The Media will never report this, and the left will never admit it, but...

So a disabled old person could place these same pressures on his/her caregiver, why not allow it in those cases if that is your rationale?

Foxhastings

The law regularly takes away from people the ability to decide to kill another human being. Is that taking away that person's right? We have an obvious right to commit homicide it appears, from what you posted.

 

I disagree. She lost because she was a crap candidate with a history of corruption, a current history of complete carelessness and lack of concern about proper procedures with classified and sensitive information, she and her campaign manager colluded with the DNC and media to pump up Trump under the belief she could beat him easier than any other candidate, and she has a long history of lying, changing position, not being likable, and just being a disgusting person in how she treats others, from the Secret Service to staffers to military members and others behind the scenes. There's a lengthy list of why she lost and that list touched a whole bunch of Americans and patriots who don't agree with her views.

 

Yet she was leading in EVERY poll leading up to that debate?????????

 

You believed them? Seriously...there was plenty of info available to show you they skewed the polls by skipping entire demographic groups. The MSM polls were BS and they chose to instead believe them right up to her losing. It came as a shock because even the people on TV paid to spout those fake numbers didn't know they were faked by the agencies they work for. Did you really not know? Why would you believe them on that issue when they've been shown to lie to you from so many different angles?

 

Well I guess you have a point there.

 

What ARE you babbling about and who are you addressing in post 76??? Doofenshmirtz or me.....sheesh...

 

Well, since Roe v. Wade came first and declares that a fetus is not a "person", it looks like, -at least according to you, -that the UVVA is not valid.

You seem to.

The U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The UVVA is actually about increasing penalties for an assailant when a pregnant woman is the victim.

"Homicide" has a legal definition. It is "the killing of a human being by another human being". So what is a "human being"? It is "human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Also "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section."

So a fetus, not yet having been born alive, is not a "human being" or a "child" according to law.

 

The law specifically disassociates abortion and homicide.

"Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637.html


"the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

 

Bless your heart, if you can't figure that out....never mind.

 

It does not! It clearly shows that the killing of a child in utero at any stage of development is the killing of a human being, which is the definition of homicide. The law provides an exception for abortion, which wouldn't be necessary if abortion wasn't a homicide. The exception was a political move to get it past abortion promoter legislators.

The Cornell definition has nothing to do with anything. This law specifically protects children in utero at any stage of development. And it further states that killing them is a homicide. Actual language of the law:

" 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, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

 

So how many have you adopted?

 

Clearly I did not, since I am pointing out the contradiction in the UVVA that allows a woman to commit homicide of her unborn child, but nobody else can wantonly kill the child.

- - - Updated - - -

Divert and deflect, the first sign you have nothing of substance to respond with and you have lost the debate.

 

GOOD post! There are some posters here who need this information but will ignore it....

 

You are the one avoiding the question. I have not debated you on the issue because I had to establish your position first. You have dodged my question enough times for me to assume that you have not adopted any of these precious lives you claim to care about. So, your position is "I care, but very little"

Now that your position is revealed, we can debate if you wish. Here is my position:

I believe abortion is wrong. Unwanted pregnancy should be prevented and women facing this choice should receive counseling and should consider putting the child up for adoption. The problem is that there not enough people willing to take on the responsibility.

If you are not willing to adopt, you are part of the problem and are not in a position to tell others what to do.

 

You are quite ridiculously absurd here. It is not reasonable to require someone to assume responsibility for every person they oppose the wanton killing of.

 

And IF a fetus was a "person" that law wouldn't be needed......

- - - Updated - - -

No, but if they claim to be "Pro-LIFE then you'd think they care about ALL life not just that of a fetus....they DON'T.

 

Sure they do, you just take the typical leftist tack of demonizing the opposition in a debate when you get spanked one the subject matter. It is entertaining.

 

No, I stated facts that you can't refute


And IF a fetus was a "person" that law wouldn't be needed......[/B]





No, but if they claim to be "Pro-LIFE then you'd think they care about ALL life not just that of a fetus....they DON'T.

 

The actual wording of the law itself proves my points, you cannot refute any portion of the points I have made. You simply post nonsense that clearly shows you haven't even read the law you claim to know so much about. :ROFLOL:

 

No, you showed no proof that a fetus is a person with rights.


And IF a fetus was a "person" that law wouldn't be needed......

 

I actually did, you just refused to read the law, or maybe are incapable.

 

It looks like you are caught up with the "law" issue. Just for the sake of discussion, I will give you that. What now? Do laws prevent drug users from getting illegal drugs? What value would a law be to someone who plans on having an abortion? Even if the "Abortion police" catch her ans "bring her to justice" now what?

What realistic solutions have you offered? One would think that someone who is passionate about protecting human life would put some thought into these issues. Whenever I ask you what your plan is, I get radio silence. Why is that?

 

Murders happen all the time, so using your logic we should consider all murder laws failures and we should repeal them all. NOW do you see how horrifically flawed your logic is?

 

I READ the law....



Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

No, you showed no proof that a fetus is a person with rights. in that law


And IF a fetus was a "person" that law wouldn't be needed......

- - - Updated - - -

What realistic solutions have you offered? One would think that someone who is passionate about protecting human life would put some thought into these issues. Whenever I ask you what your plan is, I get radio silence. Why is that?

 

My logic would be flawed had I said that, but I didn't. My question will not go away no matter how much you try to avoid it. Other than inputting text on forums, what are you personally doing to protect these precious lives?