SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[unfilteredJW]

Your evidence?

Your posting history is on display for all to see.

You aren't fooling anyone.

[Edge-]

Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004. Granted that's a federal code. But 29 states have similar laws.

What part established fetal personhood, specifically?

Because I'm sure there are a lot of courts and Justices that would love to learn about this.

I'll note: If a fetus was a person this law wouldn't be necessary, since that would just be murder anyways and we already have laws against that. Which makes me think this law does not, in any way, shape, or form, by my reading, establish fetal personhood.

Why folks just casually lie about shit we can fact-check easily is wild to me.

[unfilteredJW]

Your comprehension isn't my problem.

Not concerned with what a mysogynistic liar thinks.

Outside of pointing that you are one of course.

[Edge-]

Except the previous laws defining it as such need to be amended.

So where's the precedent for this showing that the law is as you apparently personally interpret it?

Why do y'all just so brazenly lie and expect nobody to call you on said lies?

[alach]

So where's the precedent for this showing that the law is as you apparently personally interpret it?

Why do y'all just so brazenly lie and expect nobody to call you on said lies?

Cause they keep getting away with it, over and over, interview after interview again. I have no clue how they are allowed to lie like they do.

[Endus]

Only for acts of violence. But you can see that it amends the personhood definition of what you cited, as it's two years newer.

It does no such thing. There is no amended definition included in the Act whatsoever. You're making that shit up based on nothing.

Are you that desperate to have whackadoodle religious extremist dogma be presumed to be the law of the nation? Why are you making shit up, dude? What's the goal, here?

I read the entire Act. It's not exactly long. Here it is for anyone else who doesn't want to Google it; https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/p...108publ212.pdf

It does not say anything like what you're claiming. Your argument is fantastical nonsense, and the only clearl motive seems to be to push religious fascism.

Edit: And the silliest damned thing? Even if fetal personhood was the law, it wouldn't constitute any kind of argument to restrict or eliminate women's right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. There is no other instance where one person's right to life can be deemed to overule another person's right to self-ownership. And there's no non-religious, non-misogynist argument as to why abortion should be the one exception.

[Endus]

Y'all? Who? Which lies? What are you even talking about.

You've repeatedly lied about US law on fetal personhood. Namely, that any law under US code establishes that fetuses are legal persons.

That's not true, and you've repeatedly lied about it. One must be born alive to be a legal person, in the USA, and if you're born alive, you're no longer a fetus.

[Edge-]

What?

You're claiming fetal personhood is the law. If it was the law since 2004, there'd be multiple court rulings affirming that your interpretation of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. There have been quite a few lawsuits surrounding pregnancy and abortion since then.

Surely the concept of precedent isn't new to you?

Y'all? Who? Which lies? What are you even talking about.

That fetal personhood is the law. It's not. The law doesn't do or say what you think it does.

[cubby]

You literally got every single point wrong. You are factually and legally wrong. Let's see how, shall we?

Let's clear the air and say this is grammatically wrong. It should read "the abortion issue is all about a woman's right to her body and to be in 100% control of what happens to her body."

I will add that's wrong. It can't be that a pregnancy is about only "her body." When a pregnant woman goes to a physician, the physician has two patients. And legally, feticide is homicide, with exception of medical abortions depending on the state. So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

The physician does not have two patients - it is ONE - the woman. Her body, the only patient, is the one the doctor has a responsibility to. ONLY her. The fetus inside is part of her, so the doctor's responsibility includes the fetus, but NOT as a separate patient.

All miscarriages are abortions. QED. Semantics like arguing that squares aren't rectangles.

QED - not all abortions are miscarriages, it's why they use separate words. You made my point for me. Thanks!

[cubby]

So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

A fetus isn't a person, and has no legal rights. There is no legal precedent for a fetus have legal rights.

[Shadowferal]

...that law merely establishes a separate offense for harming an unborn child during a federal crime against a pregnant woman.
It has nothing to do fetal personhood.

[unfilteredJW]

...that law merely establishes a separate offense for harming an unborn child during a federal crime against a pregnant woman.
It has nothing to do fetal personhood.

But don't you see? It's all they got.

[Doomcookie]

They by definition are the exact same thing.

Nope, wrong again, by definition.

Squares and rectangles are also not the exact same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn all "they" have got is a bunch a laws.

Try the thought experiment. What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

You do realize you just countered your argument... right?

All abortions are births, so you have no argument. It's the exact same thing. Why do you want to ban giving birth?

[Endus]

Feticide is equivalent to homicide. And it's not based on nothing. There is the law that equates the two.

Does not establish legal personhood for a fetus.

Does not actually criminalize "feticide", which would be any death of a fetus by human action, but only very specific forms of already-unlawful violence against the pregnant woman which also harm the fetus she's carrying.

You're lying. Again.

Which religion are you talking about? I've not made up anything. The goal? To have a conversation. There's nothing else you can get from a video game f

if you want a "conversation", don't start out by lying to people's faces. It's rude and we're gonna respond accordingly. Opening with a lie demonstrates no intent to have any kind of good faith "conversation" at all.

I'm an atheist. All this nonsense about religion is irrelevant.

There's no other basis for the claim of fetal personhood. So why are you pushing a bit of religious dogma?

Yes, it would. Because if a fetus had personhood, you wouldn't be able to murder it on whim.

And if hamburgers were intelligent, McDonalds would be a mass-genocide franchise.

Why the fuck would we entertain that kind of ridiculous hypothetical?

When most people talk about abortion, they don't think plan b or medicine induced. They usually think about later term procedures like dnc, dne/dnx.

I could not possibly give less of a shit what "most people" think about anything, when "most people" can't find their own ass with both hands.

Considered a person for acts of violence. That's a change over not being a person at all.

They are not "considered a person for acts of violence". Are you telling me you never read the UVVA you cited? It doesn't say that. The only "persons" it mentions are those committing the violating act. It never says or even remotely implies fetal personhood, at all, in any way whatsoever. You're making that shit up out of nothing and lying to everyone here every time you repeat it.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn all "they" have got is a bunch a laws.

Try the thought experiment. What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

What's the difference between a 15 year old girl a day before her birthday, and the day after? Arguments pedos make to justify their crimes.

The law is often arbitrary, but that doesn't change what the law says. You continue to have no actual argument to support the existence of fetal personhood.

[Edge-]

Damn all "they" have got is a bunch a laws.

Try the thought experiment. What's the difference between a fetus a day before birth and a day after birth?

Still waiting for you to show any person beyond yourself beliefs the bill established fetal personhood.

It's so weird that conservatives keep demanding that everyone else accept their personal "feelings" definitions for everything.

[Karreck]

And it's important enough to make that point clear. Because the abortion issue is all about women's rights to their bodies and to be in 100% control of what happens to their bodies.

Let's clear the air and say this is grammatically wrong. It should read "the abortion issue is all about a woman's right to her body and to be in 100% control of what happens to her body."

We all sleeping on this transphobic reply? Mask off.

[Endus]

We all sleeping on this transphobic reply? Mask off.

It might not be transphobic, but the more obvious correction would just be to modify " women's " to " womens' ", rather than the later pronoun. The idea that an apostrophe is misplaced is the lesser correction.

[Karreck]

It might not be transphobic, but the more obvious correction would just be to modify " women's " to " womens' ", rather than the later pronoun. The idea that an apostrophe is misplaced is the lesser correction.

Changing the pronouns from their to her, and pointing out that they are doing it, is common with the transphobic bunch. Also, post history. It's a "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" thing.

[Sunseeker]

It might not be transphobic, but the more obvious correction would just be to modify " women's " to " womens' ", rather than the later pronoun. The idea that an apostrophe is misplaced is the lesser correction.

I have a totally honest question on how it could be transphobic?

[DarkTZeratul]

I have a totally honest question on how it could be transphobic?

I think Karreck probably posted his response at the same time you were typing yours, but I feel he explained it pretty clearly.