This is, of course, a silly question devoid of the specific circumstances of the specific act in question. As in any homicide case, the specific facts surrounding the specific case should be taken into consideration, that being said homicide laws should apply.
LOL...that's squirming... It's VERY specific...""woman who had an abortion and the abortion provider?""" Uh, if you are against abortion and think it's murder than what "specific circumstances " would there be? An abortion is an abortion.... ...and WHY AREN'T abortions being prosecuted if they are homicides???
So utilizing logic is "squirming" to you? Why am I not surprised? Once again (for the thousandth time) I have to educate you on what a homicide is. A homicide is the killing of one human being by one or more others. Now, where did you see in the definition that it includes legality as a qualifier?
You are 100% incorrect!!!!! It is the killing of one human being by another. That is the very definition of a homicide!
FoxHastings said: ↑ LOL...that's squirming... It's VERY specific...""woman who had an abortion and the abortion provider?""" UNANSWERED: Uh, if you are against abortion and think it's murder than what "specific circumstances " would there be? An abortion is an abortion.... ...and WHY AREN'T abortions being prosecuted if they are homicides??? So even though you claim abortion is homicide(it isn't) you don't think it's illegal....so I guess you would have no objections to abortion.... A fetus is NOT A human being....it is human(adjective) but NOT A (noun) human BEING as in legal person. So "homicide" does NOT apply to abortion.....which you think is legal
I have never seen someone who had to be taught the same thing this many times. It obviously has a lot to do with abortion since it is clearly the killing of one human being by another.
Once again, you are completely incorrect. The unborn victims of violence act establishes that a child in utero has human rights and is; therefore, a human being. This act could not provide the protections it does otherwise. So maybe this will help you understand, is a child a human being? If so, then a child in utero (since the last two words only describe where the child is and not what it is) is a human being clearly and without question! On the issue of what other circumstances could there be? There could be thousands of different circumstances as you already know. That is why people charged with homicide have the right to a trial. So the circumstances can be considered, whatever they may be. Now, stop being silly and make an attempt at a real rebuttal.
Nope, not a silly question. You are taking an ethical stance saying a fetus should have full human rights and ending that life is murder; therefore the murderer should have consequences that are equal to the crime. You seem to be a little unclear what that crime is with my "question devoid of the specific circumstances of the specific act in question". It is the planned termination of a pregnancy. Per your definition this would be premeditated murder which carries a sentence of no less than 25 years to life. Considering there has been roughly 1 million abortions per year since '73, there should be more than 25 million women in jail if we went by your standards (currently there are 2.3 million total incarcerated in US). Does that sound about right?
Ah see it is you who are actually confused here. There are varying degrees of murder and mostly the differentiation is based on......wait for it..........the circumstances surrounding that case! You make huge and irrational leaps to achieve what you claim my "logic" leads to. So, no nothing about your post sounds right.
No, a fetus is NOT a human being as in legal Person....and you have NEVER proven it is.... Have any women claimed their fetus as a tax deduction? IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have? WHY NOT?!! Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?
NO, it doesn't and you have NEVER shown where it does. Warning, this is science. There are stages in human development and your insisting that anything from conception on is a baby, a child , a teenager, an adult or whatever anyone feels like calling it is preposterous. NONE of which you could provide, not ONE. What circumstances would you think abortion is fine IF you think it's homicide? BUT people who have abortions are NOT going to trial....
Excuse my irrational leap, so what mitigating circumstances do you have in mind for this premeditated murder?
LOL, here's the part you conveniently ignored : IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have? WHY NOT?!! Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else?
NO, you haven't....you just repeat tripe about the UVVAQ which does NOT deem a fetus a legal person...
Ah but it obviously does. It cannot support prosecuting a fetal homicide unless it does. Logically you are defeated!
LOL, look up the definition in the dictionary. Oh and then look up the definition of opinion while you are at it. LOL
FoxHastings said: ↑ LOL, here's the part you conveniently ignored : IF a fetus has all the rights of a born person then don't you think it should have all the same RESTRICTIONS all born persons have? WHY NOT?!! Why do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else? More laughs....NO "Pro-Lifer "" has EVER replied to, or been able to answer that...they have all "gone away" when pressed....
Nobody wants to waste their time on an irrelevant red herring. But I'll play along for a few minutes. What restrictions does a newborn have that a child in utero does not have if protected (which it actually already is BTW)?
