Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

[elektra]

Our fetal homicide laws establish the personhood of children in the womb by making it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act.

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

 

[Faun]

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

Says you pretending you are the law and making up passages in the law it doesn't ever use. There's no mention of 'person' or 'personhood' related to the fetus at any stage of development.

Your source is you citing yourself. And you aren't nearly enough.

And of course, the very statute you're pretending to cite....says this:

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

You can play pretend and ignore it all you like. But that's not a legal argument.

You are engaged in a classic appeal to authority fallacious argument.

We are all well aware of the fact that our fetal homicide laws make exceptions (for now) to keep abortion legal.

What part did you think we are trying to change?

You can't change it. Abortion Constitutionally protected. The law you cite even recognizes that fact. To render abortion illegal requires you to have Roe v. Wade overturned.

 

[Faun]

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

 

[elektra]

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Before or after there is a heartbeat?

 

[Faun]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

And, for what it's worth - the pro abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) nervously AGREED with the court (Justice Potter Stewart) when he made the comment.

Since that time, many States (more than 30) have been incrementally implementing the very kind of language that Justice Potter speculated about in our fetal homicide laws.

Some libtardz won't acknowledge it until it is nailed to their foreheads with the aid of a Louisville slugger. . . but that's fine by me.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

So far, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the challenges. . . I think because they are trying to find the right case for overturning Roe.

You have it backwards. Abortion is Constitutional. The laws you bank on, should they be challenged by the Constitution, would more likely be rendered unconstitutional.

 

[elektra]

You have it backwards. Abortion is Constitutional. The laws you bank on, should they be challenged by the Constitution, would more likely be rendered unconstitutional.

 

[Faun]

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Before or after there is a heartbeat?

Both.

 

[elektra]

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

before or after there is a heartbeat?

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

 

[Faun]

You have it backwards. Abortion is Constitutional. The laws you bank on, should they be challenged by the Constitution, would more likely be rendered unconstitutional.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

before or after there is a heartbeat?

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Again, thanks for nothing.

Do you often struggle with responding to posts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Before or after there is a heartbeat?

Who cares? A heartbeat is just a biological function, like cell division, or nutrient absorption, or waste expulsion.

There's nothing magical about the heartbeat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

Before or after there is a heartbeat?

That's quite moot in a thread about people who want to send women to prison for life for terminating this:

 

[paulitician]

They wanna have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they wanna tell people to mind their own business and stay out of their personal lives. But on the other, they wanna force them to be involved by forcing them to pay for their numerous children or killing their babies.

Basically, the Entitlement Moochers just want people to shut up and pay up. Well guess what? Taxpayers are sick of that shite. They are gonna be in their business. And if they don't like it, too bad. They can give the money back and start accepting responsibility for their poor decisions in life.

Eventually, you can't push the check onto someone else and expect no push-back. The people are pushing-back. Don't want a kid? Don't have a kid.. I avoided it for 28 years. It's highly doable.

Spot On. Hey, if a woman wants to be a dumb slut, so be it. That is her business. So i'm perfectly fine minding my own business. But the moment she starts demanding that i pay for her numerous children or killing her babies, she's made it my business. And i will speak up. I won't just shut up and pay up.

in other words, you're a loser

Be a dumb slut, that's your call. It is none of my business. But as soon as you start demanding i support your numerous children or you killing your babies, you've made it my business.

Contraception is widely available. In fact, it's even offered for free. And i know it sounds shocking to many women, but they could always stop being dumb sluts too. Bottom line is, you wanna shit 5-6 kids out, that's fine. Just don't demand i support them. It really is that simple.

I am neither dumb nor a slut. And your hatred for women is obvious.

Like I said.... you're a loser.

I wasn't referring to you personally. And no, i don't hate women. Im just over women who behave like dumb sluts and then demand everyone else pay for their poor decisions. In these modern times, there is no reason a woman can't prevent becoming pregnant. And then there's always the idea she could stop being a dumb slut too. She doesn't have to be promiscuous. That's a choice.

But i really don't care how many kids a woman wants to shit out. Just as long as she doesn't demand i pay for it. And though i am opposed to Abortion, that is her right. But she should pay for that herself as well. It's time for Americans to start taking responsibility for their decisions and behavior. I'm completely over the whole Entitlement Moocher thing.

 

[Chuz Life]

I remember when, the Supreme Court supported Slavery, how right they were.

Thank you!

 

[Chuz Life]

Our fetal homicide laws establish the personhood of children in the womb by making it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act.

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

 

[Skylar]

No, they don't. They never once use 'person' or 'personhood' to describe a fetus at any stage of development. And explicitly exempts abortion from anything in the section.

So, for the fourth time, who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

This question isn't going away.


Your double speak is not going to change that fact.

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of a child.

And who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

There's you...citing you. And who else? Remembering of course that any law you pretend to cite I'm actually going to look up and check.

 

[Chuz Life]

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

Says you pretending you are the law and making up passages in the law it doesn't ever use. There's no mention of 'person' or 'personhood' related to the fetus at any stage of development.

Your source is you citing yourself. And you aren't nearly enough.

And of course, the very statute you're pretending to cite....says this:

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

You can play pretend and ignore it all you like. But that's not a legal argument.

You are engaged in a classic appeal to authority fallacious argument.

We are all well aware of the fact that our fetal homicide laws make exceptions (for now) to keep abortion legal.

What part did you think we are trying to change?

You can't change it. Abortion Constitutionally protected. The law you cite even recognizes that fact. To render abortion illegal requires you to have Roe v. Wade overturned.

Thank you for helping me realize that to Criminalize Abortion, we will have to get the Court to overturn Roe vs Wade.

I hadn't considered that before.

Sigh.

 

[Chuz Life]

And by 'double speak', you mean accurately quoting the law that *you* cited? The Federal Fetal protection laws do not say what you claim they say.

Sorry, Chuz....but the only double speak is yours. The Federal Fetal Protection laws make no mention of 'personhood' for any fetus at any state of development. Nor describe them as a person.

You were the one that insisted that the 'legal definition' of murder was a person criminally killing another person. With PERSON in all caps. Now you've completely abandoned your own imaginary citations, your own 'legal definitions'. And run from my cartoon simple question:

Who says that a fertilized egg is a person?

Not the law. Not the courts. Who then?

You can cling to the exceptions that the fetal homicide laws make to prohibit the prosecutions for abortions. . . But those exceptions are not infallible. They are the going to be challenged relentlessly until the personhood of children in the womb is fully recognized and not just selectively recognized.

The exceptions destroy your entire argument...as they explicitly remove abortion from any definition of 'criminal killing'. Or any application within fetal protection laws.

(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;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

If your argument had merit you wouldn't have had to withhold this incredibly relevant portion of the law. Your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

That's not a legal argument.

By making it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb in a criminal act, our fetal homicide laws are too establishing and recognizing the personhood of the children killed.

I don't need for you to agree with me on that when I already have Gloria Feldt (former president of Planned Parenthood) saying essentially the same thing.

It does no such thing. What it does recognize is a woman's right to choose for herself to terminate her pregnancy.

A woman's right, to kill a heartbeat, to kill a brain, to kill something that clings to her for life.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

No they don't.

Even in Roe, the Court ruled that the government has the right to intervention when there is a compelling interest.

That leaves the door wide open for what is and what is not a "compelling interest"

 

[Skylar]

On an unrelated note, is anybody else amused that the Chuz Life guy has a quote of himself for his signature? lol

Its adorable.

On a related note, I don't blame people who are pro-life to constantly challenge Roe v. Wade. As an American, I'd actually consider it their civil duty to do so if they didn't believe in the legality / morality of the judgement. We live in a large nation with a diversity of opinions, it is to our benefit to allow those opinions to be challenged.

On a personal note, I'm certainly pro-choice. In my opinion, any argument on pro-life vs. pro-choice comes down to a belief in freedom of choice or sanctity of life. I simply believe stronger in the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body over how sacred the thing inside her body is. You can argue over "personhood" or how developed the fetus is, or throw religious arguments at the wall, but I'll always say that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Unless you develop some way to suck the fetus out and develop it independent of a person, I really don't see any sort of logical counter to that basic belief that I hold.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how developed you think the fetus is. A woman has the right to deny the use of her body....to anyone. Or anything.

The Supreme Court said this: "If a state were to establish personhood for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes nearly IMPOSSIBLE to make."

Not in the Roe v. Wade decision they didn't. Given your flagrant misquotes of the Federal Fetal Protection laws and your glaring omissions that it doesn't apply to abortion....surely you'll understand why you'll need to back that 'quote' up with more than your assurances.

That's what the Supreme Court said. Not just me.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote the Supreme Court ruling doing this....so we can look at the *actual* quote and the context of their statement. As you have a rather horrid little habit of omitting immediately relevant details that are inconvenient to your argument.

For as long as we have fetal homicide laws which define and establish the personhood of "children in the womb" as "human beings" the conflict between those laws and Roe will inevitably end up before the court for them to reconcile.

Really? Because last time you offered us your 'legal definitions', the key phrase was 'person'. With you putting the word in all caps.

Yet now your key phrase has changed? Did the law change since yesterday....or was it only your argument?

Every MURDER conviction under our fetal homicide laws will bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe as those murder convictions are appealed.

Except of course for this tiny detail that you keep forgetting.

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

The actual law you claim to be citing....which explicitly and specifically obliterates your entire argument. So other than your entire argument being pseudo-legal gibberish destroyed by your own sources....sure. Its a slam dunk.

 

[paulitician]

If you damand others pay for your decisions, then yes, those others do have the right to scream 'Baby Killers, Baby Killers', and demand women 'keep their legs closed.' This ain't no free-for-all. You force your life on others, they do have the right to speak up.

You can speak up all ya want. Tax dollars are still going to feed kids. We don't let kids starve in America.

Then you support some freeloading mother telling you to butt out then making you look like a dumbass by having you pay for a choice she said was none of your business. I choose not to be an idiot. You do.

I choose to not let kids starve, regardless of their parents' decisions. If left to you, there would be homeless kids starving on the streets.

I didn't say that. I said i have the right to speak up. The moment you demand i pay for your children and you killing your babies, your life became my business. You forced it on me. Therefore i do have a say. I won't mind my business.

I will tell you to make better decisions and keep your damn legs closed. And i will push for more requirements of you for you receiving Tax Dollars. It's not a free-for-all. I will demand such things as Community Service and so on. You don't like that, too bad. Don't take the money. I'm not just gonna shut up and pay up. I'll be in your business. Deal with it.

Like I said, you have the right to speak up.

No one has to listen to you.

But rant away anyway, if it makes ya feel better.

Oh they'll listen. Because now we're in their business. It's what they demanded. We'll work tirelessly to add restrictions and requirements for their Entitlement mooching. It won't be a free-for-all anymore.