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

[Skylar]

The argument is actually quite simple: a woman controls her body. You don't control it for her.

Get used to the idea.

But if she doesnt want a baby, and gets pregnant, is she by definition, not controlling her body?

You don't control if she gets pregnant either, Lek. You're gloriously irrelevant to any other woman's pregnancies, sex lives, or reproductive choices.

She decides. Not you. Get used to the idea.

 

[oreo]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

There is no candidate in this country that can win a National Election, if they don't give all 3 exceptions. Which are for the life of the mother, rape & incest. If a Republican candidate does not understand the many different circumstances that can lead to an abortion, they have no business being POTUS.

HERE ARE THE STUPID DEBATES OVER THE 3 EXCEPTIONS:

The life of the mother: There are circumstances that a doctor will advise a pregnant woman to have an abortion. The sudden onset of type 1 diabetes, of course cancer and other diseases. Now imagine that this same woman may already have two kids at home that she needs to raise. Is the Republican party going to tell her husband that his wife needs to die in order to give birth, and he can raise the two kids and baby by himself. And women believe it or not, think that their own lives are worth saving.

Rape: So the Republican party is going to tell a lucky to be alive woman, who may have a husband that is opposed to her having a rape baby that she is going to carry it until full term. You would deny her a double dose of basically a birth control pill in the emergency room to prevent a pregnancy?

Incest: So the Republican party is going to intervene into family decisions, mother and father of a young girl that may have been repeatedly raped by a relative, and deny her an abortion, even though giving birth may risk her own life in the process.

Then Republicans wonder why they lose National Elections.

Apparently, the Republican party didn't learn anything from the loss in 2012, when women went running into Obama's column, securing a 2nd term for him. Again over abortion issues. An already settled 45 year old US Supreme court issue, that has no business even being mentioned on a political platform.

In 2016, they put up several knuckle dragging neanderthals that could never win women the largest voting block in this country at 54%. If you can't win women, you won't win the White House. They were: Rick Santorum,, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul. These candidates do not give all 3 exceptions. Some of them no exceptions. Some of them wanted to intervene with sonogram requirements, meaning interfering in personal, private family matters.

A couple of them were backing a personhood amendment. Meaning giving an unborn fetus in the womb the same rights as a baby out of the womb. Since our laws do not discriminate, a common miscarriage would have to be investigated and an autopsy performed. A pregnant woman has an accident and the baby dies, she could be charged with manslaughter. You get into a fender bumper with a pregnant woman and you're at fault, you could get charged with manslaughter. Doctors and nurses delivering still born babies could get charged. A baby in the womb is a very fragile life and we don't need to be prosecuting innocent people and throwing them into prison for accidents or illness. This amendment was backed by Rand Paul & Ted Cruz.
Rand Paul’s Personhood Problem - The New Yorker

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Skylar]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Have you always had reading comprehension problems? Or is this something new for you?

Show me where I ever claimed that any of our fetal homicide laws already make abortions illegal.

Show me ever claiming that you did.

I can scroll back and quote several posts where I clearly said that those laws "for now" make exceptions to "for now" keep abortion legal.

If by 'for now' you mean every single legal challenged....without exception. Remember, the record of your pseudo-legal horseshit on abortion......is one of perfect failure.

As in the law there is most definitely an authority. And its not you.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why don't you just answer the question.

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

Like I said, "right over your head"

Laughing...pretend that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones all you like. A judge will disabuse you of that misconception rather quickly by authoritatively picking a winner.

And again and again, its not you. Your ilk have a near perfect record of failure using this legal argument.

You don't get it. As I said.....you will.

Yours is an appeal to authority argument through and through. You habitually argue as though the laws which (for now) make abortions legal are themselves unassailable.

It's hilarious that you don't see any conflict between our fetal homicide laws and Roe. . . even as pro-abortion leaders from Planned Parenthood and NARAL do recognize the conflicts themselves.

Like I said earlier. It's what make you such a great foil for my views.

You are an idiot. . . but you are a very useful idiot and that's what makes you less frustrating and much more tolerable.

 

[elektra]

You don't control if she gets pregnant either, Lek. You're gloriously irrelevant to any other woman's pregnancies, sex lives, or reproductive choices.

She decides. Not you. Get used to the idea.

All you got is a rant? So you are saying that these woman are deciding to get pregnant and then they decide to take our medical resources for their choice?

 

[Chuz Life]

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Like I said earlier, the progress has been slow but it's there for all to see.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Have you always had reading comprehension problems? Or is this something new for you?

Show me where I ever claimed that any of our fetal homicide laws already make abortions illegal.

Show me ever claiming that you did.

I can scroll back and quote several posts where I clearly said that those laws "for now" make exceptions to "for now" keep abortion legal.

If by 'for now' you mean every single legal challenged....without exception. Remember, the record of your pseudo-legal horseshit on abortion......is one of perfect failure.

As in the law there is most definitely an authority. And its not you.

More attack the messenger bleating repetitiveness.

Seriously, like Dr. Phil would say "it aint about ME."

Got anything else?

 

[Skylar]

The anti-choice crowd is often powerfully motivated by their religious beliefs. It gums up their thinking....as they assume that the process they use for religion: personal interpretation, is just as valid with the law. Look at Chuzzy's post about how legal interpretations are like interpreting the Bible.

He actually believes that. That's how he views the law.

But that's not actually how the law works. If two people disagree on a Bible verse, god doesn't show up to tell them who got it right. In the law if two parties disagree on a legal interpretation the law and the court will most definitely pick a winner. And the personal interpretation of any random schmuck doesn't carry the same weight as case law, binding precedent and Supreme Court rulings.

Its this fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works that has led Chuzzy's ilk to a nearly unbroken string of legal failures for his argument. And still he clings to it, despite a near perfect record of failure.

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

Like I said, "right over your head"

Laughing...pretend that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones all you like. A judge will disabuse you of that misconception rather quickly by authoritatively picking a winner.

And again and again, its not you. Your ilk have a near perfect record of failure using this legal argument.

You don't get it. As I said.....you will.

Yours is an appeal to authority argument through and through. You habitually argue as though the laws which (for now) make abortions legal are themselves unassailable.

Mine is a recognition that in law there is an authority. You're still trying to pass off your pseudo-legal horseshit as having some legal validity....because you believe it does.

As the perfect record of failure in court using your legal argument demonstrates, your 'belief' means nothing. Your argument lacks legal validity. As demonstrated by abortion being legal in 50 of 50 States.

Sorry, Chuz....but legal interpretations aren't like the Bible. No matter how hard you might wish it were so.

It's hilarious that you don't see any conflict between our fetal homicide laws and Roe. . . even as pro-abortion leaders from Planned Parenthood and NARAL do recognize the conflicts themselves.

Wanna see your entire 'conflict' argument disappear?

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

 

[Skylar]

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Where? Remember, your 'conflict' between Roe and the Federal Fetal Protection laws....they don't actually exist. Roe straight up says it doesn't need to determine when life begins to make its ruling.

You've imagined a 'conflict' that doesn't exist. And then imagined that your fallacious 'conflict' somehow results in 'progress'. Which you also can't cite. With both your 'progress' and your 'conflict' being the products of your imagination.

Its a perfectly circular argument that you've made for yourself. As its source and its audience are the same person; you.

Yeah, I can't imagine (see my signature) where I ever got the idea that our Fetal Homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Oooops. Then too there are stories like this one.

"NEWS & POLITICS
States Expand Fetal Homicide Laws
Pro-choice advocates say new laws making it a separate offense to kill a fetus are part of a legal strategy to chip away at abortion rights.
By Christine Vestal, Elizabeth Wilkerson /Stateline.org
August 28, 2006
" (snipped for brevity)

The link between state fetal homicide laws and the abortion debate has been made in the past.

In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California feticide law -- passed in the early 1970s -- as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking: "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"

The new fetal homicide laws are among the most prevalent state legislation related to the abortion issue in recent years, according to Kathryn Prael of NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2005, state lawmakers proposed more of these bills than bills directly restricting abortion, she said.

Though fetal homicide laws have faced legal challenges on the grounds they conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, none has been struck down."

And none of those fetal homicide laws make abortion illegal.

So much for that 'progress'. You can't even cite the 'conflict' that exists between the Roe decision and Federal Fetal Protection laws. Like the pseudo-legal gibberish of your 'compelling interests' of the state being 'wide open', you won't even discuss your imaginary 'conflict' now.

As we both know that you've imagined it.

Have you always had reading comprehension problems? Or is this something new for you?

Show me where I ever claimed that any of our fetal homicide laws already make abortions illegal.

Show me ever claiming that you did.

I can scroll back and quote several posts where I clearly said that those laws "for now" make exceptions to "for now" keep abortion legal.

If by 'for now' you mean every single legal challenged....without exception. Remember, the record of your pseudo-legal horseshit on abortion......is one of perfect failure.

As in the law there is most definitely an authority. And its not you.

More attack the messenger bleating repetitiveness.

Seriously, like Dr. Phil would say "it aint about ME."

Got anything else?

Now noting that your argument has a perfect record of failure in court and has *never* been recognized as legally valid is 'attacking the messenger'?

Wow. No wonder you guys do so badly in court. You think history is a fallacy of logic.

 

[Chuz Life]

More "attack the messenger" and poisoning the well tactics.

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

Like I said, "right over your head"

Laughing...pretend that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones all you like. A judge will disabuse you of that misconception rather quickly by authoritatively picking a winner.

And again and again, its not you. Your ilk have a near perfect record of failure using this legal argument.

You don't get it. As I said.....you will.

Yours is an appeal to authority argument through and through. You habitually argue as though the laws which (for now) make abortions legal are themselves unassailable.

Mine is a recognition that in law there is an authority. You're still trying to pass off your pseudo-legal horseshit as having some legal validity....because you believe it does.

As the perfect record of failure in court using your legal argument demonstrates, your 'belief' means nothing. Your argument lacks legal validity. As demonstrated by abortion being legal in 50 of 50 States.

Sorry, Chuz....but legal interpretations aren't like the Bible. No matter how hard you might wish it were so.

It's hilarious that you don't see any conflict between our fetal homicide laws and Roe. . . even as pro-abortion leaders from Planned Parenthood and NARAL do recognize the conflicts themselves.

Wanna see your entire 'conflict' argument disappear?

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

You have now slipped into delirium. My comment about the Bible must have really left you dumbfounded because you have yet to grasp the point that was being made.

So let me simplify it for you at the risk of getting crayon on my computer screen.

You see "the law" is no more an authority unto itself than the Bible is an authority unto IT's self.

Still don't get it?

If not? I don't think you can be helped.

 

[Faun]

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.

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

I see. . .

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

It's called, choice.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

I see. . .

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

 

[Skylar]

I'm demonstrating your failure of process and huge misunderstandings of how the law actually works. And I'm using your own example to do it. You've explicitly argued that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones. You've demonstrated your world view, and given us a window into how you view the law.

And your view is provably wrong.

Legal interpretations are NOT like Biblical intepretations. As if we disagree on a Biblical interpretation there's no leviathan to decide who is right. In the law, there is. Your personal intpretations are not qualitatively equal to binding precedent. Your personal opinions are not authoritatively equal to the Supreme Court.

And you arbitrarily ignoring a portion of law that is inconvenient to your argument or making up a quote for the Supreme Court that they didn't actually utter isn't actually legal evidence. As judges decide the cases, not you. And they aren't obligated to ignore what you do, or accept your fake quotes as authoritive.

You don't get this.

You will. Eventually. But obviously not tonight.

Like I said, "right over your head"

Laughing...pretend that legal interpretations are like Biblical ones all you like. A judge will disabuse you of that misconception rather quickly by authoritatively picking a winner.

And again and again, its not you. Your ilk have a near perfect record of failure using this legal argument.

You don't get it. As I said.....you will.

Yours is an appeal to authority argument through and through. You habitually argue as though the laws which (for now) make abortions legal are themselves unassailable.

Mine is a recognition that in law there is an authority. You're still trying to pass off your pseudo-legal horseshit as having some legal validity....because you believe it does.

As the perfect record of failure in court using your legal argument demonstrates, your 'belief' means nothing. Your argument lacks legal validity. As demonstrated by abortion being legal in 50 of 50 States.

Sorry, Chuz....but legal interpretations aren't like the Bible. No matter how hard you might wish it were so.

It's hilarious that you don't see any conflict between our fetal homicide laws and Roe. . . even as pro-abortion leaders from Planned Parenthood and NARAL do recognize the conflicts themselves.

Wanna see your entire 'conflict' argument disappear?

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

You have now slipped into delirium. My comment about the Bible must have really left you dumbfounded because you have yet to grasp the point that was being made.

So let me simplify it for you at the risk of getting crayon on my computer screen.

You see "the law" is no more an authority unto itself than the Bible is an authority unto IT's self.

And yet when you offer a steaming pile of pseudo-legal horseshit in a court of law, a judge laughs it out of the courtroom. Where you can make up whatever you want about the Bible. And god doesn't show up to tell you you're wrong.

In law there is an authority. There is a leviathan. There is precedent, there is case law, there are court rulings. There's a supreme court. And there are judges to pick winners and losers. With those judgements being enforced. No such thing exists for the Bible.

Your pseudo-legal nonsense has been rejected by every court or law to hear it. It record of failure is perfect. Your claims have no legal validity. You can 'believe' otherwise. But the law isn't like the Bible. Your 'believe' means jack shit in the law. As demonstrated by abortion being legal in 50 of 50 States.

Ignore as you will. It really won't matter.

 

[Skylar]

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

I see. . .

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Is this where you quote a law that doesn't say a thing you do?

Or make up another 'Supreme Court' quote?

 

[Chuz Life]

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

For as many times as this is demanded, I can probably find another example to answer it.

"The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union says the state's fetal homicide law directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Roe v. Wade held that for constitutional purposes, a fetus is not a person.

Arguing that the law has ''profound implications'' that go beyond the arena of criminal homicide, the civil liberties group wrote in a brief that ''if fetuses are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it is difficult to imagine how any state could constitutionally permit abortion.''

 

[Faun]

Again, thanks for nothing.

Do you often struggle with responding to posts?

No problem, a struggle? Hardly, maybe my pocket did it, i am on the telephone.

I see your struggles with posting continue. Now you're double posting.

I see you struggle to be clever, whats wrong, you need a little attention from me?

If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.

 

[Faun]

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

I see. . .

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

Yes, women have a right to terminate their pregnancies. There is no, "except for when they don't," it's none of your business.

I'm making it my business to defend children against the likes of you and there's nothing you can do about it. Except whine and cry about it maybe.

Well you're helpless to stop any abortions so it looks like you're failing miserably in your endeavors.

 

[Skylar]

Show me the conflict between Roe and Federal Fetal Protection laws.

And poof. Your argument vanishes. Even you can't see the conflict. As when I ask you to show me where it is.......you find some excuse to change the topic.

Now *that's* hilarious.

For as many times as this is demanded, I can probably find another example to answer it.

"The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union says the state's fetal homicide law directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Roe v. Wade held that for constitutional purposes, a fetus is not a person.

Arguing that the law has ''profound implications'' that go beyond the arena of criminal homicide, the civil liberties group wrote in a brief that ''if fetuses are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it is difficult to imagine how any state could constitutionally permit abortion.''

Then quote the portion of Roe V. Wade in conflict. You were more than happy to do so with your fake Roe quote from Stewart. Remember this laughably lie?

As the Supreme court indicated when it was deciding Roe, that means that if a child in the womb (a human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person" - then as the Court said. . . the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make.

But now when I ask you to show me the conflict in the actual Roe decision...

.....I get excuses for why you can't. Try again. Realizing of course that the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union isn't the Roe decision. Which I would have thought was obvious......but apparently you need to be reminded of.

 

[elektra]

If I wanted attention from you, I'd slip a dollar bill in your garter.

???? I got balls, I am a guy, my avatar is the record label, not the greek god or the comic book hero.
Elektra Records Official Website

 

[Faun]

Your opinion is noted.

Women have the Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

If that were true, then any and all restrictions to abortion would be a violation of women's rights. Not even the Roe decisions supports your claims on that.

That's a rather bizarre position to take since there are restrictions on virtually all rights. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.

Women have a Constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.

I see. . .

So, women have the right to kill their children with
Abortions. . . Except for when they don't. Got it.

It's called, choice.

Other child molesters make the "choice" to violate children too.

Why do you defend the "choice" to molest children with abortions but (I'm assuming here) not those who molest children in other ways. . . like sexually?

And those choices are criminal; whereas abortion is not.

 

[Chuz Life]

Who says that abortion is 'child molestation'?

Logic 101

Start with the definition:

Molest:
verb (transitive)

1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference <----- This one
2. to accost or attack, esp with the intention of assaulting sexually

Then ask the question.

"Do any aborted children ever escape UN-MOLESTED from the abortion procedure?"

The answer is No.