I am completely educated on the subject. Now you should try getting up to speed. Abortion is a wanton homicide! Abortion should only be allowed in very limited situations! The primary argument put forth by abortion promoters is that the financial burden of a child justifies abortion. That is absurd! In no other instance anywhere in our society do we allow the killing of someone because of the financial responsibility they come with.
That is an emotional sentiment based on a religious belief which not even most Christians agree with entirely. No less an authority than Augustine of Hippo said that the soul was not implanted in the fetus until it was born, at least he did until the Church realized how much more easily they could oppress women by saying otherwise. In any case I am a secularist and do not believe in a soul so the question is moot IMO. Killing a human being in self-defense is justified anyway, and the fetus threatens the mother's life every moment of its existence inside her. If she wishes to accept the danger and keep it that is HER decision, NOONE else's
And WHO determines what those situations are ? You?!!! . NO, that is NOT the "primary argument"...that is FALSE. The primary argument is that women have rights....something Anti-Choicers HATE. There is no "someone" in an abortion... a fetus is not a legal person.... And when abortion is banned GEE, I'm sure you will happily pay more taxes to support the booming population of poor women and children....NOT.
Fetal homicide laws would bot exist if that were true!!! You simply cannot commit homicide against a non human being! Ok the primary argument is the child in utero is not a person, but that is easily debunked so they quickly move to the financial motive for the killing.
Then abortion isn't homicide NO, that is NOT the "primary argument"...that is FALSE. That is an uneducated opinion. The primary argument is that women have rights....something Anti-Choicers HATE.
On the contrary, we want female children in utero protected from slaughter too!!!! How ironic it is that the proponent of killing is trying to paint the lovers of life as haters!
FoxHastings said: ↑ Then abortion isn't homicide NO, that is NOT the "primary argument"...that is FALSE. That is an uneducated opinion. The primary argument is that women have rights....something Anti-Choicers HATE. No, you want women to be controlled like livestock and not allowed the right of bodily autonomy ...the right YOU enjoy! And how pathetic to twist the truth to further your agenda of destroying women's right...only those who hate women would do that..
Suggesting you can't have a law on killing a fetus unless the fetus gets called a "baby" is just plain pathetic logic. Texas had laws with severe penalties against killing a fetus during the commission of a crime, accident or other attack before Texas started pretending that a fetus was a child. Also, the OP is pathetic in that the woman was clearly counting on having a baby, and she lost that potential to a criminal act - a severe loss. But, attempting to represent that as a justification for pretending that a fetus is a person under our constitution is ridiculous.
There is no pretending a fetus is a child. It is obvious fact! Nobody, NOBODY, has challenged the constitutionality of the UVVA. The UVVA REPEATEDLY REFERS TO “ a child in utero at any stage of development” and recognizes human rights protections for these people, so you are clearly mistaken!
NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT deem anything a legal person...it does NOT have the legal authority. ANYONE can call a fetus whatever they care to (child, pumpkin, princess, watermelon, bun) ...it does NOT make them legal persons.
You seriously need to read it. You cannot read it and post what you post. “child in utero at any stage of development” So you are claiming that calling someone a child does not recognize that person’s personhood? OK, you do you. I’ll stick with logic and reason. It isn’t “anyone” it is the language contained within a federal law!
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT deem anything a legal person...it does NOT have the legal authority. ANYONE can call a fetus whatever they care to (child, pumpkin, princess, watermelon, bun) ...it does NOT make them legal persons. I did and I understood it. You cannot read it and post what you post. NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT deem anything a legal person...it does NOT have the legal authority. NOW YOU TELL ME WHAT AUTHORITY THE UVVA HAS TO CHANGE LAW. Since the UVVA became law CAN A FETUS GET A SSN ? OR BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS? NO. BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON. not so far... [/QUOTE] That law did NOT change a fetus to a person...and YOU CANNOT SHOW THEY DID. ANYONE can call a fetus whatever they care to (child, pumpkin, princess, watermelon, bun) ...it does NOT make them legal persons.
Terminology does not change reality. You can call a zygote an adult if you want. But, don't expect people or the law to believe you.
Your standards for what constitutes a “ person” are simply silly. That law did NOT change a fetus to a person...and YOU CANNOT SHOW THEY DID. ANYONE can call a fetus whatever they care to (child, pumpkin, princess, watermelon, bun) ...it does NOT make them legal persons.[/QUOTE]
Never called a zygote an adult! Nice strawman! the truth is that people have different descriptive words that people use to describe them at their various stages of life, but all are people. An infant, a toddler, an adolescent, an adult, a fetus, a senior citizen, etc…… But if you don’t like terminology, lets stick with biology. Every human being starts at conception.
If they were you would be able to refute them with something stronger and more factual than "simply silly"....very weak comeback...if a comeback at all Try showing actual proof of what you claim...for a change NOW YOU TELL ME WHAT AUTHORITY THE UVVA HAS TO CHANGE LAW. Since the UVVA became law CAN A FETUS GET A SSN ? OR BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS?
You missed the point. Zygotes are NOT people. They do not have constitutional rights, for example. You can CALL them whatever you want, but it doesn't make it so. A zygote is a potential human, but let's remember that IVF facilities discard zygotes in the course of business, and human bodies also do discard zygotes. Plus, we have freezers with human zygotes gradually rotting over time. Beyond that, you and a few legislatures have shown no recognition of the fact that a pregnancy can be a very serious threat to the life of the woman.
You are incorrect! The UVVA could not exist if that was true! it would be simply a property law, which it clearly is not!
FoxHastings said: ↑ If they were you would be able to refute them with something stronger and more factual than "simply silly"....very weak comeback...if a comeback at all Try showing actual proof of what you claim...for a change NOW YOU TELL ME WHAT AUTHORITY THE UVVA HAS TO CHANGE LAW. Since the UVVA became law CAN A FETUS GET A SSN ? OR BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS? DUHH, the UVVA is A law...not THE law of the land....seriously, you didn't know that? You think those who formed the UVVA are above Congress, the President and the Supreme Court !!!!! OHMYGAWD!!!!!! NOW YOU TELL ME WHAT AUTHORITY THE UVVA HAS TO CHANGE LAW. YOU HAVEN'T
From the UVVA: C) 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… for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section… (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. (d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” Apr. 1, 2004 - Unborn Victims of Violence Act
So section d. ( as shown in your post) Clearly demonstrates that what I have said is true! Now, what in there says a child in utero is not a person?
NOTHING says it is. (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;"" THAT SAYS IT ISN'T. You are dodging: NOW YOU TELL ME WHAT AUTHORITY THE UVVA HAS TO CHANGE LAW. YOU HAVEN'T
So the UVVA does not say that a human fetus is not a person. Glad you can see that! If a federal law recognizes a fetal human being as a “ child” , which also clearly indicates a human child is a person, then we have our answer. Clearly a child in utero at any stage of development is a legal person.
