What is it?

I would like to point out rule 4 to you;

4. HARRASSMENT, BAITING, TAUNTING

Stalking or harassing other members is forbidden, whether in the public forums, through PMs, or in social groups or albums. If you don't like someone, leave them alone or put them on ignore. Any attempts to bait or taunt another poster will be considered infractions, including posters who are banned from the forum or banned from a thread, and thus unable to reply. This includes quoting other members in your signature without permission, or mischaracterizing their statements by quoting them and changing the quotes. Disclosing personal or confidential information about other posters or staff - including but not limited to personal identities - or disclosing confidential communications may be considered harassment.

Your signature is in violation of this rule.

 

...of course a sociopath would think human life is nothing special.

 

I think you are blaming myself and maybe others for your own inability to prove your points.

Show me where I have evaded anything you said. Indeed, anyone who bothers to scroll back and review our exchanges will see that I not only respond to your 'points' - I most often do do so by quoting text of yours that I am responding to. Just as I am now.

In many cases, yes.

People get away with murder sometimes. That's a fact. (i.e. O.J. Simpson)

I am not going to concede a point that I have never argued.

If you can show me where I have ever said that a person is guilty just because they are charged with a crime?

Please do, or at least admit that your assumptions about that were incorrect.

One case is all it takes to show that convictions are possible and like you said, you already know of one.

Why is it you feel I should look for more?

How many more will it take for you to admit that convictions are possible? That the law is sound?

That's interesting and all but I have not been making a case for the strength of any laws. (despite your effort to bait me into doing so)

We are going in circles.

Do you agree that a person (under the UVVA) can be charged with and convicted of a crime against a prenatal child -WITHOUT it being a lesser charge than were the crimes against the child's mother?

Yes or no?

I was not arguing that he was.

I only offered that case to show you that an alleged perpetrator doesn't even have to charged with crimes against the mother - in order to be charged with and (conceivably) convicted of crimes against her prenatal child.

You still haven't conceded that point.

Your anecdotal evidence aside, you already have (as you say) at least once case which already proves against your own claim - that the crime against the child is always a lesser crime.

So, in your view.... no-one ever 'gets away with murder' because unless they are tried and convicted of the murder.... the murder never even happened.

Is that correct?

I never mentioned or attempted to argue the strength of any of the laws I cited.

Show me where I have.

If that was your point you should have made as clear as that in the beginning of our discussions on it instead of here and this late into it.

As I never said otherwise to any of that, you are beating a dead (straw) horse.

By admitting that you have found (at least) one case where thee conviction has stood, You have also admitted that convictions are possible.

You just don't like the fact that they are possible.

And again, I was never EVER arguing about the strength of the law. In fact, I said that I agreed with the National Right to Life in their articleabout how difficult it would be to enforce. Remember?

I'm sure you think so.

When the debate is over what the personhood status is of a prenatal child and what charges can be brought for violating said child.... tell me.

What other laws matter?

Census taking?

You seem to think we want to avoid that clash and we don't.

Those are just a couple examples of the opinions that will likely be over-ruled when the SCOTUS finally reconciles the language of the UVVA against Roe.

I don't know that your numbers are correct, Fugazi but you are missing the point.

It only takes ONE to prove what I said was factual. The UVVA does not require more serious charges be brought against the perp for violating the woman and lesser charges for violating the child (as you claim). The UVVA doesn't require any charges (or convictions) for crimes against the mother in the case at all. In fact, (whether it has been yet or not) the UVVA can be used to prosecute a mother for crimes against he own prenatal child. That's a fact that you (and others) continue to ignore.

And... If you could ask them, I am positive they would all agree that the SCOTUS can choose to revisit Roe (or any other past ruling) at anytime of their own choosing.

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act creates the legal precedent and a legality - that a human child in the womb is a 'human being' and that the illegally killing of one is a crime of MURDER.

True or false?

The UVVA had to make an exception in order to keep abortions legal.

True or false?

 

and so was Jim crow laws. does that mean they was right and should have never changed ?

 

Do I have to?

The article also shows HOW the challenges to Roe are going to come about.

Our lawmakers are going to continue to expound on the definitions and the language of the UVVA with State's laws and personhood amendments.

We are going to keep pushing until we can get those laws before the SCOTUS to challenge and eventually to overturn Roe.

You probably already knew that though.

Maybe.

This thread is about whether or not a human fetus is a child / person or not.

What's your answer to the question again?

 

I think you misread Sam's post.

He was talking about adoption... not abortion.

One would be much more comparable to Jim Crow laws than the other would be.

 

yep my bad. that's what I get for not having my glass on

 

Better ask one and find out then.

 

up to you, no one forces you to say anything to me.

and as stated until that happens it is all still hypothetical and opinion, and I'm sure you will keep pushing these laws probably under the same pretense as the UVVA being about protecting pregnant women ie being dishonest . .some you will win, some you will lose.
I still say that even if it did mange to get before SCOTUS the result would be little different from the original decision.

Then you need to re-read the OP, the thread was about whether the zef was a human or not - The real question behind the abortion debate is: What is it?
When asking this question, every other controversy becomes irrelavant. Is the embryo or fetus a human or not? If it is, then abortion must be wrong. If it's not, then abortion must be right.

The answer I would give is that the zef is human(adj)

 

We are going to take Roe v Wade down by doing exactly that which the Supreme Court said would have to be done.

>>>Insult Removed<<<

[video=youtube;mdKEPEiNxDI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKEPEiNxDI[/video]

Kinda like that^.

I'll take that bet.

Nice dodge.... but you didn't fully answer.

No-one expected you to deny that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is 'human.'

So, I'll as you MORE directly...

"Is a human being in the fetal stage of their life A human being? "

Or not?

 

Projection

Lets see something along the lines of "don't know, don't care"

That is just opinion, at the end of the day he was found not guilty regardless of the media court.

You never argued it because it shows the weakness in your assertion, being charged with a crime is irrelevant, it is being convicted that matters.

That case is still seeking appeals, so don't count your chickens before they hatch.

what you call baiting others call expanding the context of the argument . .try it sometime.

Only in very isolated cases of which the majority have been overturned due to the incorrect interpretation of said law, and the real sad part on your side is that the single case talked about here, the woman was not even charged under ANY UVVA type laws, she was charged with child neglect, the other sad thing about this case was in the years following the courts decision the infant mortality rate increased for the first time after a decade of steady decline, showing that these witch hunts do nothing but scare women away from seeking treatment and in fact endanger more of the unborn than before, but there again that really isn't the real agenda of pro-lifers and yes that is an opinion.

and you still haven't conceded the point that these types of charges are for the most part being dropped due to the incorrect interpretation of the law used.

Apart from the fact that the woman in that case was charged under child neglect laws and not UVVA type laws, the exact charge was "In 1992, Respondent Cornelia Whitner was charged with criminal child neglect because she had a drug addiction problem while she was pregnant."

That is not what I said and you know it.

If a person is tried and found not guilty of the alleged crime it does not mean the crime was not committed, it means the person charged for that crime has been found innocent .. it doesn't matter if you think the person is guilty the fact remains that the evidence was not over whelming enough to convince a jury and is therefore an unsafe prosecution.

That is all you have done all the way through, you are stating that the charge is enough to show that the law is sound, when in reality it is not.

I did.

Then you must concede the point that a charge under a wrongfully interpreted law is not really a sound charge.

Except as already shown the one conviction still standing was a conviction under child neglect and not a UVVA type law.
You just don't like the fact that there has never been a conviction of this type solely under UVVA type laws.

I know so

Except the debate is over whether a zef is human or not, not over the personhood . .try again.

Then please hurry up and bring it to SCOTUS so it can be quashed.

In your opinion.

Except that one wasn't about UVVA type laws, and as it stands the UVVA CANNOT be used to prosecute a woman for crimes against her unborn child. Remember section c -

(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.

Only if the relevant case that directly challenges Roe reaches them, and they have already declined to do so in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

 

for the purpose of that law yes, not for any other law.

The exception was made in order to allow the law to pass, if it had not been in there the law would have been found to be unconstitutional.

 

That is your opinion you are welcome to it.

No

 

Fugazi said what?

[video=youtube;k9nkDw6dxkI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9nkDw6dxkI[/video]

Tell are there any other stages in a human being's development where they are not human beings?

(oh my sides)

 

Yep.

Denial is the "drug of CHOICE."

Even our paternity laws are based upon the biological fact that "conception" is when the child's life begins and it's also when parenthood actually begins.

Think about it.

What more than having sex with a woman - does a man do to become a biological father?

Nothing.

His job is over when the sex is over and if the sperm and egg unite? ( conception) - he's the father and probably on the hook for at least 18 years.

It's too bad that society is able to fool themselves into thinking that's not the case.

I wonder if they can even admit it to themselves.

Maybe.

I try to not make it about the person though. We can't afford to waste time making it about the persons involved in the debate.

To me that's counter productive to the cause.

I understand that we are only human and not machines.... I get caught up in it too sometimes. But, I try to remind myself it's not about the persons.

I've been at this for a long time. Long enough to see the groundwork laid for the eventual overturning of Roe. I guess I have mellowed and have learned a few things along the way.

I wasn't always this nice. <--- Those were the days!

 

wowza to the link&#8230;now thats more my style

 

Did you catch the year?

LOL

 

They are always human(adj) beings but not always a human(noun) person. Just because you have the opinion of no difference between the two does not mean your interpretation is correct.

 

Seems you still have a lot to learn about debating.

Statement is made - "human life is not special"
counter statement is made - "yes it is"
Following statement to counter - "Ok if you think it is please prove it is"

Standard stuff really, what you should have done was ask me why I think human life is not special and/or ask for evidence/proof it is not . .sorry you were so wrapped up in your emotive need to respond that you did not take the opportunity to question why I made the comment.

You need to learn the definition of what trolling is

You asked for evidence of my published works, I gave that in a way that did not expose my real name - I have no wish to be stalked by rabid pro-lifers - I then posted a poem by me, if you choose not to believe it was written by me that is your right.
Would you provide proof of your qualifications or achievements if it meant exposing your real details .. if so then pleased do so.

you didn't corner me at all, the poem has not been published and the two awards it won were both presented by closed specialist groups, that information was freely given the fact you ignore it only shows that you are more interested in me personally than the arguments.

You could have, what stopped you.

Look up what a tree is, then look up what a pre-differation blastocyst is.

Tell me Doc is an acorn an oak or is an acorn a potential oak
Tell me Doc is an egg a chicken or is an egg a potential chicken

Which is closer to the reality?

sorry that sentence doesn't make any sense.

If you say so, and if it really does seem that ridiculous to you then you always have the option of ignoring it, yet here you are some 100 posts later still involved.

 

The only hoops are the ones placed by people who want to interfere in the lives of others.

where did you read that .. no problem at all for me, and many other pro-choice people, to say an abortion kills the zef, in our opinion it is a justified killing in yours it is not.

Any one of the correct words used to describe the stages of pregnancy will do .. baby however isn't one of them.

and you know this because you can read minds .. neat trick you have.

not a mother until the birth, just because a woman with a WANTED pregnancy calls it a 'baby' and herself a 'mother' doesn't mean she is right. The opposite is also true, a woman with an UNWANTED pregnancy will refer to the zef as 'it' and never consider herself a 'mother' (unless she already has born children).
I find it amazing that pro-lifers assume that all women who find themselves pregnant are dancing around whooping for joy and if they don't they must have some sort of mental problem, pro-lifers cannot see that for some women becoming pregnant has a profoundly negative impact on their mental state .. This stems from the overtly positive attitude to pregnancy displayed in the courts and the media, they fail to address the negative elements.

In a purely strict sense after the birth - Mother - a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother

In a more liberal sense a woman who conceives a wanted pregnancy may also consider herself a 'mother', a woman who conceives an unwanted pregnancy most certainly does not consider herself a 'mother', so which do you want to use the strict definition of the word or one that suits your preconceived opinion.

already said it in this post and if you care to search you will see I and others have said it numerous times. Here it is again for you - an abortion kills the zef.

The absurdness of the conversations is only due to the fact that you cannot allow yourself to look at the argument from a different perspective, the question is why is that?

a zef

only in the fantasy world occupied by pro-lifers.

Projection .. you might be a man living with the guilt of forcing a woman to give birth for all I know, and now its turned into a crusade to justify your actions .. works both ways this projection thing.

 

One bit of advice.

When you have made your point and you know that you have proved your point... Move on!

You only have a certain amount of time in your life and every second you waste comes off the end.

 

well as pointed out in another thread in answer to you…


you teach me why human life is not special…
please…
you seem to have me at an advantage…

all this banter is fun i agree…but teach me..show my why human life is not special..

after all you are the only one to introduce this fact!!!
no one else here is supporting your fact…

teach us…

at least i gave an opinion…
so the ball is in your court…
tell us why the human being is not special

 

i will return here once you tell us why the human being is nothing special…


then we can discuss the banter you use to dance around what fact you put forth ….

teach us…
why are human beings nothing special

 

yes indeed&#8230;.

lol&#8230;

but there is a plethora of people reading this stuff..
if they see the likes of fugazi saying over and over that human beings are not special&#8230;then putting the ball in our court to prove this sociopathetic behaviour online..where would we be eh&#8230;

the likes of fugazi get to debase humanity to the level off tossing human beings away like wrapping paper..
i bet fugazi has more respect for her goldfish than human beings...