Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one is trying to save face except IC because she knows it is beyond twisted and evil to grasp onto fetal homicide laws that were passed for families suffering the tragedy of wanted children being murdered usually along with the murder or assault of their mother in order to wage war on abortion.
So, your standard for allowing to continue anyone's life is wanted vs unwanted. That's actually laughable as anyone who has experienced a disagreement with anyone else is subject to being killed.
So, your standard for allowing to continue anyone's life is wanted vs unwanted. That's actually laughable as anyone who has experienced a disagreement with anyone else is subject to being killed.
Continue to string to unrelated thoughts/actions together all you want. But, as I have told you before, do not put words in my mouth.
To give the unborn 14th Amendment protections would put the woman's life in jeopardy of incarceration if she as so much as has one glass of wine while pregnant. As it is, the woman can not bring charges against someone for assault on her unborn child, as it has not been given 14th Amendment protections under the law. There is no two-way street here ... as to have one, the rights of the other is lost as they are not separate, until at which time the child leaves the woman's body.
Actually, under fetal homicide laws, a woman or anyone else can bring charges against anyone who kills an unborn child. I gave this example in another thread.:
Because according to the pro-abortion/pro-choice contingent, an unborn child is just a clump of cells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
What a cowardly copout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
I've always thought so, but they say it none-the-less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
No one says an unborn child at 9 months is a clump of cells.
This is just IC's inability to justify her own twisted logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Well that one way to try and save face, but it still doesn't work.
There's only been a couple of things I've seen in IC's post that I have disagreed with and they know which one's those are, other than that I'm amazed the debate continues as I would have lost patients a long time back ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
No one is trying to save face except IC because she knows it is beyond twisted and evil to grasp onto fetal homicide laws that were passed for families suffering the tragedy of wanted children being murdered usually along with the murder or assault of their mother in order to wage war on abortion.
She could not think of any rational explanation to give someone like Sharon Rocha for why she would do that so she tried to pawn it off on pro-choice women who are not in any way trying to have those laws overturned to protect their own rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
No one is trying to save face except IC
You did when you tried to cover up the fact, by changing the semester of the pregnancy to suit, so as, to deny the fact that pro-abortion do refer to the pregnancy as a clump of cells. They also call the unborn a fetus as if using a science term makes killing a human being okay.
btw: I'm not the middle poster between you and IC ---
You did when you tried to cover up the fact, by changing the semester of the pregnancy to suit, so as, to deny the fact that pro-abortion do refer to the pregnancy as a clump of cells. They also call the unborn a fetus as if using a science term makes killing a human being okay.
btw: I'm not the middle poster between you and IC ---
There is no fact to cover up for the pro-choice side when it comes to fetal homicide laws. Pro choice women are not advocating these laws be repealed or declared unconstitutional.
Only the so called pro-life side is advocating against them in order to wage war on abortion rights.
The clump of cells was a red herring that IC threw out because she had nothing rational to say to someone like Sharon Rocha. The fact is she is using the issue to wage war on abortion rights. She can't tell Sharon Rocha honestly that its something the pro-choice side is doing.
Fact is IC doesn't care about the children covered by fetal homicide or their grieving families. She and others who push this argument are only using them. There is zero way around that which is why she tried to blame it on pro-choice women.
BTW I did not change anything to suit. I brought up a very specific example because Sharon Rocha was a very vocal advocate for these laws. She herself said they had nothing to do with abortion.
To give the unborn 14th Amendment protections would put the woman's life in jeopardy of incarceration if she as so much as has one glass of wine while pregnant. As it is, the woman can not bring charges against someone for assault on her unborn child, as it has not been given 14th Amendment protections under the law. There is no two-way street here ... as to have one, the rights of the other is lost as they are not separate, until at which time the child leaves the woman's body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Actually, under fetal homicide laws, a woman or anyone else can bring charges against anyone who kills an unborn child. I gave this example in another thread.:
And yes, however, a good lawyer could take it up on appeal and get the case thrown out. As in Keeler v. Superior Court, Primary Holding: "A homicide conviction cannot arise from causing the death of a viable fetus."
Where as there is case law in fetal homicides:
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE JONATHAN ENGLISH IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
"In a majority of the cases we documented, however, women went to term and gave birth to children who had no reported health problems. These women, pregnant and alleged to have used an illegal drug or alcohol, were arrested for such crimes as child (fetal) endangerment and delivery of drugs to a minor through the umbilical cord. Women have been arrested while still pregnant, taken straight from the hospital in handcuffs, and sometimes shackled around the waist and at the ankles. They have been arrested shortly after giving birth and while still dressed only in hospital garb. Pregnant women have been held in jails, prisons, and under house arrest. At least one woman who was still pregnant at the time of arrest was shackled during much of her labor."
To give the unborn 14th Amendment protection, the rights of the mother can be violated during the term of her pregnancy. It's a risk, few are willing to take.
Let's say we go with the pro-abortion/pro-choice contingent that someone else's unwanted life can be extinguished at will. That means someone can kill their neighbor because they're playing their music too loud. Everyone on board with that?
Let's say we go with the pro-abortion/pro-choice contingent that someone else's unwanted life can be extinguished at will. That means someone can kill their neighbor because they're playing their music too loud. Everyone on board with that?
No one ha ever said that except you. Abortion is the removal of a non-viable fetus from a woman's body. How you can conflate that with your approval of killing the neighbor for loud music makes absolutely no sense at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
