And organs and life sustaining functions, you know the stuff that makes a being. clearly you are uninformed about this. who said that? So how can it be a being then? Don't beings maintain their own lives? How about when it is just one cell?
Though this guy is obviously religious and I prefer people keep religion out of the discussion (and he does keep it out in his video).... This guy has it exactly right. [video=youtube;cslicXNXZd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cslicXNXZd4[/video] I spoke too soon.... He brings in the religion about halfway. But he's absolutely right with the legal analysis.
I don't care if you care about what he has to say... He's correct about what he's saying in his legal analysis.
Dave Leach is an extremist... "Dave Francis Leach is a Des Moines anti-abortion activist and publisher of the extremist newsletter Prayer & Action News and web site The Partnership Machine.[2] His publications support the doctrine of justifiable homicide in the case of abortion doctors," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leach_(activist)
Prove he isn't. - - - Updated - - - It's not about him. It's about what he said in his legal take on it.... and you'll soon find out (if you don't already admit it to yourself).... He's right.
He also thinks those who kill abortion doctors are justified (by the Bible). Are you sure you want to align yourself with this ultra-radical? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...-If-someone-would-shoot-the-new-abortionists#
"(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder), 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " His claim to the contrary is false.
Poisoning the well fallacy and "Guilt by association" fallacies - noted. 1. I don't align myself with him 2. It is fallacious to say I was making it about him.... when I clearly tried to distance myself from him (and his use of religion) from the start. 3. A portion of his video (legal analysis) just happens to be correct in my view - and that was the ONLY reason it was quoted. - - - Updated - - - Show me where I tried to use it in any other law.
Show me how definitions applying to a single law can be used against Roe where they have no bearing, which is you claim is it not?
Why didn't you identify him by name instead of by "this guy" when you first posted his video? You didn't identify him by name because you KNOW he is an extremist who defends abortion provider murderers, and therefore, NOT CREDIBLE.
Then why are you bringing it into this discussion where it is clearly irrelevant? Why are you dishonestly attempting to pass it as some universal recognition? Why do you posit that it is an element in the argument against Roe?
Exactly! It was because I don't care who he is. I searched for the terms "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" and "Roe" and his was the very first video that popped up. That's all. I don't care if he is a practicing abortionist himself and the biggest hypocrite in the world. I wouldn't care if he was a convicted child rapist doing time in prison for the crime. He was only quoted because of his analysis of how the UVVA can (and I believe will) eventually be used to bring down Roe. Got it? Good.
That just tells me you don't care about someone's credentials or credibility, and just as long as they agree with you, that's good enough.
Have you never considered the valid points of someone you don't necessarily or normally agree with? Have you never read or used the phrase "sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut?" "Even a broken clock is right once in awhile?"
So can abortions lead to this. Pro-male gender imbalances in a society could predispose those societies to have more violent crime or be more inclined toward war if the left out males are of mating/marrying age i.e. young and dumb
Then I must ask you one thing, to stop claiming that the UVVA establishes the personhood of a fetus in anything other than your opinion and for the purpose of this one law, it is dishonest and misleading to state (which you have) that this law establishes the personhood of a fetus overall when SCOTUS have not made that decision. to claim that the debate over personhood is over is incorrect, it may very well be for you and as such you should have no reason to keep quoting it as if SCOTUS had already overturned Roe, and quoting it in such a way that any ill informed reader would assume that it is a done deal, when clearly it is not.
I believe that the UVVA does in fact establish the personhood of children in the womb overall... so no deal. There is nothing in the forum rules against proclaiming a legal belief or personal conclusion. For example, I can claim that "Abortions are Murder" and argue that it is so. Are abortions legal? Yes. But if the laws which allow for abortions to take place are themselves unconstitutional? Then, my assertion is correct - and abortions are in fact - murders. The language of the UVVA and nearly 40 States Fetal Homicide Laws is pretty much a 'done deal' (though any law can be challenged and changed). The Supreme Court has continually upheld those laws by declining to accept any challenges against them. I have never claimed that the SCOTUS has already used the language of the UVVA to overturn Roe. And I have consistently said that the debate is over "for me." I have never said it was over completely.
1) Legal abortion doesn't stop poor, unfit parents from having children, it just gives poor, unfit parents (who have already decided to get an abortion) access to a hospital or clinic instead of back-alley. That is the real difference. Unless you are willing to make poor, unfit parents have mandatory abortions then it is pointless. 2) Making abortion cheaper and more accessible doesn't make the process anymore appealing to women. People who generally want an abortion will have an abortion. 3) The legality of abortion doesn't aid in the reduction of crime. There are lots of cases where crime has only risen after abortion has been legalized. For example, look at West Germany when abortion was eventually decriminalized. Legal abortion has a general net benefit for public health, but it does nothing for overpopulation, poverty or crime.