CDZ Abortion

[PK1]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

Nope, it is killing a fetus and it applies to third persons, and it is the only scenario where such a limited law applies. There is no due process for the fetus as a human being recognized.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

And no jurisdiction has recognized that such laws convey a due process protection before the law. The laws apply to third parties only. You want it extended to the mothers, and that will never happen.

 

[PK1]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

---
Perhaps you are taking your legal interpretation of "fetal homicide" way, way, way out of context.

If not, then why don't we have a million fetal homicide cases every year?
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

---
Perhaps you are taking your legal interpretation of "fetal homicide" way, way, way out of context.

If not, then why don't we have a million fetal homicide cases every year?
.

Chuz is way out of context, yes.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

And no jurisdiction has recognized that such laws convey a due process protection before the law. The laws apply to third parties only. You want it extended to the mothers, and that will never happen.

It's almost hilarious that you are still using an appeal to tradition and an appeal towards authority in this.

If the due process rights of children in the womb was already being established and protected, I wouldn't be here fighting for that for them, would I?

You are using what "IS" to make the case for what "should be" as though our current laws are infallible and can not be challenged.

Classic appeals to tradition and authority.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

---
Perhaps you are taking your legal interpretation of "fetal homicide" way, way, way out of context.

The context is made perfectly clear in the law itself.

Definitions and all.

If not, then why don't we have a million fetal homicide cases every year?
.

For one thing, the fetal homicide laws (for now) are making exceptions to keep abortion from being prosecuted.

That's the part that is being challenged.

After that, it's probably a combination of the difficulty in prosecuting these sorts of cases and a reluctance (or ignorance) among prosecutors who tend to go for the charges which are easier to prove at trial.

Then too, a lot of those who are charged with MURDER under our fetal homicide laws have taken plea deals to lessor charges in many cases.

 

[Chuz Life]

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

---
Perhaps you are taking your legal interpretation of "fetal homicide" way, way, way out of context.

If not, then why don't we have a million fetal homicide cases every year?
.

Chuz is way out of context, yes.

I am fighting for laws to criminalize abortion and to make the criminal killing of a "child i the womb" a crime of "murder."

The onus is on you to show how my citing of an existing law (fetal homicide laws) which ALREADY make it a crime of "murder" to kill a "child in the womb" is in any way. . . taking it out of context.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

Wrong.

It is in no way a 'fact,' 'legal' or otherwise.

First, you're confusing civil law with criminal law.

Second, as a fact of Federal Constitutional law, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not considered a 'person' and not entitled to Constitutional protections (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

Third, all fetal 'homicide' laws have provisions excluding abortion, acknowledging the fact cited in the second point above.

In Illinois, for example:

“The laws also specify that these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment.”

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't need "God" or religion or "Jesus" to recognize the biological fact that a new organism's life begins at conception. I don't need "God" or religion to know what our Constitution says or what the legal definitions are either.

---
It may be your opinion that "a person" exists at conception, but that view is not stated in the US Constitution, and i disagree with your personal view.
I have a right to think for myself and do whatever i want to my own body, and if you interfere with my liberties, then i will interfere with yours .
.

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

Wrong.

It is in no way a 'fact,' 'legal' or otherwise.

First, you're confusing civil law with criminal law.

You are seriously misguided.

The charges under our Fetal Homicide laws are Criminal violations including Murder, Manslaughter and Attempted Murder.

Quote:

"(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 sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. - Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Second, as a fact of Federal Constitutional law, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not considered a 'person' and not entitled to Constitutional protections (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

So, your defense of the status quo is to cite the status quo as an authority unto itself.

What's that called again?

Third, all fetal 'homicide' laws have provisions excluding abortion, acknowledging the fact cited in the second point above.

In Illinois, for example:

“The laws also specify that these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment.”

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

"Appeal to Authority" and "Appeal to Tradition"

Using your logic, no-one could ever lobby to change a law after it is written because (again according to your logic) the existing law is the last and only word on the subject.

 

[Elvis Obama]

When it serves our purposes we sanction all kinds of killing. Why be mealy mouthed about it? We kill everything that walks or crawls or swims or flies. Our ability to be outraged over one kind of killing and indifferent to another is pretty funny. Our ability to offer phony justifications for one kind while condemning others is nothing more than an example of the infinite human capacity for sophistry.

Abortion is the termination of life. We have adjudged that the positive consequences of such termination outweigh the negative. Are we right? I say yes. Others say no. I respect that opinion, although I don't share it. If you want to argue that the positive outweighs the negative, go to it. Arguing over what label to slap on this particular type of killing though, that is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry. Nothing but empty, Frank Luntz-like political maneuvering.

 

[Chuz Life]

When it serves our purposes we sanction all kinds of killing. Why be mealy mouthed about it? We kill everything that walks or crawls or swims or flies. Our ability to be outraged over one kind of killing and indifferent to another is pretty funny. Our ability to offer phony justifications for one kind while condemning others is nothing more than an example of the infinite human capacity for sophistry.

Abortion is the termination of life. We have adjudged that the positive consequences of such termination outweigh the negative. Are we right? I say yes. Others say no. I respect that opinion, although I don't share it. If you want to argue that the positive outweighs the negative, go to it. Arguing over what label to slap on this particular type of killing though, that is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry. Nothing but empty, Frank Luntz-like political maneuvering.

I appreciate your post in several ways.

Most specifically, I would have a lot more respect for pro-aborts if they would simply admit that an abortion kills a child and denies them their rights.

Then, at least that part of the debate can be over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz is a silly, insisting that the laws on feticide are authoritative then condemns this, appeal towards authority .

He is confused, his argument pertains to third parties, and he wants to extend to the mothers: Chuz has no consistency or context.

Not going to happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is it simply my opinion that a person who kills a prenatal child in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb?"

Is it a fact or is it a matter of opinion. . . that the legal definition of MURDER is one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act?

---
A "prenatal child" or fetus/embryo?
A "person" vs fetus/embryo?

You have your opinion, and i have mine. Feel free to exercise your opinion on yourself.
.

Our fetal homicide laws define them as "children" and Human beings."

That's not an opinion.

It's a legal fact.

---
Perhaps you are taking your legal interpretation of "fetal homicide" way, way, way out of context.

If not, then why don't we have a million fetal homicide cases every year?
.

Chuz is way out of context, yes.

I am fighting for laws to criminalize abortion and to make the criminal killing of a "child i the womb" a crime of "murder."

The onus is on you to show how my citing of an existing law (fetal homicide laws) which ALREADY make it a crime of "murder" to kill a "child in the womb" is in any way. . . taking it out of context.

Already overruled.

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz is a silly, insisting that the laws on feticide are authoritative then condemns this, appeal towards authority .

He is confused, his argument pertains to third parties, and he wants to extend to the mothers: Chuz has no consistency or context.

Not going to happen.

Oh but I have never claimed that our fetal homicide laws are the final word on anything.

You are not only welcome to challenge the validity of our fetal homicide laws... I want to encourage you to do so.

So, when I cite the definitions and such in those laws. . . it is only as a reference to our existing laws and definitions to show how they conflict with the Supreme Court's past rulings.

YOU are the one who is citing past laws and decisions as the final word unto themselves and as if they can not be challenged.

Not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The laws don't have to be challenged at all, because they protect mothers and children from their enemies who would harm either of them. Chuz, you have made no case whatsoever.

Your inconsistency is your appeal to law then condemn appeal to authority.

You have your opinion and nothing else.

 

[Chuz Life]

The laws don't have to be challenged at all, because they protect mothers and children from their enemies who would harm either of them. Chuz, you have made no case whatsoever.

Your inconsistency is your appeal to law then condemn appeal to authority.

You have your opinion and nothing else.

We have laws and Supreme court Rulings that both recognize children in the womb as persons/ MURDER victims in one set of circumstances (fetal homicide laws) and deny that they are persons / murder victims in another (legalized abortion.)

Our Constitution establishes that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Therefore, there is an inconsistency that will eventually have to be redressed by the Court.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Abortion is the termination of life. We have adjudged that the positive consequences of such termination outweigh the negative. Are we right? I say yes......

You consider the "positive consequences" of avoiding inconvenience for the most part to outweigh the most innocent, vulnerable, potential-rich lives in all of society? You'd better check the balance on your moral account again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The laws don't have to be challenged at all, because they protect mothers and children from their enemies who would harm either of them. Chuz, you have made no case whatsoever.

Your inconsistency is your appeal to law then condemn appeal to authority.

You have your opinion and nothing else.

We have laws and Supreme court Rulings that both recognize children in the womb as persons/ MURDER victims in one set of circumstances (fetal homicide laws) and deny that they are persons / murder victims in another (legalized abortion.)

Our Constitution establishes that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Therefore, there is an inconsistency that will eventually have to be redressed by the Court.

Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.