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.
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.
Last edited by Endus; 2024-07-31 at 07:55 PM.
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.
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?
That fetal personhood is the law. It's not. The law doesn't do or say what you think it does.
You literally got every single point wrong. You are factually and legally wrong. Let's see how, shall we?
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.
QED - not all abortions are miscarriages, it's why they use separate words. You made my point for me. Thanks!
...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 this isn’t the end. I promise you, this is not the end, and we have to regroup and we have to continue to fight and continue to work day in and day out to create the better society for our children, for this world, for this country, that we know is possible.” ~~Jon Stewart
Nope, wrong again, by definition.
Squares and rectangles are also not the exact same thing.
- - - Updated - - -
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?
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.
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.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
There's no other basis for the claim of fetal personhood. So why are you pushing a bit of religious dogma?I'm an atheist. All this nonsense about religion is irrelevant.
And if hamburgers were intelligent, McDonalds would be a mass-genocide franchise.Yes, it would. Because if a fetus had personhood, you wouldn't be able to murder it on whim.
Why the fuck would we entertain that kind of ridiculous hypothetical?
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.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.
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.Considered a person for acts of violence. That's a change over not being a person at all.
- - - Updated - - -
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.