7 Dead Babies Found in Home, Any different than Abortion really?

OK, I posted the relevent posts so we can follow along.

You posted and I agreed.....not sure what your """" no, a fetus prior to about 10 weeks has never shown self-awarness.
the part of the brain required to have it hasn't even developed at that point "" has to do with it...

 

The law does agree with that currently. Educate yourself! Read the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) and maybe you will understand. It is a CURRENT FEDERAL LAW!

Where did the homicide case come from? Conner Peterson, lacy and Scott's son was a victim of homicide, yet he was a fetus right? Where does your denial come from?

- - - Updated - - -

Your Google skills SUCK!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ212/pdf/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

The decision to commit the homicide?

- - - Updated - - -

Its is a wildly popular law as most decent people don't want murderers who kill pregnant women to get away with it

 

My google skills may suck, but your lack of understanding laws seems to know no bounds.
What was the reason for the fetus in the peterson case was ruled a homicide? Oh yeah, the mother declared a wanted fetus. You know, a woman's choice.
But I'm quite sure this will fly over the head.

 

But the murderer if caught is already going to jail for murdering the woman to begin with. A judge is already going to be considering the fact that she was pregnant.

What this law does is absolutely nothing. It's symbolic and exclusively intended as a springboard to challenge Roe. It did not introduce anything that wasn't already happening. Any harm to a fetus done by another person would already have resulted in charges against that person.

 

There's no making you understand this because your so deeply rooted in your beliefs, if you were presented with rational facts, you'd most likely continue to deny it anyway.

 

So you admit that an abortion is a homicide then? Whether the mother wants the child or not has nothing to do with whether or not the child is a human being.

 

NOPE! An assault on he mother could kill the unborn child, so the killer would not have to kill the mother to be guilty of the homicide of the baby.
But he will still be guilty of the murder of the unborn child.

You guys are bringing a spitball straw to a gun fight. Your arguments are pathetic.

 

Making me understand what? Your arguments are irrational and inconsistent with the facts. An abortion is clearly a homicide, because the UVVA says a child in utero can be murdered, and the guilty party charged with an illegal homicide. Whether the mother wants the child is irrelevant to whether or not the child is a person or human being.

 

and whether the fetus is legally a human being or not has little relevance on the legality of abortion. I know all pro-lifers like to live in that fantasy land of overturning Roe and abortions being illegal .. shame is though that Roe is not the only legal reasoning for abortion any more.

I would spell it out for you, but I know your operandi modus and so won't waste my time with someone who isn't really interested in anything other than the sound of their own voice (metaphorically that is).

 

Lets see now, and I'll type it really slowly for you.

These 7 babies were BORN and of course there is the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ207/html/PLAW-107publ207.htm which Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Many have tried, but lets get real, you don't want to understand.

You answered you own question.

 

Entirely needless. The law has only been used 3 times to charge someone since it's inception in 2004.

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews....-death-of-unborn-child-under-nrlc-backed-law/

The man in the story, if you care to read it, would have faced charges regardless of UVVA.

The law exists entirely to satisfy pro-life folks and to be used as a future foundation for a ROE challenge.

 

Actually baby is a medical term used to refer to a human being from birth to approx one year old, therefore you are wrong.

Then why don't you use them instead of trying to promoting emotional overtones, is you argument not strong enough to stand without it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope the proper term is murder.

 

It partially about choice, there are other elements.

It is her choice up to the point that the fetus is no longer attached to her, once it is born, whether naturally or through other means she has no reason to do anything to it as it is no longer physically effecting her body ... no different to the right you have, if you are being injured do you have the right to defend yourself or not?

Do you have the right to refuse to donate your body, or parts there of, to another in order to sustain their life, can you be legally forced to hand over a pint of blood, a kidney etc.

 

Thank you; you just made my point. I want you to think about this very carefully when I tell you this: I never gave you my viewpoint on abortion in the first place.

 

Problem is you are not really using logic, logic would want to know what the odds are on a woman requesting an abortion just before birth taking place and the odds of a woman killing her newborn, I would summarize that it would be such a low figure as to render it irrelevant .. or if you prefer your question is nothing more than Reductio ad Absurdum

 

One step at a time, we need to first draw some honesty out of the so called "choicers", having them admit that abortion is a homicide, because it obviously is.

 

and who is saying the fetus is her body - making things up again I see - the choice is whether she allows a foreign body to attach itself to her and use her resources to sustain its life, what is so 'stupid' about that, it is after all the exact same right you have to decide who, what, where and when you body is used to aid another, are you implying that-that right is stupid, or is it just when it comes to pregnant women its stupid.

 

Absolutely agree, why does age matter .. so let all those 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, year old have sex, drink, watch porn .. after all "why does age matter"

 

What difference does "BORN" make? Even Roe admits that being born isn't a reasonable threshold. SOmehow I think Slow is the only way you can do anything.

- - - Updated - - -

The overwhelming majority of people disagree with you!

 

You are completely incorrect. Baby is NOT a medical term, it is a slang term for a young child, and it is apled commonly to the unborn as well as the born.

 

What is an "overwhelming majority"?

 

So you want to allow mothers to kill their 3,4,5 8 or 10 year old children at will?

 

A legal homicide IF you adhere to a fetus being a 'person' that is .. still haven't seem a decent argument for that.

 

Why don't you tell me what difference it doesn't make.

If you actually did think it would be a start.

You do realize of course that Roe doesn't actually set any legal time limit on abortion don't you .Off topic comment Deleted

 

quoting the law to justify the law.