication.”
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CL...613C6C1787257E15006272AA?Open&file=268_01.pdf
It's been answered already, dumbass. You ignored it.Exactly.Neither dubious nor diverting. Trying to understand your concerns over constitutionally. Of course they're Constitutional. All laws are Constitutional until overturned by the judicial branch.That brings us back to.... so what?To support my argument, I need only refer to those who are already serving lengthy prison sentences for their part in the murders of children in the womb.
I don't need for you or anyone else to grant me the benefit of doubt because the answer to the question should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
Will you answer this time?
Unless you are being dubious or you are fishing for some sort of diversion, why are you wanting to engage in a hypothetical when we have real life factual information to work with?
So again, for the third and last time.... so what?
Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise.
The thread premise is attempting – and failing – to advance the ‘argument’ that because fetal ‘homicide’ laws seek to punish those who cause the death of a fetus are subject to criminal prosecution, then abortion should likewise be rendered illegal.
This ‘argument’ fails as a false comparison fallacy.
Fetal ‘homicide’ laws protect the right of the mother to decide the outcome of her pregnancy, should she either wish to terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term.
Indeed, such laws have provisions which exclude lawful abortions from the scope of the law, as we see in this measure from Colorado:
“For purposes of a prosecution of a homicide or assault offense, the bill does not apply to:
An act committed by the mother of her unborn child;
A medical procedure performed by a physician or other
licensed medical professional at the request of a mother of
her unborn child or the mother's legal guardian; or
The lawful dispensation or administration of lawfully
prescribed medication.”
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CL...613C6C1787257E15006272AA?Open&file=268_01.pdf
So many Sparkys, so little time.
Under this and many other fetal HOMICIDE laws, The charge for killing a "child in the womb" in a criminal act is MURDER.
Here is the question leftardz like yourself will not give a straight forward answer to.. "what does the charge of MURDER say about the personhood status of the victim killed?"
