As you well know the Constitution does not support yor assertion, quite the contrary, so why do you chuz to lie about it?
More of your playground antics? Haven't you learned yet? You assert something YOU have to prove it, although I do not expect you to prove anything anytime soon...
These guys agree with you. They also see the light at the end of the tunnel is a TRAIN coming right at them (you?) [video=youtube;-YqY9Dtx7Mk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YqY9Dtx7Mk[/video] I love how they (like you) are trying to have it both ways by playing with the personhood and human rights of the children killed. The charges are MURDER. The definitions of MURDER acknowledge the personhood (and the rights) of the PERSON killed.
Yes and no. Roe never said that prenatal children are not persons. The Supreme Court under Roe only said that it had not been established YET by any of the States (that a prenatal child is a person) and that it would be a much harder case for the pro-aborts to argue - if any State had established the personhood of prenatal children. Guess what? The UVVA (a Federal Law) has since been passed - which does exactly that^ - by doing two things. 1. It defines a child in the womb AS A CHILD / Human Being in ANY stage of development. and... 2. By making it a crime of MURDER to illegally kill one. Sooner or later, the two (Roe v Wade and the UVVA) will have to be revisited by the Supreme Court. Ready or not.
A closer reading, if you did not already do so, clearly and beyond any doubt does establish that "person" has no pre-natal application. In light of that you claim is at best uninformed or outright disingenuous. That is another uninformed assertion. If in fact that law did establish personhood for the fetus, it would apply universally and I am certain you will agree that it does not apply universally. If it does no apply universally then what good is it to claim so, other than willful misrepresentation in an attempt to establish a fallacy as fact? When do you expect that to take place or why has it not already happened?
[video=youtube;WWNi2txEMG8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWNi2txEMG8[/video] Have you read the language of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? I'm only one man - doing what only one man can do.
True. But what about those who have not been acquited for the murder of a child in the womb? How do those cases not support our arguments that a child in the womb is a legal 'person?'
Why do you think these laws always have an exception for abortion? The purpose of the laws is not to define fetal personhood and grant it rights, the purpose of these laws is to protect PREGNANT WOMEN from violence and pro-birth lunatics who would otherwise try to manipulate the laws to achieve their own agendas. These laws have to not only protect women from forced abortion/miscarriage due to violent actions of others but they must also protect them from pro-birthers who want to force them to give birth through manipulation of the legal system. Why do they always make an abortion exception to fetal homicide laws? Because the fact remains, a woman is the only one who can determine whether or not she can or wants to keep her pregnancy and nobody may force her to do otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
All they support is that they followed the law to a T. They may charge people who force women to abort/miscarry against their wills with homicide but they may not as per their very clear exceptions in the law, charge the pregnant woman herself with homicide/murder for having an abortion by her own choice.
You continue to post this cherry picked edited video which in truth misrepresents the actually account of the discussion. Have you, because you always conveniently leave out some very relevant parts. I believe in another thread you stated you have been doing this for around 20 years, exactly what have you (as in the group) achieved in that time . .abortion is still as legal as it was 40 years ago, the only "progress" that has been made is through TRAP laws .. just how much longer will you (as in the group) wait?
At best your lack of response is a cop out and an admission of your error. In the interest of civil discussion I would have hoped for your reply in your own words. I have otherwise I would not have made my remarks. Why are you again avoiding an honest answer? Most men I know have the decency to answer questions when asked especially in a place such as this forum where discussion is the intended purpose. Perhaps that is not your goal, but that only leaves more questions one being why are you not discussing a topic about which you clearly feel strongly?
We've been through this. The full text doesn't change any of the key points of the issue - quoted in that video. Why would I link to it - if that were the case? Those laws bring us closer and closer to a challenge to Roe. I've already accepted that it may not happen in my life time. However, with each and every case like the ones against Scott Peterson, Ariel Castro, the guy who tricked his GF into an abortion, etc... Our case for the 'personhood' rights of prenatal children grows stronger and stronger. I have to be satisfied with that.
If I gave you my opinions, you would then attack me for a lack of evidence or proof. I encourage you to look for the answers to your questions in the facts - not in my opinions.
It is not my intention to attack anything, merely to separate fact from fiction to the best that can be done here. You stated that: "Roe never said that prenatal children are not persons." That is a statement of fact not an opinion. I have disputed that and when you were faced with your error you resorted to evasion. I have, but I would like to point out that the purpose of discussion is to compare opinions based on facts, preferably in a frank and open manner. You seem to shy away form that when opinions you wish to pass as facts turn out to be just that, opinions.
That is your opinion. Probably because you are hoping that some people won't actually check the link. and the only way you can achieve it is through underhand, gutter tactics and probably not in a number of lifetimes if ever for as long as the exclusions exist in the UVVA it will never be enough to challenge Roe, in order for it to do that your would have to get them removed . .to do that you would have to directly challenge Roe and the constitution. Add to that-that you would also have to challenge "deadly force" law
Okay, so we have a difference of opinions. Why then, would I post multiple links to the material? Opinion ^ Well, that's been my choice. You are "pro-choice" aren't you? Why do you feel a Supreme Court Justice - when deciding a case (an appeal) - where a person was convicted of MURDER for killing a child in the womb.... would prohibit THEMSELVES from considering that definition in that or in any other case? That is one of the things the SCOTUS is for. Isn't it? Have to? I don't think the SCOTUS "has to" do anything of the sort.
How do cases in which women have been killed, beaten, or otherwise victimized strengthen your case for forcing women to give birth against their will? And btw, you might want to tone down your obvious excitement about the prospect of more such cases.
I am amazed by thinking that wants young women to die in Back alley's, after botched abortions ,and the Police hunting down Doctors and jailing them ,for being Doctors. How, dare you question the Wisdom and HUMAN cultural Practice ,RIGHT BACK to the Earliest times, called abortion ,if Stone age women had the right ,then why not modern women . Talk about taking women's rights away ,what's wrong with you, Abortion is never a Decision of Convenience , for any Female. Even though I would defend it even on that basis ,WOMEN have the Right to decide! The reason for the decision is irrelevant to the RIGHT to Decide.
You seem to think that our laws against fetal homicide are based solely upon the crime against their mothers. And they aren't. Especially when the mother's themselves can be (and have been) charged with violating their own prenatal children's rights. See crimes against self abortions, drug use during pregnancy, etc. Now, you can argue that (for now) those prosecutions are rare and extremely difficult to prove - especially since abortion itself is still legal. But, if you can objectively think beyond that - you can see that with each case that can be brought, the merits are established that makes the next case that much less complicated. And with abortion's banned on the basis that they would violate the rights of the child aborted? You should be able to see it would be an even easier case to prove. Children are gaining the equal protections of our laws. Why would that not be something to get excited about?
