Liberals On Abortion

[PK1]

" Keeping It Straight "

* Addressing Melodramatic Hubris *

Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.

Babies have been born and killing one is categorically a crime of murder .

The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother .

It is the individual whom is accountable for their own self ownership and decisions for when to procreate and it is not an obligation or privilege or constitutional interest of a state to mandate it .

A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .

As a fetus is without constitutional protections a fetus is the private property of the mother and any harm against a fetus is an offense against the mother .

Of course, that isn't what an 'afterlife' means.

Of course, you are wrong again.
“1 : an existence after death”.

Definition of AFTERLIFE

an existence after death; a later period in one's life; a period of continued or renewed use, existence, or popularity beyond what is normal, primary, or expected… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

.

Actually, you fool......I am correct.

The other poster said this: "The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother . "


You just proved me correct and yourself, a fool.


Pretty neat, huh?

Are you neat when you look into your “fool” mirror?

He was correct in the #1 definition of the “afterlife” word that i cited.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Keeping It Straight "

* Addressing Melodramatic Hubris *

Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.

Babies have been born and killing one is categorically a crime of murder .

The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother .

It is the individual whom is accountable for their own self ownership and decisions for when to procreate and it is not an obligation or privilege or constitutional interest of a state to mandate it .

A state is comprised of and for citizens and a state interest begins at birth that is a requirement for citizenship and equal protection , as per the constitution .

As a fetus is without constitutional protections a fetus is the private property of the mother and any harm against a fetus is an offense against the mother .

Of course, that isn't what an 'afterlife' means.

Of course, you are wrong again.
“1 : an existence after death”.

Definition of AFTERLIFE

an existence after death; a later period in one's life; a period of continued or renewed use, existence, or popularity beyond what is normal, primary, or expected… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

.

Actually, you fool......I am correct.

The other poster said this: "The meaning of an afterlife is literally and figuratively to pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring and in that respect the fetus is the body of the mother . "


You just proved me correct and yourself, a fool.


Pretty neat, huh?

Are you neat when you look into your “fool” mirror?

He was correct in the #1 definition of the “afterlife” word that i cited.
.

Quote it, dope.

 

[Seawytch]

[

You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, **** right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.

Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?

Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.

Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH

You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:

Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?

A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.

www.thenation.com

Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.

And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.

There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.

Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.

You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.

Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.

Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.

Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.

But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.

There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.

And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.

Oh please, how pathetic are you that you have to attack the source simply because you can't dispute the findings?

And when did we expand your little bullshit escapade to "western countries" ? Try sticking to the United States where abortion is safe. (As long as rabid anti choice legislators don't pass ridiculous laws)

Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe

The report says many state laws that make it harder for women to get abortions don't have a medical purpose and can make outcomes worse.

www.npr.org

Spare me. As if you would "dispute the findings instead of attacking the source" if I linked to a study referenced by LifeSite News. **** you and your double standard. Get a reliable source, or piss off.

Are you now trying to claim that American medical care is vastly superior to the UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc.? Because that would be a radical shift. Or is it just that you're claiming American baby-killing is superior? What point are you trying to make with your yet-another-biased-source?

Perhaps you didn't notice in your frantic haste to scroll past them and never, ever acknowledge that they were mentioned, but the examples I provided of unsafe abortions - such as Steven Brigham, Kermit Gosnell, and (most relevantly) the ******* clinics involved in the Supreme Court case - all took place in the United States. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to "dispute the findings".

Lifesite News...who bill themselves as "The #1 pro-life news website. Covering the most important life, faith, and family news." Yeah, that would be suspect . NPR is a reliable source.

Face facts. Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far, far safer than pregnancy and childbirth itself. I want fewer Gosnells. Republican lawmakers will guarantee there are more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, **** right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.

Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?

Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.

Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH

You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:

Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?

A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.

www.thenation.com

Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.

And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.

There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.

Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.

You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.

Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.

Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.

Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.

But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.

There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.

And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.

Oh please, how pathetic are you that you have to attack the source simply because you can't dispute the findings?

And when did we expand your little bullshit escapade to "western countries" ? Try sticking to the United States where abortion is safe. (As long as rabid anti choice legislators don't pass ridiculous laws)

Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe

The report says many state laws that make it harder for women to get abortions don't have a medical purpose and can make outcomes worse.

www.npr.org

Spare me. As if you would "dispute the findings instead of attacking the source" if I linked to a study referenced by LifeSite News. **** you and your double standard. Get a reliable source, or piss off.

Are you now trying to claim that American medical care is vastly superior to the UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc.? Because that would be a radical shift. Or is it just that you're claiming American baby-killing is superior? What point are you trying to make with your yet-another-biased-source?
%
Perhaps you didn't notice in your frantic haste to scroll past them and never, ever acknowledge that they were mentioned, but the examples I provided of unsafe abortions - such as Steven Brigham, Kermit Gosnell, and (most relevantly) the ******* clinics involved in the Supreme Court case - all took place in the United States. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to "dispute the findings".

Lifesite News...who bill themselves as "The #1 pro-life news website. Covering the most important life, faith, and family news." Yeah, that would be suspect . NPR is a reliable source.

Face facts. Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far, far safer than pregnancy and childbirth itself. I want fewer Gosnells. Republican lawmakers will guarantee there are more.

"Face facts. Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. "

That's pretty stupid: there's at least a 50% death rate every time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

You can tell me how these laws are "traps" the instant you take your sorry carcass to some bottom-of-his-med-school-class jagoff with a dirty scalpel operating out of his garage for a gall bladder surgery, all right? Until then, **** right the hell off with your "We're only protecting the interests of women by defending unsafe standards" tripe.

Evidence of this occurring in regards to abortion? Also, what does that have to do with admitting privilege at a hospital?

Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far safer than pregnancy and birth for a woman. These laws are not designed for the health of the patient. I know you think everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do are stupid, but it's plain to see these laws are designed to restrict access to abortion, period.

Admitting privileges laws do not appear to benefit abortion patients | ANSIRH

You want evidence? Okay. According to the NIH, 3% of abortions in Western countries are unsafe. In 2014, The nation ran this story on Steven Brigham:

Why Do We Have Unsafe Abortion in the United States?

A searing New Yorker story about a rogue abortion provider shows that unsafe abortion has persisted in post-Roe America. But anti-abortion regulations are only making the problem worse.

www.thenation.com

Brigham has been involved in horrifically botched surgical abortions as well as a number of medical abortions that failed because he used methotrexate, a cheaper, less effective and more dangerous drug than the commonly prescribed mifepristone. In some cases, he began a procedure in New Jersey and then had patients driven to Maryland where he would complete it, so as to circumvent New Jersey law governing late-term abortion. One of his patients, an 18-year-old African-American girl who was twenty-one weeks pregnant, had to be airlifted to Johns Hopkins Hospital after her uterus was perforated and bowel damaged.

And mind you, this was in an article trying to tell us that the solution was FEWER regulations on abortion. Yeah, he was an ass engaging in unsafe practices only because of New Jersey abortion law; without that, he'd have been Albert Schweitzer. Puh-leeze.

There have been complaints and investigations about Brigham going back to the 1990s, but somehow he continues to operate, moving from one state to another and opening new clinics when old ones are shut down. On the surface, his case, like that of gruesome Kermit Gosnell, seems like evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s contention that abortion clinics are under-regulated.

Oh, y'think? But no worries, they're going to rush RIGHT to explaining away any silly notion like that. OBVIOUSLY, the ability to move from one state to another after being shut down is due to TOO MUCH regulation . . . or something like that.

You also ask, "What's that got to do with admitting privileges to hospitals?" First, let me say that if you're really that pig-stupid about how the medical field works, I shudder to think how you go about choosing a doctor, or what kind of doctor you actually have.

Second, let me give you the so-obvious-anyone-but-a-fucktard-leftist-knows-it primer on the subject.

Admitting privileges at a hospital serves as a very important seal of approval, indicating that the doctor in question has been reviewed by the hospital and has no red flags on his record. It is also important because, if an emergency happens, the patient is admitted to the hospital by the doctor who actually knows firsthand what happened, ensuring continuity of care.

Abortion apologists like to claim that it's "too difficult and onerous to obtain admitting privileges". Really? My primary care physician has admitting privileges at three different hospitals in my area. If he can manage it, surely any reasonably competent, qualified physician wanting to perform abortions should be able to, as well.

But that's the problem in the Louisiana case on this issue, the problem dishonest "as many abortions as possible, NO MATTER WHAT!" zealots like you prefer to ignore or gloss over: the so-called "doctors" at the clinic LOST their admitting privileges after absolutely egregious violations of their patients' health and safety. For any other type of doctor, the details listed in the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on this case would not just have lost them admitting privileges to hospitals, it would have lost them their medical licenses and netted them huge malpractice suits. But because they're performing the holy leftist sacrament of abortion, we can't even consider such things.

There's a good reason why I think everyone who disagrees with me on this subject is stupid, and you've just demonstrated how correct I am.

And don't even consider citing me "sources" from pro-abortion groups again.

Oh please, how pathetic are you that you have to attack the source simply because you can't dispute the findings?

And when did we expand your little bullshit escapade to "western countries" ? Try sticking to the United States where abortion is safe. (As long as rabid anti choice legislators don't pass ridiculous laws)

Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe

The report says many state laws that make it harder for women to get abortions don't have a medical purpose and can make outcomes worse.

www.npr.org

Spare me. As if you would "dispute the findings instead of attacking the source" if I linked to a study referenced by LifeSite News. **** you and your double standard. Get a reliable source, or piss off.

Are you now trying to claim that American medical care is vastly superior to the UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc.? Because that would be a radical shift. Or is it just that you're claiming American baby-killing is superior? What point are you trying to make with your yet-another-biased-source?

Perhaps you didn't notice in your frantic haste to scroll past them and never, ever acknowledge that they were mentioned, but the examples I provided of unsafe abortions - such as Steven Brigham, Kermit Gosnell, and (most relevantly) the ******* clinics involved in the Supreme Court case - all took place in the United States. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to "dispute the findings".

Lifesite News...who bill themselves as "The #1 pro-life news website. Covering the most important life, faith, and family news." Yeah, that would be suspect . NPR is a reliable source.

Face facts. Abortion is one of the safest surgeries performed. It is far, far safer than pregnancy and childbirth itself. I want fewer Gosnells. Republican lawmakers will guarantee there are more.

Thank you for proving my point that your little rant about "pathetic to attack the source" was so much hypocritical bullshit.

Face facts: You can chant "One of the safest performed!" until your double-standard, baby-killing face turns blue, and it's not going to make any impact on the reality that it's still a whole lot less safe when it's done in bad conditions by butchers who aren't qualified to obtain admitting privileges, or the accompanying reality that any procedure, no matter how safe it is, can have something go terribly wrong and require emergency care . . . which the so-called "doctors" you champion to perform abortions on the women you dishonestly pretend to care about don't have the ability to get for them.

And not only don't I believe that even you, one of the most pig-ignorant brainwashed drones of the abortion left, actually believe that the way to get "fewer Gosnells" is to have as little regulation and oversight as possible, I also don't believe you actually give a ****.

 

[Chuz Life]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

 

[PoliticalChic]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Informative!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Aggravation Offenses Against The Mother "

* Legislative Clowns Fabricate Misdirected Legalese To Enable False Conjectures Of Ignorance By Fools *

State Fetal Homicide Laws
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother .

The first clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that abortion is legal , meaning that the mother has a wright to dispose of her private property .

The second clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that the death penalty is not included in any statute for killing of a fetus , else the entire disingenuous and farcical legal jargon would unravel .

That is removing a wright to life is a double entendre where , when one removes a wright to life of another , the individual in fact removes their own wright to life , albeit the ultimate decision to remove a wright to life results through due process .

Thus , by due process the wright to life may be restored to an individual ; however , should a wright to life be removed from an individual and not restored then the individual becomes subject to natural freedoms , which is a " law of the jungle " condition that exists prior to a social civil contract of a state , and the perpetrator may be summarily put to death .

 

[Chuz Life]

" Aggravation Offenses Against The Mother "

* Legislative Clowns Fabricate Misdirected Legalese To Enable False Conjectures Of Ignorance By Fools *

State Fetal Homicide Laws
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother .

The first clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that abortion is legal , meaning that the mother has a wright to dispose of her private property .

The second clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that the death penalty is not included in any statute for killing of a fetus , else the entire disingenuous and farcical legal jargon would unravel .

That is removing a wright to life is a double entendre where , when one removes a wright to life of another , the individual in fact removes their own wright to life , albeit the ultimate decision to remove a wright to life results through due process .

By due process , the wright to life may be restored to an individual ; however , should a wright to life be removed from an individual then the individual becomes subject to natural freedoms , which is a " law of the jungle " condition that exists prior to a social civil contract of a state , and the perpetrator may be summarily put to death .

Here.

This is for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Aggravation Offenses Against The Mother "

* Legislative Clowns Fabricate Misdirected Legalese To Enable False Conjectures Of Ignorance By Fools *

State Fetal Homicide Laws
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother .

The first clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that abortion is legal , meaning that the mother has a wright to dispose of her private property .

The second clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that the death penalty is not included in any statute for killing of a fetus , else the entire disingenuous and farcical legal jargon would unravel .

That is removing a wright to life is a double entendre where , when one removes a wright to life of another , the individual in fact removes their own wright to life , albeit the ultimate decision to remove a wright to life results through due process .

Thus , by due process the wright to life may be restored to an individual ; however , should a wright to life be removed from an individual and not restored then the individual becomes subject to natural freedoms , which is a " law of the jungle " condition that exists prior to a social civil contract of a state , and the perpetrator may be summarily put to death .

"The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother . "

Why stop there?

No doubt you stand shoulder to shoulder with infanticide proponents like Hussein Obama, Democrat Governor Northam, and Obama science adviser singer.

President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

 

[Chuz Life]

" Aggravation Offenses Against The Mother "

* Legislative Clowns Fabricate Misdirected Legalese To Enable False Conjectures Of Ignorance By Fools *

State Fetal Homicide Laws
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother .

The first clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that abortion is legal , meaning that the mother has a wright to dispose of her private property .

The second clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that the death penalty is not included in any statute for killing of a fetus , else the entire disingenuous and farcical legal jargon would unravel .

That is removing a wright to life is a double entendre where , when one removes a wright to life of another , the individual in fact removes their own wright to life , albeit the ultimate decision to remove a wright to life results through due process .

Thus , by due process the wright to life may be restored to an individual ; however , should a wright to life be removed from an individual and not restored then the individual becomes subject to natural freedoms , which is a " law of the jungle " condition that exists prior to a social civil contract of a state , and the perpetrator may be summarily put to death .

"The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother . "

Why stop there?

No doubt you stand shoulder to shoulder with infanticide proponents like Hussein Obama, Democrat Governor Northam, and Obama science adviser singer.

President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

I don't think that tard is worth trying to educate.

Logic is not of any concern to him or her at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Aggravation Offenses Against The Mother "

* Legislative Clowns Fabricate Misdirected Legalese To Enable False Conjectures Of Ignorance By Fools *

State Fetal Homicide Laws
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother .

The first clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that abortion is legal , meaning that the mother has a wright to dispose of her private property .

The second clear indication that the crime is against the mother is that the death penalty is not included in any statute for killing of a fetus , else the entire disingenuous and farcical legal jargon would unravel .

That is removing a wright to life is a double entendre where , when one removes a wright to life of another , the individual in fact removes their own wright to life , albeit the ultimate decision to remove a wright to life results through due process .

Thus , by due process the wright to life may be restored to an individual ; however , should a wright to life be removed from an individual and not restored then the individual becomes subject to natural freedoms , which is a " law of the jungle " condition that exists prior to a social civil contract of a state , and the perpetrator may be summarily put to death .

"The fetus is the private property of the mother an any harm to a fetus is an offense against the mother . "

Why stop there?

No doubt you stand shoulder to shoulder with infanticide proponents like Hussein Obama, Democrat Governor Northam, and Obama science adviser singer.

President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.

I don't think that tard is worth trying to educate.

Logic is not of any concern to him or her at all.

But it's important to show readers of both views what they stand for, and why it's evil.

 

[Chuz Life]

it's important to show readers of both views what they stand for, and why it's evil.

I used to think so too.

Over the years, I've pretty much pulled back from responding to fucktarded trolls and my need to make sure the other side is always presented. Because, the truth is already out there, for anyone who genuinely seeks it.

 

[PK1]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Oh, you’re referring to STATE laws. I was focusing on FEDERAL laws that trump (no pun intended) State laws regarding ABORTION, which is the subject of this thread.
In addition to Roe v. Wade, we have the Federal “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004”, which states (again, no pun intended) that:

“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.”

Again, read my Libertarian lips ...
Women as well as men should have full LIBERTY over their own body.
The fetal homicide laws protect the fetus IF the woman intended NOT to abort her pregnancy, as demonstrated in the case of a California mother (Laci Peterson) and her fetus (Conner Peterson), who were MURDERED.
.

 

[PK1]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Informative!

Yes, “informative” for partisans who are gullible.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Informative!

Yes, “informative” for partisans who are gullible.
.

Do you mean you can show it to be incorrect?


Is this your mantra?
"Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'"

Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'

Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner crowd, left some in the crowd at the Iowa State Fair mystified when he told them: We choose truth over facts."

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You should check to be sure you know what 'gullible' and 'partisan' mean.
You seem not to be too good at words.

 

[PK1]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Informative!

Yes, “informative” for partisans who are gullible.
.

Do you mean you can show it to be incorrect?
Is this your mantra?
"Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'"

Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'

Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner crowd, left some in the crowd at the Iowa State Fair mystified when he told them: We choose truth over facts."

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You should check to be sure you know what 'gullible' and 'partisan' mean.
You seem not to be too good at words.

What a PARTISAN troll you are!
Diverting this thread’s discussion to another propaganda topic. What a loser.

I gotta give you credit for being relentless, but getting paid for a full-time troll job must help
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The child she is about to abort?

They are a person too.

The fetal HOMICIDE laws make it so.

So much so, that they have to make exceptions to themselves to keep them from being used to prosecute ******* abortions.

You house of cards built on denial is going to fall.

What “fetal HOMICIDE laws” are you referring to? Name ONE (1).

State Fetal Homicide Laws

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Informative!

Yes, “informative” for partisans who are gullible.
.

Do you mean you can show it to be incorrect?
Is this your mantra?
"Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'"

Biden tells Iowans: 'We choose truth over facts'

Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner crowd, left some in the crowd at the Iowa State Fair mystified when he told them: We choose truth over facts."

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You should check to be sure you know what 'gullible' and 'partisan' mean.
You seem not to be too good at words.

What a PARTISAN troll you are!
Diverting this thread’s discussion to another propaganda topic. What a loser.

I gotta give you credit for being relentless, but getting paid for a full-time troll job must help
.

"Yes, “informative” for partisans who are gullible. "


So, you're admitting that I called your bluff......and now you've had to scamper off with your tail between you legs?


Excellent!

 

[PK1]

What a lame response

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Stipulations Of A Valid Debate "

* Technicalities Of A State Interest *

Again, read my Libertarian lips ...
Women as well as men should have full LIBERTY over their own body.
The fetal homicide laws protect the fetus IF the woman intended NOT to abort her pregnancy, as demonstrated in the case of a California mother (Laci Peterson) and her fetus (Conner Peterson), who were MURDERED.
.

Actually , the legal efficacy is that laci peterson was mudered and an additional crime was committed against laci peterson which was that her fetus was unlawfully killed .

The technicality of the law is that the crimes were against the mother , laci peterson , whom does have constitutional protections .

Conjectures that a crime was committed against the fetus as it were it were a legal victim is euphemistic .

Reiterating , an act of murder is a double entendre whereby removing a wright to life of another , one removes their own wright to life .

Thus , capital punishment is not available by law for the killing of a fetus as it does not have constitutional protections .