Hello "pro choice" people.

[BackAgain]

Ok show me in US law where a non viable fetus is defined as a person

That’s not the question. And my life doesn’t hinge on jumping through your artificially constructed hoops. However, while Oklahoma does consider the notion of “viability” (because it bears upon related concerns), Oklahoma does not define “abortion” by reference to “viability.”

I realize you suffer under the delusion that “the” law in our nation is some monolithic entity. It is not. The laws in Oklahoma absolutely differ from the laws in New York.

I doubt that you’re willing to do any research on your own before pontificating. But you should.


ABORTION
63 § 1‐730. Definitions
A. As used in this article:
1. "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child ….

https://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Oklahoma%20Abortion%20Statutes%2020171101.pdf

And you said lots of Americans dont pay taxes. I just pointed out you are wrong

No. You’re wrong. Lots of Americans don’t pay taxes.

 

[BackAgain]

What bullshit. You can't just throw up any old hate site which agrees with your position and claim you've proven anything. Especially sites like FOX News which is a Questionable Source.

You have to use sources which subscribed to journalistic ethics, not just because they're saying the things YOU want them to say.

You'd be less foolish if you admitted that what a woman chooses to do with her body is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

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.

 

[Vegasgiants]

That’s not the question. And my life doesn’t hinge on jumping through your artificially constructed hoops. However, while Oklahoma does consider the notion of “viability” (because it bears upon related concerns), Oklahoma does not define “abortion” by reference to “viability.”

I realize you suffer under the delusion that “the” law in our nation is some monolithic entity. It is not. The laws in Oklahoma absolutely differ from the laws in New York.

I doubt that you’re willing to do any research on your own before pontificating. But you should.


ABORTION
63 § 1‐730. Definitions
A. As used in this article:
1. "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child ….

https://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Oklahoma%20Abortion%20Statutes%2020171101.pdf

No. You’re wrong. Lots of Americans don’t pay taxes.

I am going to keep you on track.


You said a non viable fetus was a person.


I want you to show me that in the law


I never mentioned abortion



And almost every adult pays sales, gas, hotel, airline or some other tax every year


Words matter

 

[Vegasgiants]

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.

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.

Here is where you say the preborn are a person


Where is that in US law ?

 

[BackAgain]

I am going to keep you on track.


You said a non viable fetus was a person.


I want you to show me that in the law


I never mentioned abortion



And almost every adult pays sales, gas, hotel, airline or some other tax every year


Words matter

I just showed you. I can’t keep you on track. But I can reiterate. If Oklahoma calls any termination of a pregnancy an “abortion” (conceding some exceptions that don’t include “viability”) then they are are prohibiting the taking of the life of a person.

I’m also not obliged to show you anything. You’re the one who made the initial claim. I denied it. So, bear up under the weight of your own burden. Show me. No burden switching permitted.

 

[BackAgain]

Here is where you say the preborn are a person


Where is that in US law ?

Again. I was there when I wrote it. And I was responding to your initial claim. I will force you to defend your own claim and I suspect it will be hard to keep you on track. As I often point out to liberals, words DO have meaning. And the burden remains on the proponent. So, step right up, veggie. Show me the law in all 50 states. Get cracking.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I just showed you. I can’t keep you on track. But I can reiterate. If Oklahoma calls any termination of a pregnancy an “abortion” (conceding some exceptions that don’t include “viability”) then they are are prohibiting the taking of the life of a person.

I’m also not obliged to show you anything. You’re the one who made the initial claim. I denied it. So, bear up under the weight of your own burden. Show me. No burden switching permitted.

The Oklahoma law does not cite a fetus as a person


That is a fact

 

[Vegasgiants]

Again. I was there when I wrote it. And I was responding to your initial claim. I will force you to defend your own claim and I suspect it will be hard to keep you on track. As I often point out to liberals, words DO have meaning. And the burden remains on the proponent. So, step right up, veggie. Show me the law in all 50 states. Get cracking.

Person is defined under federal law


You have yet to show any law anywhere where a fetus is defined as a person


Certainly the Oklahoma law does not charge those with performing abortion with murder.

Why not?

 

[Couchpotato]

Gee whiz, all of these RIGHT WING HATE SITES are publishing lies about abortion rights. Quelle Surprise!!!! The one left wing publication you used had an article MOCKING the idea of abortion parties.

TRY PUBLISHING REAL NEWS FROM ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES, NOT YOUR RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA SITES.

Women's Issues, Politics, Fashion, Beauty, Entertainment News is a right wing hate site? LOL.

Salon Homepage is also a right wing hate site?

I also see you didn't actually address the fact that there are people celebrating abortions contrary your assertion.

 

[BackAgain]

The Oklahoma law does not cite a fetus as a person


That is a fact

Murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a person.

New Oklahoma abortion law makes it possible for doctors to be charged with murder

Doctors could now face criminal charges for performing an abortion on a fetus with a heartbeat.

nypost.com

Do the math, vegomatic.

 

[BackAgain]

Person is defined under federal law


You have yet to show any law anywhere where a fetus is defined as a person


Certainly the Oklahoma law does not charge those with performing abortion with murder.

Why not?

“Person” is defined under the relevant laws of each state. And it is absolutely not true that “certainly” OK. law doesn’t charge an abortionist with “murder.” Stop making shit up and pretending that your claims are “facts.” They aren’t. You remain wrong.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a person.

New Oklahoma abortion law makes it possible for doctors to be charged with murder

Doctors could now face criminal charges for performing an abortion on a fetus with a heartbeat.

nypost.com

Do the math, vegomatic.

Read slowly


They. Are. Not. Charged. With. Murder




Why?

 

[Vegasgiants]

“Person” is defined under the relevant laws of each state. And it is absolutely not true that “certainly” OK. law doesn’t charge an abortionist with “murder.” Stop making shit up and pretending that your claims are “facts.” They aren’t. You remain wrong.

Then find me a state that defines a fetus as a person


You cant.

 

[BackAgain]

Read slowly


They. Are. Not. Charged. With. Murder




Why?

Read with your first-ever hit of comprehension. No anortionist has yet been charged with murder under the new law in Oklahoma. Most operative words there are “yet” and “new.”

 

[BackAgain]

Then find me a state that defines a fetus as a person


You cant.

I’ve done better. I already proved you wrong.

Now, back to the basics. Your assertion. You bear the burden: Not just saying shit. Demonstrating that what you say is factually based. Go!

 

[Vegasgiants]

Read with your first-ever hit of comprehension. No anortionist has yet been charged with murder under the new law in Oklahoma. Most operative words there are “yet” and “new.”

Read the law. Murder is not the penalty for breaking this law



Why?

 

[Vegasgiants]

I’ve done better. I already proved you wrong.

Now, back to the basics. Your assertion. You bear the burden: Not just saying shit. Demonstrating that what you say is factually based. Go!

Ok I accept your concession

 

[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.]

Read the law. Murder is not the penalty for breaking this law



Why?

Murder is never a penalty for breaking the law.

 

[BackAgain]

Ok I accept your concession

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

 

[Vegasgiants]

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.]

Murder is never a penalty for breaking the law.

Murder is the crime charged for killing a person.


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


Why?