Anti-abortion fanatics

[BreezeWood]

Even the aclu and other proaborts recognized the fetal homicide laws as a step in that direction. So
Where is the deceit?

.
the obvious deceit is construing the harm inflicted by a criminal as the same as a woman having control over her own physiology - as if it is your own.

you are a predator, and self righteous inquisitor.

.

 

[aris2chat]

That's because you are simple minded. You think a fetus is a baby. You probably think an egg is a chicken and an acorn is an oak tree too.

A fertilised chicken egg IS a young chicken (the young of the parents who created it) and a Germinating acorn (scientifically) is a very VERY young oak tree.

Biology 101

Baluts and century (100 yr old eggs) eggs are fertilized, but they are still eggs eaten as eggs, pin feathers feet and all. Cooked in shell, not hatched. Chickens and ducks have to hatch to live.
Fermented turtle eggs are also tasty edibles

Acorns can be ground to make flour. They can also be eaten as sprouts.


and egg is not a chicken and an acorn is not a tree

We already have laws which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Furthermore, those laws already make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a criminal act.

That part of the legal debate is over - at least until you can convince the courts to overturn our fetal homicide laws, that is. .

Until then, your denials have already been defeated.

It is not anyone and the it applies to the the last trimester, not the first.

It does not include abortion.

The fetal homicide laws clearly define a "child in the womb" and recognize them as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development"

As for it not applying to abortion. That is the part that we are working to change and just so you know, the section that says the law does not apply to abortion is talking about whether or not the fetal homicide laws can be used to PROSECUTE abortions. . . It does not say that a "child in the womb" is any less of a "child" or "human being" when they are being aborted.

So, by legal definition, it's still a child, human being, person. . . even when it is "legally" (sic) aborted.

you deserve it

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

>>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.<<

>>bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."<<

>>(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(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, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.<<

>>(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.<<

You cannot use the law to prosecute the mother or the abortionist. That was not and clearly specified it does not apply to the woman.

...............now you can take a giant leap into a very cold lake.

The law cannot be used against the mother. It applies to those that had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant.

For the blockheads, that means they had been told or she was far enough along to see she is pregnant (ie. six months or later)

Make that a leap into the very icy baring sea. Maybe it will shock some sense into you.

A woman has a right to control her body and make medical decision without others knowing or trying to interfere.

When it is your body, you get to make the choices. You don't get a say in what others do or don't do. You don't have a right to know.

 

[aris2chat]

If it is not your body, it is not your choice, either way

Funny that the Supreme Court did not take that position when they were deciding Roe. Did they?

In fact, let's listen to what they actually DID say and listen too at how the pro-abort lawyer (Sarah Weddington) agreed with it.

it was a privacy issue between her and her doctor.

Private Matter or not, the Supreme Court made it clear that once personhood for a child in the womb has been established "the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make" and Since the SCOTUS made that declaration, we (the people) have enacted State and Federal fetal homicide laws which now already legally define a "child in the womb" and already recognize them as MURDER victims when they are killed in a criminal act.

She has 24 weeks to consider her choices and options.
You don't get to force her or have any say. You don't get to sit in on her doctors visit. You don't get to see her medical record. You don't get to impose your beliefs on anyone else.

Your opinion really does not matter. Not your body

 

[Chuz Life]

Even the aclu and other proaborts recognized the fetal homicide laws as a step in that direction. So
Where is the deceit?

.
the obvious deceit is construing the harm inflicted by a criminal as the same as a woman having control over her own physiology - as if it is your own.

you are a predator, and self righteous inquisitor.

.

I see an aborted child any less dead or less violated when their own mothers pays someone to kill it. . . Thanks they are when a criminal accidentally kills them in a bank robbery or due accident?

I don't think so.

 

[BreezeWood]

Even the aclu and other proaborts recognized the fetal homicide laws as a step in that direction. So
Where is the deceit?

.
the obvious deceit is construing the harm inflicted by a criminal as the same as a woman having control over her own physiology - as if it is your own.

you are a predator, and self righteous inquisitor.

.

I see an aborted child any less dead or less violated when their own mothers pays someone to kill it. . . Thanks they are when a criminal accidentally kills them in a bank robbery or due accident?

I don't think so.

.

when a criminal accidentally kills them ...

you are not seeing physiology for what it is but what you want it to be and by your error believe you have a right to intervene in the same way as a criminal believes they have a right to steal ... "accidentally" and without cause.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Even the aclu and other proaborts recognized the fetal homicide laws as a step in that direction. So
Where is the deceit?

.
the obvious deceit is construing the harm inflicted by a criminal as the same as a woman having control over her own physiology - as if it is your own.

you are a predator, and self righteous inquisitor.

.

Is an aborted child any less dead or less violated when their own mothers pays someone to kill it. . . Than they are when a criminal accidentally kills them in a bank robbery or due accident?

I don't think so.

Typos fixed.

Stupid auto correct.

 

[Chuz Life]

A fertilised chicken egg IS a young chicken (the young of the parents who created it) and a Germinating acorn (scientifically) is a very VERY young oak tree.

Biology 101

Baluts and century (100 yr old eggs) eggs are fertilized, but they are still eggs eaten as eggs, pin feathers feet and all. Cooked in shell, not hatched. Chickens and ducks have to hatch to live.
Fermented turtle eggs are also tasty edibles

Acorns can be ground to make flour. They can also be eaten as sprouts.


and egg is not a chicken and an acorn is not a tree

We already have laws which define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings."

Furthermore, those laws already make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a criminal act.

That part of the legal debate is over - at least until you can convince the courts to overturn our fetal homicide laws, that is. .

Until then, your denials have already been defeated.

It is not anyone and the it applies to the the last trimester, not the first.

It does not include abortion.

The fetal homicide laws clearly define a "child in the womb" and recognize them as "a human being" in "ANY stage of development"

As for it not applying to abortion. That is the part that we are working to change and just so you know, the section that says the law does not apply to abortion is talking about whether or not the fetal homicide laws can be used to PROSECUTE abortions. . . It does not say that a "child in the womb" is any less of a "child" or "human being" when they are being aborted.

So, by legal definition, it's still a child, human being, person. . . even when it is "legally" (sic) aborted.

you deserve it

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

>>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.<<

>>bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."<<

>>(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(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, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.<<

>>(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.<<

You cannot use the law to prosecute the mother or the abortionist. That was not and clearly specified it does not apply to the woman.

...............now you can take a giant leap into a very cold lake.

The law cannot be used against the mother. It applies to those that had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant.

For the blockheads, that means they had been told or she was far enough along to see she is pregnant (ie. six months or later)

Make that a leap into the very icy baring sea. Maybe it will shock some sense into you.

A woman has a right to control her body and make medical decision without others knowing or trying to interfere.

When it is your body, you get to make the choices. You don't get a say in what others do or don't do. You don't have a right to know.

Why are you still quoting the part of the fetal homicide laws that we are trying to change?

We already know that the fetal homicide laws make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

That's why we are saying they don't go far enough to protect the children they are designed to protect.

It is ludicrous and illogical for a law to say. . . when the woman wants it, it's a child and (if killed) a "murder" victim but if the mother doesn't want it and she pays someone to kill it herself. . . it's something less.

This is an inconsistency that will eventually have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court and will most likely not only result in the overturning of the "exceptions" portion of the fetal homicide laws that you quoted. . . It will also result in the Court's overturning of Roe.