budafied

Just ignore that moron. You won't get anywhere with him, because he thinks he knows everything. If I'm wrong about Fetal Homicide Laws, then so is FindLaw.Com, ABCNews, FoxNews, CNN, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice Action Network, and Women's Rights. They all said the same thing I said: Fetal Homicide Laws establish fetal personhood. They all said it, plain as day, yet he claims different. He said precedent has not been set, yet federal courts have upheld these laws, and the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law declaring that life begins at conception. I have proven all of this, yet still he says I'm wrong. Why waste your time?

You're giving yourself a headache and you don't have to. He's a doctrinaire pro-abortionist; reason and common sense are foreign to him. I much prefer good, intellectual debate like I have with Rabbit. It's soooo much better than all the bickering.

http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/50580-why-do-males-have-abortion-opinion-495.html#post2243606

Check out my last post for some relevant info.

I understand that's what the law says, which is why, for days, my contention was that the law is self-defeating and contradictory, but according to the pro-choicers, it's not. I just can't understand their logic.

I enjoy debating issues, and abortion is one of my favorite issues to debate, although I wish debate wasn't required, but it becomes frustrating listening to the same inane arguments day after day after day.

Doesn't it ever (*)(*)(*)(*) you off?

I like your arguments, but I don't like that you don't acknowledge a few simple facts: 1). The law does recognize fetuses as "persons" via Fetal Homicide Laws. The problem, though, is that those laws exclude abortions. I have posted many of the laws, and they say exactly that; and 2). The legal definition of murder is not the unlawful killing of a person in the sense the pro-choice crowd uses it, but a human being; and 3). I have posted the legal definition of person for all to see, specifically because of the debate I was having with Flint at the time, and it says, very simply, that when used in statute, the term person is referring to natural persons, meaning simply human beings.

I'm not sure where the pro-choice crowd decided to hijack the term person and pretend that the definition of such is critical to the legality of abortion, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The majority opinion in Roe couldn't establish when a fetus becomes a human being, a person. But Fetal Homicide Laws do.

In fact, the majority opinion in Roe is contradicted by Fetal Homicide Laws:

If this suggestion of personhood [meaning, human being] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

Cornell Law

The very existence of Fetal Homicide Laws contradict Roe, because one must be a person in order to be murdered. This is what I've been attempting to argue, but to no avail.

Other than the 3/5 compromise, there has never been a time in American history where a group of people were recognized under the law as human beings in one instance, and not in another. It's so absurd, it's hardly believable.

I mention this because it seems all too often the pro-choice crowd wants to argue Constitutional Law to justify abortion.

In any event, keep up the good work.

I know he doesn't. But I have another rather convincing argument (document) should he come back with more nonsense.

i think all of your points were well made. you defend your position well. it adds to the level of the forum. i do believe you were right on when you said it was a personal decision to be for or against and not really related to church or it's views. that may have been the best statement in the thread.
a big thumbs up on that one.

one of the best actual debates i have had on the forum.

our debate in the thread about abortion has become very refreshing and good. i think good points have been made on both sides. it is nice to debate and not have to be on a constant defense. it is a pleasure to debate with you . thanks Katie

I have been on your side many years ago. I was a very hardcore pro lifer - even more prolife than you yourself. I know where you are coming from on the issue, having made all the arguments myself a long time ago. I ended up changing my mind a few years back. Was a fence sitter at first, then full on pro choice. I told Inferno that if the man is expected to keep it in his pants then maybe I should be pro life and say the same thing about women. Because the same arguments in favour of the man paying child support can be made against abortion. Since the woman has the choice, if she chooses to have the baby, she therefore chooses to be financially responsible for it. At least, thats the way I see it.

I hope we can agree to disagree on the issue - although we are in full agreement on one thing, at least!

Sometimes they don't get it. I completely understand where you are coming from, it isn't fair at all, and I don't think they realise that, or even care.