Every American soldier who killed another person committed homicide according to you. I don't think you have a clue. Dismissed.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Good question but I doubt Anti-Choicers would allow an abortion to save the life of a mere woman.[\QUOTE] No, there are Anti-Choicers who do not want to allow any abortions. [\QUOTE] And there are pro abortion people who want the right to kill a baby right up to the minute of it then. YAwn, so what. ↑ The woman consented to sex. She did not consent to any other act ( becoming pregnant). Consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act. One can open their door and consent let someone into their house but if that person harms them they can kill the one doing the harm. Consent to enter their house was NOT consent to let them do anything they wanted to do. BTW, NO woman can place a child in their uterus....how asinine to think so! There is no child in abortion. The fetus, that you erroneously refer to as a "child" (Lack of knowledge of biology ?) has no rights and no ability to either consent or not. The End. What YOU want is to give a fetus more rights than anyone else has.....even yourself You could not in anyway refute my post
I completely discredited your post. Even under federal law a fetus is a child, and therefore a person. Game over But this should be fun, show me where biology defines a “child”.
FoxHastings said: ↑ . How? declare marshall law? Trump dictates to the Supreme Court what their decision is without anyone presenting a case? WOW....if that happens , there will be no US. Abortions will still happen because women are not immoral as you imply but any "morals" go right down the toilet when citizens lose the right to their own bodies ( which will NOT stop with pregnant women) and righties will still cheer families of brown people being ripped apart and children ( those "precious lives") being caged. Oh what childish DRAAAAAAAAAAMA...all the Anti-Choicers have...no facts, all emotional claptrap... Trump and the right LOVED ripping apart those BROWN families from other countries...….and they were LIVE LIVING BREATHING ACTUAL CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read your post. It is why what you post is dismissed. Maybe you should read a dictionary. You are unaware of what a person is defined as.
OK, if a fetus can be called a "child" (TWO DIFFERENT stages in human development) then can you call a teenager a fetus and a fetus an adult...YOU can but no one else does because it's erroneous. See, language was created to communicate and if people use the wrong words for things they not only look stupid but they can't communicate very well. If the wrong words are used for things laws can't be written..."all giraffes must be leashed" would be confusing in a dog park but this is exactly what you propose. Buy rant on, you won't change a thing
You clearly haven’t read the Unbirn Victims of Violence Act, a federal law that recognizes children in utero at any stage of development as human beings. Thus also recognizing them as persons. So..... where does biology define a child? You failed to answer the basic question.
Pathetic spin tactic. Abortion is a homicide. It is an important first admission for the pro abortion delusional crowd.
[/QUOTE] Yes, it did. Read the act for cryin out loud. The language “child in utero at any stage of development “ comes straight from the law itself. Can’t weasel out of this one. the exception for abortion just bolsters my point. There would be no need for the exception if it isn’t a homicide.
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, they did NOT....and you cannot show where in that act they did. However they DO have a clause especially saying that the UVVA has no connection or ruling over abortion laws. Yes, it did. Read the act for cryin out loud. The language “child in utero at any stage of development “ comes straight from the law itself. Can’t weasel out of this one. the exception for abortion just bolsters my point. There would be no need for the exception if it isn’t a homicide.[/QUOTE] The act referred to a "child in utero " , it did not, and cannot make a fetus into a legal person. You mistake the need for the clause. It wasn't needed in reference to whether it was homicide or not....it was meant to show that it had no standing on abortion laws.. BTW, how many women who had abortions have been prosecuted under the UVVA ???
You could NOT answer: How? declare marshall law? Trump dictates to the Supreme Court what their decision is without anyone presenting a case? How is RVW going to be overturned?
No n No need. I like living in a country that protects life . I am not the one pushing a right to kill.
The act referred to a "child in utero " , it did not, and cannot make a fetus into a legal person. You mistake the need for the clause. It wasn't needed in reference to whether it was homicide or not....it was meant to show that it had no standing on abortion laws.. BTW, how many women who had abortions have been prosecuted under the UVVA ??? [/QUOTE] Well there is a specific exception for abortion, otherwise many would have been. The exception itself proves the homicide argument.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yup, when it's "in utero"....and the UVVA says nothing different. Obviously you only see what you want to see and don't let facts get in your way. HOW many women have been charged with murder under the UVVA ?
FoxHastings said: ↑ You could NOT answer: How? declare marshall law? Trump dictates to the Supreme Court what their decision is without anyone presenting a case? How is RVW going to be overturned? Including me.... nice attempt at avoiding the questions....(expected) ...and you can't tell me WHAT will be in their case against RvW…. HOW many women have been charged with murder under the UVVA ?
So the country you are in protects "life"...it has no wars ? You ARE the one pushing to have women's right to their own bodies eliminated….which is NOT protecting life and has nothing to do with this country and it's platform of Freedom and Liberty for ALL.. HOW many women have been charged with murder under the UVVA ?