The group of people that I simply cant understand

RME so you are focusing on how the fetus came to live in the host after being created by her actions. Huh, interesting. My concern is more about the slaughter of the guest child by the host who created him/her just cause she wants to kill him/her.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

Homicide is a manner of death. It does not imply fault, only mechanism. Soldiers killing soldiers in war, cops defending themselves, those are homicides with no legal fault. But the issue here is that a mindless, pre-conscious fetus is not a person and so deserves no protections.

 

Yes. For it is your misinterpretation of words/definitions, that has you all messed up.
Fetus placed
guest child

You use false words/definitions and get all emotional about it.

 

There is nothing difficult to understand about people who oppose the death penalty and support choice. Some pro-choicers oppose the death penalty because its more expensive than life in prison, some because they don't trust our justice system with that power, and some because it is too merciful.

 

Nope! Even federal law disagrees with you!
The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act was enacted solely to regignize the child in utero at any stage of development’s human rights!!!!!

 

Yawn, so anyway back on topic. You think homicide at will of a child should be allowed without one tiny bit of oversight?

 

Stating what a law is is not an argument unless we're in the courtroom trying to decide what the law dictates. Laws can be wrong, even you know that, or else you wouldn't be against RvW, right?

 

What kind of life will that child have when adopted by one of the hundreds of thousands of desperately waiting couples who cannot bear a child?

 

Just pointing out that the law recognizes the same thing I do and millions of other people do, a child in utero is a person. So now we have a dramatic contradiction in our laws. Yes there is a specific exception in the UVVA for abortion, but it is illogical and lacks any explanation as to why it is warranted.

 

Given how divided people are, it would be surprising to me if there weren't contradictions, but that has no bearing on who is correct. Ad populum is also fallacy.

 

Man, what a load of manure!!!!

 

Can that same argument be made against the pro-abortion side that says it is settled law and therefore OK to kill a baby in the womb?

 

Right so let’s just look at it logically. Most would agree killing someone just because you want to shouldn’t be allowed,right? So why do we have this one glaring exception where there is no oversight whatsoever in homicide cases?

 

Women are under no obligation to provide other people with children.

 

How so?

 

Which has nothing to do with what I said try again

What kind of life will that child have when adopted by one of the hundreds of thousands of desperately waiting couples who cannot bear a child?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Women are under no obligation to provide other people with children.

It has quite a bit to do with "adoption as an option".

What kind of life will adopted children have?

Who knows?...probably the same kind of life all children have...

 

Really? Then why can’t they commit abortion homicide after a certain number of weeks in most states?

 

The reasons you provided don’t exist in the real world. In the real world lefties want to spare the life of the criminal because capital punishment is “mean and cruel”, but they have no problem with paying a hit man masquerading as a “doctor” to dismember a child in utero while the child is still alive.

 

That is changing the topic.
It is never good to homicide any human being, man, woman, child, baby, unless in some sort of self defense. I tend to not include war as a means for killing either. For war's can be never taken up, if those involved wanted to.

 

Nope, that is what the topic has been all along.

You do know you are in the abortion section, right????

There is no self defense argument associated with abortion. The threshold for self defense is imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death. Doesn’t exist in 99+% of pregnancies!!!!

Queue up the “bbbbut what about the one quarter of one percent who have serious health consequences “

No pro lifer I know has ever opposed abortion in those cases.

 

https://support.savethechildren.org/site/SPageNavigator/sponsorship.html#!/

How many of these are you helping? Lets clean the ones needing help and/or adoption. Then worry about something not yet born after that.

 

Yep, abortion section.
So why bring up homicide of a child? You forget this is the abortion section? You don't know the definition of child?
Any way, it's beating a dead horse with you. You say the same things with no point.
Until you understand words and their meanings, you will just use emotions as your debate tactic.

 

I don't follow blind links which rearly support what is posted. There are thousands of desperate couples wanting to adopt new born babies, there is no shortage. This carad that we must kill babies in the womb else their parents will sexually molest them because they don't want them is absurd.

 

No it doesn't and they will have a wonderful life with loving parents.