Why is abortion the way of the world?

[koshergrl]

Science is unequivocal.
A human is a human from the moment of conception.

I have a very unscientific view of what it means to be human and the value I place on life.

I thought you just said that we were the ones ignoring science.

You people are so crazy. But of course..you just accuse others of that which you are currently engaged...thus:

"I should have assumed that since the writers of these laws are looking to subvert Roe v. Wade they would try to blur the line between science and the law."

 

[FA_Q2]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

 

[Chuz Life]

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

Sure I can. And no, I never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws. I just read the Lindsey's Federal law and note that it explicitly states that no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

Personally, as I stated before, I have no problem with any fetal homicide laws so long as they don't infringe on a woman's right to an abortion. If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

It's very telling how you keep moving the goal posts.

You said;

" I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific. "

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define childten in the womb AS human beings in ANY stage of development.

Yes, they also make an exception to (for now) keep sbortions legal.

But that has nothing to do with your ******* comment. You claimed that there are no LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being and there ARE.

******* Christ, why is it always so hard to get abortion proponents to stay on point?

I claimed I didn't KNOW of any LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being. Apparently I was wrong. I should have assumed that since the writers of these laws are looking to subvert Roe v. Wade they would try to blur the line between science and the law.

What about the writers of U.S. patent laws that prohibit any patents on "human organisms" in any stage of development? Do you think the patent office is trying to overturn Roe too?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can NOT possibly be that dense.

Have you never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws?

Sure I can. And no, I never read the legal definitions under any fetal homicide laws. I just read the Lindsey's Federal law and note that it explicitly states that no woman can be prosecuted for having an abortion.

Personally, as I stated before, I have no problem with any fetal homicide laws so long as they don't infringe on a woman's right to an abortion. If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

It's very telling how you keep moving the goal posts.

You said;

" I don't believe the constitution ever mentions "a human being", let alone defining one. I don't know any Federal or State laws the do either (not sure about that though). Saying a "a human being" in ANY stage of development IS "a human being" is NOT legal but scientific. "

Our fetal HOMICIDE laws define childten in the womb AS human beings in ANY stage of development.

Yes, they also make an exception to (for now) keep sbortions legal.

But that has nothing to do with your ******* comment. You claimed that there are no LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being and there ARE.

******* Christ, why is it always so hard to get abortion proponents to stay on point?

I claimed I didn't KNOW of any LEGAL definitions that define a child in the womb as A human being. Apparently I was wrong. I should have assumed that since the writers of these laws are looking to subvert Roe v. Wade they would try to blur the line between science and the law.

Science is unequivocal.
A human is a human from the moment of conception.

Which is why the anti-education, anti-science left was finally forced to move its goalposts to "personhood", the made-up concept that how one "feelz" about something based on an appalling ignorance about it is the only relevant point to consider.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Science is unequivocal.
A human is a human from the moment of conception.

I have a very unscientific view of what it means to be human and the value I place on life.

I thought you just said that we were the ones ignoring science.

You people are so crazy. But of course..you just accuse others of that which you are currently engaged...thus:

"I should have assumed that since the writers of these laws are looking to subvert Roe v. Wade they would try to blur the line between science and the law."

Well, she started out trying to take the "I'm so smart and scientific, and you silly little pro-lifers are just so dumb and beneath me" tack, but after I ran her ass through the logic and information woodchipper, she did an about-face and went to "science doesn't matter; it's the feeeeeeelz!" without missing a beat or ever acknowledging that she had changed at all, let alone that she did it literally from one post to the next.

This is why she's been deemed no longer worthy of my attention, unless I get bored and want to kick her around and mock her mercilessly for the pathetic court jester she is. Her IQ will have to double before she earns even as much respect as would be given to a ranting homeless person in the middle of the DTs.

 

[Rustic]

Abortion isn't the way of the world.

It's the way of the liberty-minded world.

Muslim theocracies, third world hellholes and Trump states try to ban abortion. The commonality among them is a hatred of liberty.

So you are all for liberty, once the child somehow survives your murderous attemps.

Got it.

Yeah, and you're all for letting the baby die of hunger, exposure, or disease once you have forced the unwilling mother to bear it.

Deflection

That's not a deflection, that's precisely the point. You don't want to pay to education these children, or to feed them. It's not rich women who are having abortions. 80% of women having abortions live at or below the poverty line. You're forcing women to have babies which will require extensive social assistance to raise.

 

[BlindBoo]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

Depends on which law and who enacted it.

Democrats tend to enact fetal homicide laws the way they do hate crime laws: as virtue-signaling. And, presumably, as the destruction of the pregnant woman's "property" which is especially traumatic to her.

Republicans tend to enact fetal homicide laws because they consider the fetus to be intrinsically important. Also presumably, they take a dim view of the trauma the loss of the pregnancy causes the woman, and Republicans typically have no objection to punishing violent criminals as much as possible.

 

[Chuz Life]

Something crazy. . . Like fetal HOMICIDE laws in the majority of the States.

And suppose those laws stood for over a decade without a single Constitutional challenge. . .

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

 

[Borillar]

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

Bad law, no doubt enacted by some well meaning zealots such as yourself.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fetal homicide laws are meant to provide greater latitude to prosecutors when one person kills or harms another persons unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus (and a back door to 'personhood', which may or may not work). The first time a prosecutor goes after a mother who had a legal abortion for homicide there will be a Constitutional challenge. Until then I personally have no issue with fetal HOMICIDE laws.

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

I'm not missing any points. Just because we give women the choice to end unwanted pregnancies safely and humanely, does it mean we can't charge a violent criminal with additional crimes if their violent acts kills a fetus?

 

[Chuz Life]

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

Bad law, no doubt enacted by some well meaning zealots such as yourself.

Bad law should be easy enough to overturn.

The ACLU, which vehemently opposed the laws being passed in the first place has not even tried to overturn them or if they have tried, the Supreme Court shot them down.

Pretty remarkable seeing how the same Supreme Court allowed for Gay Marriage to be recognized.

 

[Chuz Life]

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

I'm not missing any points. Just because we give women the choice to end unwanted pregnancies safely and humanely, does it mean we can't charge a violent criminal with additional crimes if their violent acts kills a fetus?

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

Show me where it says the government can have it both ways by recognizing personhood in one situation while ignoring it or dismissing it in another.

 

[Lesh]

Ya wanna hear about later term abortions?

Here

I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter | HuffPost

 

[Chuz Life]

Ya wanna hear about later term abortions?

Here

I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter | HuffPost

I'm betting that you would oppose any exceptions for rape to a ban on abortions. Wouldn't you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But that represents a MASSIVE inconsitancy with your position.

There is a problem if you are going to assign legal protections when it is convenient and then suddenly forget those protections when one does not want to accept the responsibility.

There is a LOT of double think involved in that position - that alone should give anyone pause about their position if they support both abortion and fetal homicide laws - those two thoughts are 100 percent at odds with eachother.

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

I'm not missing any points. Just because we give women the choice to end unwanted pregnancies safely and humanely, does it mean we can't charge a violent criminal with additional crimes if their violent acts kills a fetus?

You don't find it a tad inconsistent to call something a crime when one person does it and perfectly okay when someone else does the same thing?

 

[BlindBoo]

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

I'm not missing any points. Just because we give women the choice to end unwanted pregnancies safely and humanely, does it mean we can't charge a violent criminal with additional crimes if their violent acts kills a fetus?

You don't find it a tad inconsistent to call something a crime when one person does it and perfectly okay when someone else does the same thing?

Mary get murdered. They find out she was pregnant. The killer is charged with two counts of murder.

Mary finds out she is pregnant. She chooses an abortion.

Not really the same thing.

 

[Lakhota]

Why is abortion the way of the world?

Many reasons.

I was raped when I was 17 years old. I had a baby when I was 18 years old. My baby died when I was 19 years old.

I cannot recall the color of the sky when I woke up the morning I was raped, or what I did in the hours leading up to the assault. I think of it in terms of Before and After, and I’m caught right in between the two.

More: I Wish I’d Had A ‘Late-Term Abortion’ Instead Of Having My Daughter

 

[Borillar]

Can you rob yourself? There is a big difference between a thief emptying my bank account and me emptying my bank account. Since I consider a fertilized egg to be part of the mother I feel she has the right to do what she wants with it. At the same time, no one else has that right.

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

If you see that as hypocritical, that is your opinion.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

Bad law, no doubt enacted by some well meaning zealots such as yourself.

Bad law should be easy enough to overturn.

The ACLU, which vehemently opposed the laws being passed in the first place has not even tried to overturn them or if they have tried, the Supreme Court shot them down.

Pretty remarkable seeing how the same Supreme Court allowed for Gay Marriage to be recognized.

Probably not as easy as you might think. After all, don't you consider Roe v Wade as bad law? The right has been stacking the court with Catholics for decades, and still hasn't tried to tackle that one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We already covered the hard fact that the fetus is not 'part of the mothers body.' Why are you reverting to that?

There is literally no definition that makes any logical sense that places the fetus as part of the woman's body. Her having the right to do what she wants with it is not relevant to the fact that the state recognized killing that fetus - even unintentionally and unknowing if you harmed the mother with intent - as HOMICIDE. In one instance, killing that human is one of the worst crimes possible and in the other it is noting more than biological waste removed for convenience.

How can you not see the massive double think that position requires? It is nothing at all like 'robbing yourself.' The value placed on the fetus varies MASSIVELY in those 2 situation though nothing about the fetus itself is different in any shape or form.

Either killing the fetus is not a big deal or it is - trying to justify legal repercussions on one instance and none in the other is just seriously bad law and inconsistent.

Well, no it actually is not opinion. It is supported by facts. Such a position requires you to hold 2 different values for the same action on extreme opposite ends.

Weren't those laws added to further prosecute violent criminals, not as protection for unborn fetuses?

Being pro-choice and anti-violent criminal is not a contradiction.

The point that you are missing (or intentionally trying to dodge ) is that the violoent criminal can be charged with MURDER.

The charge of MURDER, by legal definition, means that the victim is/was "another human being" a "person."

I challenge any of you proabort leftards to explain how a child in the womb is NOT a human being or person when the mom (sic) decides to pay planned parenthood to kill it. . . . But it suddenly IS a human being / person when some violent criminal kills it.

I'm not missing any points. Just because we give women the choice to end unwanted pregnancies safely and humanely, does it mean we can't charge a violent criminal with additional crimes if their violent acts kills a fetus?

You don't find it a tad inconsistent to call something a crime when one person does it and perfectly okay when someone else does the same thing?

Mary get murdered. They find out she was pregnant. The killer is charged with two counts of murder.

Mary finds out she is pregnant. She chooses an abortion.

Not really the same thing.

Sorry, HOW is that not the same thing, other than the fact that you don't approve of the first and approve of the second?

Your argument is akin to saying, "Mary is killed by a mugger. The killer is charged with murder. Mary's husband kills her for the insurance money. Not really the same thing."