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

Rational thought is "twisting and misrepresenting"? Its no wonder nobody can follow your illogical irrational posts here.

 

I am under no obligation to do any such thing. I asked you to show me where the law prohibits prosecution in such an instance. You cannot. I know why, because it does not. End of story.

My hypothetical a real life situation and the law does not prohibit prosecution in such an instance, so your argument is defeated. If a woman left a contract as you state, it would have no affect. The abortion had not yet taken place, so there would be no exception. The law itself says nothing at all about the woman's wishes, only that if she committed an abortion that act would not be prosecuted under this law.


Your "secondly" comment is wrong. No assumption is made as to what her desire would have been because it doesn't matter. If the child was killed by a party other than his/her mother, the crime is prosecutable. Furthermore, if the mother beats herself up to the point of killing her child in utero, but not herself, she would be prosectable because that homicide was not an abortion, and abortion is the only exception.

Also the law is only concerned with whether or not the child in utero is alive at the time of the crime, so no assumption is made there as far as whether it is a "good pregnancy" or not.

 

That would be your realm of course.

 

di you ever go to a fetus shower have you ever asked an expected mother when her fetus due date was?

 

Of course you aren't ... because you know there isn't one.

If its a real life situation than provide evidence to support it, should be no trouble for you if it a real life situation.

Prove that a contract would have no affect
Prove there is no exception

Not just abortion, you need to read the law.

Erm, yes it is, and no abortion is not the only exception, you really need to read it

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— of any woman with respect to her unborn child

The assumption is and has been that ALL pregnancies are wanted, that is the failing of the law.

 

(I love that icon) ...

Ya the old "Trite but Not Bright" semantics crap.

So all expectant women are now supposed to use scientific terms for their pregnancy and everybody else has to call it what they want?

Read slowly...NO, I don't think so.

 

. If she killed them when they were in the fetus stage the end result would be same. Those seven individuals would be dead. Why is it hard for you to realize that?

 

you don't to get to change the publics definition of a baby so you are able to sleep at night

 

Why is it hard for you to realize I do realize that....

- - - Updated - - -

In law and science the "public's" definition doesn't matter....and what any of that has to do with my sleep is mystifying...

 

So with the end result being the same---the same individuals killed----why is killing 7 newborns not the same as killing 7 fetuses?

 

and do you know the difference between an informal use of a word and the correct use of a word .. obviously not.

 

Which is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law, and no I am not saying that the law is right (or wrong for that matter) and of course there are numerous medical differences between a newborn and a fetus.

 

The 'publics' definition is 100% irrelevant when it comes to law and science.

and let us not be fooled by this, pro-lifers have only one reason to use the word 'baby' for the unborn and that is in the hope of projecting a nice warm, fuzzy, cuddle baby image onto others .. yet another lie used.

 

There are numerous medical differences between a newborn and a 10 year old. So...not relevant. What is true....and relevant---is that the end result is absolutely the same. If someone is killed while a fetus, newborn or 10 year old---that individual is simply dead and gone no matter what stage it happened..

 

Because a fetus is a fetus and not a newborn and a newborn is a newborn and not a fetus and here we go round and round....

 

. Yes and a 10 yr old isn't a newborn. But no matter what stage of life they are the same individual.

 

Ya, so?

 

Really then list them.

 

http://firstlook.pnas.org/making-sense-of-babies-brains/
http://10e.devbio.com/article.php?id=126

Pretty obvious there are medical/biological differences. Do you demand more or is this good enough?

 

If the woman or man involved had used more reliable birth control, the individual would never exist. Same end result. BTW, a fetus is not an individual, it is attached to the pregnant woman. It is that attachment that the woman has a right to end, not the life of another. Once detached, an individual exists and has a right to continued existence since it is existing on its own biological resources.

 

The most obvious difference between a fetus and a baby is that one is inside the womans body, completely dependent on her resources and the other is not. What you are really saying is that the woman is irrelevant.

 

The mother of course...is very relevant.

 

non proven theory

minor compared to the differences between a fetus and a baby

1st one is a theory and thus not proof, second one shows minor differences .. in no way enough to state that they are 'medically/biologically" different.

 

Ok, well its funny that you find it so important to debate. I'm ok with you not seeing medical/biological differences between a newborn and a 10 year old.

 

why else would someone be on a debating forum?

Then you are misrepresenting what I said.