Hello "pro choice" people.

[Vegasgiants]

You misspelled “refutation.” I agree. You’ve failed. Miserably.

You'll get em next time

 

[BackAgain]

TITLE 32
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHAPTER 1
PERSONS
32-102. UNBORN CHILD AS EXISTING PERSON. A child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests, in the event of its subsequent birth.
History:
[(32-102) R.S., sec. 2406; reen. R.C. & C.L., sec. 2602; C.S., sec. 4584; I.C.A., sec. 31-102.]

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 40
HOMICIDE
18-4001. MURDER DEFINED. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus, with malice aforethought or the intentional application of torture to a human being, which results in the death of a human being. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme and prolonged pain with the intent to cause suffering. It shall also be torture to inflict on a human being extreme and prolonged acts of brutality irrespective of proof of intent to cause suffering. The death of a human being caused by such torture is murder irrespective of proof of specific intent to kill; torture causing death shall be deemed the equivalent of intent to kill.
History:
[18-4001, added 1972, ch. 336, sec. 1, p. 928; am. 1977, ch. 154, sec. 1, p. 390; am. 2002, ch. 330, sec. 1, p. 935.]

Just to be clear and to be fully forthcoming: The state does proceed to make an exception for doctors and abortion facilities and mothers relative to abortions as murder. But that exception can be easily removed. That would suffice to clearly define abortion as murder. (I favor some reasonable exceptions so my own personal views are not completely consistent with my legal contention. Nonetheless, there is nothing legally wrong about defining an abortion as “murder.” Any such law would be completely valid (even under Roe v. Wade).

 

[BackAgain]

Murder is the crime charged for killing a person.


But it is not the crime charged for the Oklahoma abortion law


Why?

Political decision. But it doesn’t eliminate the possible charging of nurse.

 

[BackAgain]

You'll get em next time

I got you this time. Your fail is funny.

 

[JoeB131]

You are such a coward.

Nope. You created a bullshit implausible scenario to create a false moral equivalency.

No 20 week fetus survives, and no woman has an abortion at 21 weeks unless something is VERY VERY wrong.

The problem with the ENTIRE discussion of late abortion (not "late term" abortions, there is no such thing) is that they are RARE. Less than 1% of all abortions performed. But you guys get hung up on it because you can point to the medical waste and claim it looks like a baby.

And just because I am a fair guy, the Abortion Rights side does the same thing when they talk about Rape and Incest, which also represents less than 1% of all abortions performed.

So when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about fetuses terminated in the 8-12 week before the woman is even showing. Usually be a woman who happily had sex with a guy she knew wasn't father material when he stuck his dick in her.

The rest of us need to mind our own business.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no “the” law. What the lawS say varies. The entire issue is very much open for debate. If a pregnant woman isn’t murdered, doesn’t have a miscarriage and if the baby doesn’t suffer from a fatal genetic problem, then assuming the child isn’t slaughtered in the womb, the child will become a human being. Not a giraffe. A human being.

There's a whole lot of "Ifs" there.

IF the zygote attaches to the woman's Uterine Wall
IF the woman doesn't miscarry
IF the woman decides not to have an abortion.

The WOMAN seems to be the key component in all those actions, but you guys want to remove her choice from the equation.

The problem is, such laws were unenforceable before Roe, and they will be unenforceable after.

Paying taxes not required. Lots of post birth babies also pay no taxes. Lots of fully grown adults pay no taxes. While I would question your alleged viability, preborn kids inside the womb manage to get themselves “born” all the time. They are every bit a “person” as much as (probably more than) President Brandon.

Honestly, if you can't stay on one subject there's not much of a point talking to you.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I got you this time. Your fail is funny.

Dont go away angry

 

[Vegasgiants]

Political decision. But it doesn’t eliminate the possible charging of nurse.

So it's not murder because its not a person



See. I knew you could get there

 

[BackAgain]

There's a whole lot of "Ifs" there.

Life comes with lots of ifs and contingencies, you dope.

IF the zygote attaches to the woman's Uterine Wall
IF the woman doesn't miscarry
IF the woman decides not to have an abortion.

Those are some ifs. Good boy!

The WOMAN seems to be the key component in all those actions, but you guys want to remove her choice from the equation.

Not at all. But you guys seem to be completely indifferent to the right of the preborn child to life itself.

The problem is, such laws were unenforceable before Roe, and they will be unenforceable after.

No they weren’t unenforceable and no they won’t be unenforceable. Words have meaning. Get to know them.

Honestly, if you can't stay on one subject there's not much of a point talking to you.

I’m the one saying on the subject. You’re all over the place. I don’t care if you see a point in talking to me. Talking to you isn’t exactly productive. Your too insistent on being deliberately obtuse.

 

[BackAgain]

Dont go away angry

You can, if you can’t handle your emotions in your defeat. I would have expected you to be able to handle all your defeats better by now.

 

[BackAgain]

Section 2903.02 | Murder.​

Ohio Revised Code
/
Title 29 Crimes-Procedure
/
Chapter 2903 Homicide and Assault

“(A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy. …”

Of course, again, what constitutes an “unlawful” termination is a bigger question. But, yet again, we see that the termination of a pregnancy can indeed be legally classified as murder.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Section 2903.02 | Murder.​

Ohio Revised Code
/
Title 29 Crimes-Procedure
/
Chapter 2903 Homicide and Assault

“(A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy. …”

Of course, again, what constitutes an “unlawful” termination is a bigger question. But, yet again, we see that the termination of a pregnancy can indeed be legally classified as murder.

Wrong again buddy

Understanding Ohio’s Murder Statute​

Murder is a type of homicide. Homicide refers to the act of one person killing another. Homicide can be lawful and unlawful. Murder falls under the category of unlawful homicide. In Ohio, murder is defined in ORC § 2903.02 to mean “purposely caus[ing] the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.”

So, in Ohio, murder requires that the act of causing another’s person death is purposeful. Purposeful means that you acted with the specific intent to cause a certain result. Here, that would be to cause another person to die.

Under the current law, it is not a crime for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy. It’s also not a crime for a doctor to perform a legal abortion. Legal abortion is one that is performed before gestation reaches 20 weeks (or 22 weeks after the woman’s last period). HB 413 would change that.

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong again buddy

Understanding Ohio’s Murder Statute​

Murder is a type of homicide. Homicide refers to the act of one person killing another. Homicide can be lawful and unlawful. Murder falls under the category of unlawful homicide. In Ohio, murder is defined in ORC § 2903.02 to mean “purposely caus[ing] the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.”

So, in Ohio, murder requires that the act of causing another’s person death is purposeful. Purposeful means that you acted with the specific intent to cause a certain result. Here, that would be to cause another person to die.

Under the current law, it is not a crime for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy. It’s also not a crime for a doctor to perform a legal abortion. Legal abortion is one that is performed before gestation reaches 20 weeks (or 22 weeks after the woman’s last period). HB 413 would change that.

So, in other words, I didn’t say anything wrong at all. Accordingly, it is you who is wrong, veggie. Still.

 

[Vegasgiants]

So, in other words, I didn’t say anything wrong at all. Accordingly, it is you who is wrong, veggie. Still.

No you are wrong because that law allows abortion

 

[BackAgain]

No you are wrong because that law allows abortion

Which I noted. So again, I didn’t say anything wrong. And your claim that I had was itself false. Can you get anything right? Ever? Evidently not.

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

Hello "pro choice" people.​

Yo!

 

[Vegasgiants]

Which I noted. So again, I didn’t say anything wrong. And your claim that I had was itself false. Can you get anything right? Ever? Evidently not.

So if the law allows abortion how can the fetus be a person?


You sound like you are getting riled. Lol

 

[JoeB131]

Not at all. But you guys seem to be completely indifferent to the right of the preborn child to life itself.

Because it shouldn't have more rights than the woman it's inside. End of the day, her choice. Not yours.

No they weren’t unenforceable and no they won’t be unenforceable. Words have meaning. Get to know them.

Actually, they were unenforceable before Roe, that's why Roe struck them down, stupid.

The fact that Texas backed off on charging this woman who induced an abortion shows that it's unenforceable.

 

[Dragonlady]

The question isn’t whether the source (like The NY Times) is generally credible or suffers from obvious bias. The question is whether a particular story is validly premised. Again, even one example of a person celebrating even one abortion suffices to undermine your contention. Your reliance on a fallacy doesn’t save you.

Again, "one person celebrating abortion" does not undermine my contention at all. Abortion is NOT the killing of babies, so your entire premise is based on the lie that abortion kills a baby.

You don't want to discuss this as anything other than a culture wedge but the harsh reality is that middle class and wealthy women will get abortion, because they have the means to travel to anywhere in the world where abortion is FULLY legal, which includes all of the first world, except the USA.

I never said anything to the contrary. I never claimed that a pregnancy would necessarily end in a live birth. And, moreover, that alleged stat is irrelevant to the conversation.

My predicates were properly limited in how I stated them. They weren’t in any meaningful way false information or lies of any kind.

Oh yes you did. You assumed that unless there was some outside intervention, the fetus would become a human being. That is your basic fallacy. Nothing is guaranteed in that regard.

When a woman miscarries, we're told that the process of going from a fertilized egg to a viable human being is incredibly complex and can go off track. Early miscarriages are "God's way" of dealing with the zygots that didn't develop properly - the "mistakes".

You make a huge issue of "murdering babies" but in the real world, when a woman miscarries, she's told it's "no big deal", "you can get pregnant again", and you're not even given time off work to deal with your grief. We don't hold funerals, or even get flowers. It just is. But somehow, if the woman decides that now is not the right time in increase her family, and decides to wait, she's a monster.

 

[BackAgain]

As to the earlier “question,” each state defines “person” (in their own respective homicide laws) as that state has seen fit to define “person.” But since our little buddy, vegomatic, is seemingly too lazy to look up such things, I did a quickie search:

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

And since vegomatic is easily confused, I take care to note that nothing there says that any particular state absolutely disallows abortion or doesn’t. It simply addresses the point that homicide laws are created by the various states. They decide what is or isn’t a murder or a manslaughter. They decide who and what qualifies as a “person” for such purposes. And there is nothing anywhere in any of our laws that denies the states to retain or to change any of those legal definitions etc.