Who Does The Government Think They Are Prohibiting Intentional killing?

Except that you cannot prove it was a politically motivated exception when the reality is that without that exception the law would not have passed (it would have been unconstitutional) and neither would it have had cross party support.

Yes the law does give personhood to the fetus for the purpose of that law and nothing else ie it is a judicial person, nothing more. Do you deny that the courts can basically call whatever they want a person for the sole reason of validating a specific law eg a business is a person for the laws that pertain to it.

Really, then please do post your facts to the matter. I have mine at hand if you are interested.

Yep a person by law for the purpose of that law, which had to be done because as you rightly say you cannot murder a non-person ergo the law creates a judicial person specifically for that law and nothing else in order for stricter sentences to be passed on those who kill or injure a pregnant woman with the outcome being the death of the fetus.

It is noticed that you didn't actually address the quote given, where it is only a separate crime "during the commission of a violent act against the mother", if as you erroneously assert UVVA type laws actual did recognise personhood for the fetus regardless, then it would be a crime regardless of any violent act against the female and as you well know that is not the reality, unless that is you can provide a single conviction of a person who has caused the death of a fetus where the female has consented .. I know you cannot.

So the only dishonesty here, or more probably a lack of knowledge, comes from you.

Science holds no fear for me, the fact is that you, yet again, have evaded dealing with the relevant facts .. but that is nothing new. Here it is again in case you somehow "missed" it the first time round

None of the above really matters very much, even IF a fetus at any stage of development were to be deemed a person then it is legally seen as the same as any other born person and as such it cannot use another persons body without their consent.

Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.
How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

now will you address the actual issues or evade yet again, I know which way I would bet .. Evasion.

 

Nope, because it specifically gives her a pass it gets around the fact that the fetus is a person. Logically, that was the purpose for the exception.
There are homicides that are not illegal, self defense, brain dead people on life support, etc, and now abortion is added to that list. State fetal homicide laws just further back that up.

Well actually wising up would lead to the public at large recognizing the personhood of children in utero, but you are incorrect in saying personhood has not always existed. It actually has, it just has not been recognized in a big way until the UVVA. Were black folks less than human when they were enslaved? Or was their humanity and personhood just not recognized until after slavery was abolished?

 

I guess you don't realize that your own comments here prove that it was a politically motivated exception.

Finally you recognize the obvious. But the fact is that logically an entity cannot be a person when one killer strikes, but not be a person when a different killer strikes.

 

Hmm, so your constitution is politically motivated is it and there was me thinking it was the very foundation of your country .. guess I was wrong in that.

Cherry picking posts just shows how dishonest you are.

Yes the law does give personhood to the fetus for the purpose of that law and nothing else ie it is a judicial person, nothing more. Do you deny that the courts can basically call whatever they want a person for the sole reason of validating a specific law eg a business is a person for the laws that pertain to it.

Yes it can as is easily shown in the very law you try to insist means something it doesn't.

and yet again it is noted that you run away from answering the things that you simply cannot, as I called it so it happened.

Here is the rest of the post I made, will you yet again evade and cherry pick.

Really, then please do post your facts to the matter. I have mine at hand if you are interested.

Yep a person by law for the purpose of that law, which had to be done because as you rightly say you cannot murder a non-person ergo the law creates a judicial person specifically for that law and nothing else in order for stricter sentences to be passed on those who kill or injure a pregnant woman with the outcome being the death of the fetus.

It is noticed that you didn't actually address the quote given, where it is only a separate crime "during the commission of a violent act against the mother", if as you erroneously assert UVVA type laws actual did recognise personhood for the fetus regardless, then it would be a crime regardless of any violent act against the female and as you well know that is not the reality, unless that is you can provide a single conviction of a person who has caused the death of a fetus where the female has consented .. I know you cannot.

So the only dishonesty here, or more probably a lack of knowledge, comes from you.

Science holds no fear for me, the fact is that you, yet again, have evaded dealing with the relevant facts .. but that is nothing new. Here it is again in case you somehow "missed" it the first time round

None of the above really matters very much, even IF a fetus at any stage of development were to be deemed a person then it is legally seen as the same as any other born person and as such it cannot use another persons body without their consent.

Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.
How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

now will you address the actual issues or evade yet again, I know which way I would bet .. Evasion.

 

you absolutely were. Legalized abortion is not popular among U.S. citizens, that is why it has never been put to a vote.

 

That is a pile of BS

 

Oh joy ... yet another quote from a severely biased website but rather than demonize the messenger, lets have a look at the message.

Facts OK Embryology textbooks "indicate". Do they ? Indicate to who. Why does she not just post what the textbook states and give a reference to that textbook.

Reference ? what is that ? Well yeah, its called the difference between academic rigor and goofy opinions.

We could stop right here but lets continue. You know I will

Currently there are at least 5 different perspective on when human life begins. Only one of these perspectives (the genetic perspective) puts conception as the starting point.

It is important to note that stating "Human life begins here" is not a claim that a human being exists. Human is the descriptive adjective (a life that is human) and the term "life" is the noun as opposed to the term (Human being, a Human, living human) where human is in its noun form.

So even if we accepted the genetic perspective it is still not a claim that a living human exists.

The authors claim is laughable fallacy. She outright assumes her premise (the zygote is a living human) with no explanation as to why this is so other than a fallacious appeal to a quazi authority (Biology is the domain science) which is unsupported by even stating what that authority says never mind providing a reference.

If any author, authority or otherwise, is going to make a claim that is contentious the better well support that claim. No objective scientist, philosopher or bioethicist, would even think to make such a bold assertion without making a darn good case to support that assertion.

We are given ZERO support for the claim. We are not even given any support for her claim "some textbook says" or given what that textbook actually says.

In addition the author making such a bold claim better be able to refute all the other perspectives that contradict that claim such as:

Metabolic, Embryological, Ecological, and Neurological https://www.franklincollege.edu/science_courses/bioethics/When does human life begin.pdf
I took the liberty of finding an online embryological textbook. "Langmans Medical Embryology" 12 edition, 2013

The first Chapter is about Molecular regulation and signalling, all very scientific. As a chemist/microbiological expert I understand such things but not for the faint of heart.

Chapter 2, page 26 is where formation of the zygote is described.

. https://thephilomaths.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/langmans-medical-embryology-12th-ed.pdf

What is this now ? No irresponsible unsupported claim that "a human being exists now" or any such thing. It just sticks to the science and details what is happening.

The rest of the quote in Whaler's post merely details scientific stuff about the process we already know with no further explanation of how any of these things relate to the zygote somehow being a living human. That has already been "assumed" for us.

Then she sums up with 3 really dumb points that are supposed to seal the deal on her initial naked claim.

I thought it was a living human, now it is an embryo.

It would be nice if she kept her terminology straight (a zygote is a single cell where an embryo can be more) but whatever, I am nit picking.

So what, who cares, how does the fact that the zygote is a distinct cell make it a living human. The heart cell that will be formed later is also distinct from any cell of the mother or father but this does not make it a living human.

This woman should take a friggen logic class and learn what a valid argument is already.

Well no sht Sherlock ? Every human cell is "human (descriptive adjective)" and has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings !

Does this make each of those cells living humans ? Give me a break.. please. Where do these people come from.

1) is the zygote an organism ? Can we really classify a single human cell or even clusters of human cells as an organism?

As it turns out, only by a very loose definition of organism (the kind found in dictionaries which give common language usage definitions rather than textbooks where things are explained in detail) is the zygote an organism.

Here is what a Ph.D in Biology and prof at the U of Miami has to say. Dana Krempels.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm

Apparently by at least some biological definitions, the zygote is not an organism because don't you love that word ? It means I am now going to support my claim with some kind of rational or evidence ... something you almost never hear from anti aborts.

because .... the individual cell (or cells in the case of an embryo) can not survive for very long outside the whole organism.

That said, even if we claim "its an organism, it is a human organism" This does not make it a living human.

The zygote is no more an organism than any other cell and a cluster of heart cells is no more an organism than an embryo.

and finally

the myth that a living human is not a living human must be stopped. If anything is a myth it is that repeating your premise (its a human because its a human) somehow constitutes a valid argument.

What facts ? All the author did was make an assumed premise justified by a fallacious appeal to a quazi authority without even stating what that authority actually said.

She failed to address any of the perspectives or arguments or facts against her claim ? never mind refute any of them.

Facts and arguments such as:

"If it is not a Homo sapiens ... how can it be a living human" or

" If coroner would pronounce a zygote DOA due to lack of significant brain function how can it be a living human" or

"if the single zygote cell will never be a cell that makes up the structure of a the human being created, how can it be that human ? Not one cell in the structure of the human undergoing creation exists at the zygote stage, and for some time later... is there such a thing as a living human that does not have any cells ?"





The one myth that needs to be stopped is that anti-aborts have ever made a valid argument showing that a zygote is a living human.

 

The Old "but the law says so" argument is abject nonsense. First off it is fallacy "appeal to authority"

You can cite an authority but you also have to state the evidence that that authority gives in support of the claim in order for the claim to have any merit.

Since when does a group of people making some claim into law make that claim necessarily true? Laws in Nazi Germany claimed that Jews were subhuman and you can go through history and find all kinds of stupid claims made by stupid people who happened to get into positions of political authority.

BTW - God says so is not a valid justification for making a law . (not that God ever said anything about abortion but the wing nut part of the religious right like to make this claim)

 

Pretty much any argument can be boiled down to one fallacy or another and in the end it is in the court room where the decision will be ultimately made.

I have done that in two other threads.

So you don't consider consent and self-defence as things that are natural to individuals regardless of what ever laws are in place eg. If you are attacked without your consent you wouldn't defend yourself regardless of what the law says?

I've never claimed god or gods is any justification for anything, please don't attempt to put words into my mouth.

 

I think you read my post wrong. Do you think that just because the UVVA act is in place that all abortion is murder ?

My point was that when people cite the UVVA law as justification for the fetus actually being a person that this is fallacy.

I did not claim that you said this... I was referring to the people that passed the UVVA.

 

Nope, not in the slightest. I don't consider legal abortion murder in anyway, shape or form.

100% agree

It seems as if there have been some crossed wires .. I thought you were referring to me.

 

I was pretty sure we were on the same page. If indeed a zygote is a living human under the law then we should be charging mothers and doctors with murder.

The UVVA makes a mockery of our justice system. It is abject hypocrisy in law.

It is a prime example of what happens when a group of religious zealots manage to get some power. They start making laws based on religious belief with no regard for the Constitution, Rule of Law, or any other legal principles that form the basis of our legal system.

 

No, the purpose of the exception was specifically that the law does not give personhood and therefore cannot trump a mother's right to abort a pregnancy, the only person who has that right to begin with. Without the exception, the law would be invalid and likely have been overturned already, if it even passed in the first place. The law adds no protections that did not exist previous to it's inception. It does not prohibit anything that was previously permissible. It really does nothing at all except, as I've said, make pro-lifers feel like they've won some kind of victory.

UVVA recognizes no personhood. If it did, it would do something, anything, no matter how trivial, to enforce that view of personhood but it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. There will be no abortions prevented, no fetuses saved, no increased child births, and no reduction of unwanted pregnancies which might lead to a woman seeking an abortion. THE. LAW. DOES. NOTHING. Laws that say you can't park your car so many feet from a curb do more than UVVA does to protect the unborn. Laws telling me not to use an aerosol can in a manner other than directed do more to prevent abortion. If UVVA is your idea of a victory, than it is my personal wish that every pro-lifer had your ridiculously low standards because a woman's right to choose would never be in jeopardy.

As far as slavery goes, that's an entirely different and completely unrelated subject. Last I checked, in order to be somebody's slave, you have to have been born. I don't recall hearing about plantation owners making fetuses go out and work the fields. Slavery involves one group of born people owning and controlling another group of born people. In order for abortion to be even remotely similar, it would have to involve one group of fetuses owning and controlling another group of fetuses. Are you claiming that this happened?

 

Well the problem with your comments here are that they are irrational. The UVVA clearly and obviously recognizes the entity in the womb is a "child, who is in utero". A child is OBVIOUSLY a person, so it absolutely does recognize the personhood of the child, who is in utero. There is no logical reasonable argument to the contrary. The exception was only to ensure that the politically driven abortion right did not derail this law that the majority of the citizenry want in place. The law is a victory for unborn children and all decent people.

Again, your comments are irrational. It does do something about the personhood of the "child, who is in utero". It provides a basis for the prosecution of people who murder that child. Previously, criminals could rely on the idiotic Roe contention that the "child, who is in utero" was not a human being, therefore no murder charge can be brought for the criminal's murder of the child.

Abortion promoters would like that to be true, but unfortunately for them it isn't. The dehumanization of black folks is similar in many ways to the dehumanization of children in utero. I know you wish that wasn't true, but it is.

 

Okie dokie. You keep telling yourself that. You prove my point that this is a symbolic victory with every distortion you need to use to defend the law. The facts don't agree with you and the real world application of the law doesn't agree with you either, but I can see that this has become a part of the heroic narrative you operate under when it comes to this issue. We will have to agree to disagree.

Go ahead and find me some evidence that someone murdered the fetus of a pregnant woman and escaped justice by citing Roe. I'm not talking about an abortion either in case you wanted to be a Mr. Cleverpants. I'm talking about the death of a fetus in the course of an assault on a pregnant woman which is what UVVA applies to. A person who carried out such an action would face justice for the primary crime in this case, which will always be the assault of the woman because it is impossible to assault a fetus without assaulting the mother.

I don't have to wish. I need only utilize my brain to do some critical thinking. When you contrast the difference between a born black person and a born white person, they are microscopic compared to the contrast between a born person and a fetus. These things aren't similar beyond the fact that they are both alive. The only real difference between a black person and a white person is the amount of melanin in their skin, which is simply an evolutionary factor based on the different geographies black people and white people have lived in. Melanin protects your body from harmful ultraviolet light, something that comes in handy if you are native to areas that receive lots of sunlight. Are you honestly going to try and claim that the only difference between a born person and a fetus are different levels of one chemical used to negate the effects of the sun, something a fetus has never even been exposed to? I'm beginning to think that accompanying your fantasies is an element of outright dishonesty.

 

Now that I have stripped away the many layers of lies and deception put out by the pro abortion crowd, we are down to the fact that abortion is a homicide and they think the more homicides committed the better. sad but true.

 

I find it amusing that my using the literal language found in the law is "deception" to you. At least you admit that it is a victory for the unborn children of the United States.

Wow how delusional. The only reasonable explanation of why there is an abortion exception in the law are the political angle. The primary reason for the UVVA is obviously to keep the dehumanization of unborn children committed by pro abortion folks to be used as a defense to a murder charge for killing a child in utero. If you cannot see that, it is your problem not mine.

How idiotic!!! Even state abortion laws recognize that birth is not the threshold of personhood, as late term abortions are illegal. Then there is the UVVA, and numerous fetal homicide laws to further prove the point. Your increasingly insulting personal attack methodology indicates that you have been defeated. Sorry punkin, maybe next time.

 

You mean reporting comments that you cannot respond to in order to get them removed.

 

This dodges the issue. That mugger you intentionally shot dead was also a person. That criminal the state strapped down and pumped poisons into was also a person. Being a person doesn't make killing you inherently wrong.

 

I don't know what you are talking about, but if you violate forum rules it isn't my fault.

- - - Updated - - -

It does when you have committed no wrong. Is merely existing a heinous crime?

 

And so we have arrived at the issue. Discuss and debate accordingly.

 

no of course you don't

but take notice, every single time your respond sarcastically to me or use terms such as "skippy" I will be reporting them as flamebaiting.

 

Except that Whailer cannot escape the biologically and legal reality that IF the fetus is a person then it cannot use another persons body to sustain it's life while causing injuries to the woman without her consent to do so.


From the standard responses pro-lifers give, it is plain to see that what they really want is for the fetus to have a right that NO other person has . .the right to use another person body without their consent .. and then upon birth they lose that right.

 

Has been debated over and over again, please read and try to keep up. That is NOT the only issue though, there are any who claim the child in utero is not a human being or person, which is ludicrous to any thinking person. I have been debating methodically debunking one pro abortion meme at a time.

 

So you violated the rules and got caught, and you want to blame someone else for your failure to comply. Got it.
Report whatever you want, if you don't get banned first!