CDZ Abortion

[PK1]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

---
We're talking about personhood, and a fetus, let alone zygote, is not a person.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

If chilren in the womb in ANY stage of their development are not human beings or persons. . . How do you explain the MURDER charges and convictions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

Again, by those laws your denials have been defeated.

---
You are the sad case that's defeated and stubborn to admit legal reality.
You are desperate; hanging on to the 2004 Federal law that does NOT include voluntary ABORTION.

Yes, a zygote has DNA from the human species, but SO WHAT?
It is NOT a legal PERSON.

Using your inane & logically lame example of a car being someone's "baby" ... A zygote would compare to a gas pedal by itself; when you step on the lone pedal, nothing happens!
A fetus would compare to the car's chassis without its own engine; it uses its MOTHER as the engine.
The "baby" becomes whole at birth, when it's eligible to have a SSN ... by Federal law.
As repeatedly mentioned:

Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

 

[Vigilante]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

---
We're talking about personhood, and a fetus, let alone zygote, is not a person.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

If chilren in the womb in ANY stage of their development are not human beings or persons. . . How do you explain the MURDER charges and convictions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

Again, by those laws your denials have been defeated.

---
You are the sad case that's defeated and stubborn to admit legal reality.
You are desperate; hanging on to the 2004 Federal law that does NOT include voluntary ABORTION.

Yes, a zygote has DNA from the human species, but SO WHAT?
It is NOT a legal PERSON.

Using your inane & logically lame example of a car being someone's "baby" ... A zygote would compare to a gas pedal by itself; when you step on the lone pedal, nothing happens!
A fetus would compare to the car's chassis without its own engine; it uses its MOTHER as the engine.
The "baby" becomes whole at birth, when it's eligible to have a SSN ... by Federal law.
As repeatedly mentioned:

Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

Seems you are wrong...constantly!

1. Fetal Homicide State Laws - National Conference...
   http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
   Provides a 50 state summary of laws related to fetal homicide. Also includes an overview of the issue, definition of feticide, increased criminal penalties for ...
   

 

[Publius1787]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

 

[Chuz Life]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

 

[Vigilante]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

 

[Chuz Life]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

That reminds me of an observation I made some time ago.

Isn't it strange that the same people who insist that our government has no right to define a legal construct like "marriage" as between one man and one woman... but that same government (to them) DOES have the right to define "personhood " in such a way as to exclude children in the womb?

 

[Chuz Life]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

---
Nice try. That law applies to unborn victims within a mother who intended to bring her baby to full term ... aka personhood.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

The legal definition for a Natural Person is simply "a human being" and a "child in the womb" as defined by our fetal Homicide laws already meets that definition.

---
We're talking about personhood, and a fetus, let alone zygote, is not a person.
Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

If chilren in the womb in ANY stage of their development are not human beings or persons. . . How do you explain the MURDER charges and convictions under our fetal HOMICIDE laws?

Again, by those laws your denials have been defeated.

---
You are the sad case that's defeated and stubborn to admit legal reality.
You are desperate; hanging on to the 2004 Federal law that does NOT include voluntary ABORTION.

Yes, a zygote has DNA from the human species, but SO WHAT?
It is NOT a legal PERSON.

Using your inane & logically lame example of a car being someone's "baby" ... A zygote would compare to a gas pedal by itself; when you step on the lone pedal, nothing happens!
A fetus would compare to the car's chassis without its own engine; it uses its MOTHER as the engine.
The "baby" becomes whole at birth, when it's eligible to have a SSN ... by Federal law.
As repeatedly mentioned:

Human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born.
.

Blah Blah Blah Blah. . .

All of your drivel above has been refuted by the fact that people have been convicted of MURDER for killing a child in the womb.

MURDER by definition, is the act of one PERSON killing another PERSON in a criminal act.

Simple logic dictates that is indicative of the "legal personhood" of the child that was killed.

 

[Publius1787]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.

 

[Publius1787]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

I agree, what's your point?

 

[Vigilante]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

I agree, what's your point?

Legal personhood.

 

[Chuz Life]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.

I disagree.

It's primarily a question of science.

 

[Publius1787]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

I agree, what's your point?

Legal personhood.

I certainly didn't gather that from your previous post.

 

[Vigilante]

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

I agree, what's your point?

Legal personhood.

I certainly didn't gather that from your previous post.

You have to go back 20 or so posts to see how it MIGRATED to this.

 

[Publius1787]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.

I disagree.

It's primarily a question of science.

Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.

He's absolutely correct.

 

[Publius1787]

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

I agree, what's your point?

Legal personhood.

I certainly didn't gather that from your previous post.

You have to go back 20 or so posts to see how it MIGRATED to this.

Very well then, are you arguing my point or someone else's? lets face it, you assumed that my stance on abortion led me to believe I held the opposite stance on the objects you mentioned. Now you know that's not the case.

 

[Vigilante]

I also don't seem to remember the Constitution stating ANYTHING about GAY MARRIAGE, a RIGHT to healthcare, or the suspension of ones freedom to carry a firearm!

I agree, what's your point?

Legal personhood.

I certainly didn't gather that from your previous post.

You have to go back 20 or so posts to see how it MIGRATED to this.

Very well then, are you arguing my point or someone else's?

Were you arguing that person hood only occurred on birth?

 

[Publius1787]

I agree, what's your point?

Legal personhood.

I certainly didn't gather that from your previous post.

You have to go back 20 or so posts to see how it MIGRATED to this.

Very well then, are you arguing my point or someone else's?

Were you arguing that person hood only occurred on birth?

No, never. I argued that the definition of personhood was in the political realm when it related to a fetus as it certainly isn't in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

No need to dress it up -

At 5 weeks a living human being in the womb has a heart.

Do you admit abortion is murder?
Can you defend that it is not?

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.

I disagree.

It's primarily a question of science.

Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.

He's absolutely correct.

With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't really care what anyone's moral convictions are. The fact still remains that the U.S. Constitution is dead silent on abortion, and thus, left to state democratic choice. But if abortion was outlawed the republican party would hasten its demise. Too many ill informed folks giving in to instant gratification and having babies they cant afford typically end up supporting the hand that feeds their ignorance.

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.

I disagree.

It's primarily a question of science.

Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.

He's absolutely correct.

With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.

great, soo ... where did he go wrong?

 

[Chuz Life]

The constitution may be silent on abortion specifically, but it is not silent on all things related to abortion.

The constitution clearly establishes the rights of all persons to the right to life, due process, and to the EQUAL protections of our laws. That is why justice Potter said once the personhood for a child in the womb has been established, the case for abortions becomes nearly impossible to make.

Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.

I disagree.

It's primarily a question of science.

Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.

He's absolutely correct.

With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.

great, soo ... where did he go wrong?

The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.

As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.