The Media will never report this, and the left will never admit it, but...

You think? Show us your reading comprehension. Quote the specific language that says "federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons."

I posted the statute that defines person under federal law, and it explicitly excludes a fetus.

 

Yawn, NEXT this guy doesn't understand the concept of synonyms.

 

Nope, in law synonyms don't cut it


Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

No, anyone who sees the word "person" would see that it does....it doesn't have the word "person" so they can't see it.


Nope, it STILL does not say ""federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons""

 

Funny how Mr. Reading Comprehension dodges these questions and facts.

 

LMAO! Mr. Reading Comprehension, discovering his sources utterly fail to say what he claims, now tries to claim the are "synonyms," clearly showing this guy doesn't understand the concept of synonyms.

 

What a stupid comment, Bubye now. Synonyms are not prohibited in law.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah but I have discovered no such thing. Just because some other poster cannot comprehend what he reads, doesn't mean what he says has any merit. It actually has none.

Can a non person be murdered?
If the answer is no, the a child in utero at any stage of development is CLEARLY a person.

There is no further debate, it is settled at that point!

 

What a stupid comment!

That's because there isn't any such language in the statutes you cited.

Oh, you didn't comprehend my prior post on federal law defining a person? Here it is again, with the important parts highlighted for you:

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

These are the general definitions in the United States Code. It explicitly defines "person" as someone born alive. The statutes you cite do not purport to define "person," but identify the application of those specific laws.

Your statutes do not describe murder, and in fact the word "murder" does not even appear in your statutes. Let me guess, another "synonym" right? LMAO!

Your statutes do not identify the fetus as a person. The word "person" is only used in conjunction with describing the person committing the act., not the fetus.

Your statutes create an offense for killing or causing harm to a fetus ("a child in utero") under certain circumstances. Notably excepted is abortion. If the fetus were a "person," abortion would be murder.

How can a fetus be a "person" when abortion is not murder?

 

The UVVA is a 2004 law that clearly identifies "CHILDREN IN UTERO AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT" As persons who are protected against homicide.
Game Over Punkin!

A fetus is a person, and the law makes an exception allowing homicides committed by the mother. I know, doesn't make any sense, that is my point!!!!

 

You wail about others not being able to comprehend?

I NEVER said ""Synonyms are not prohibited in law""

I posted ""Nope, in law synonyms don't cut it""


And you can't place your own words in a law.

- - - Updated - - -

"""the law makes an exception allowing homicides committed by the mother"""


YUPPERS! No matter what YOU call it , it's legal

 

I'm sorry Mr. "Reading Comprehension". That law does no such thing. You're not allowed to make things up because you cannot comprehend what you are reading.

Hastings and I have asked you several times to quote the specific language that says "federal law does consider children in utero at any stage of development persons" as you've claimed. Your utter failure to do so simply confirms your lack of reading comprehension. So does your utter failure to comprehend the statute I've show you that specifically defines "person."

I'm sorry, your unsupported blather doesn't make it so. I'm sure it doesn't make sense to you. You've made it perfectly obvious you are completely confused. But it makes perfect sense to anyone with any degree of reading comprehension.

 

Glad you finally agree a fetus is a person, otherwise you couldn't commit a homicide, legal or not, against him or her. Thanks for taking the bait and swallowing the hook!



- - - Updated - - -

You are obviously wrong, one cannot charge someone with murder for killing a non person.
It is called logic.

 

Its funny how you kill your own argument and then act like you just won some sort of victory. No one is being charged with murder, so you can call the fetus anything you want. I can't help but to laugh every time you spike the ball in the wrong in zone.

 

Actually, if you actually read the law, the law's specific purpose is to bring murder charges against those who kill fetuses, so it is YOU who is killing his own argument. Man this is fun, you guys are sharpshooters when you aim at your own feet.

Besides you guys so so uninformed it is sad. Nobody is being charged with murder for killing fetuses? Really??????


http://www.nationalrighttolifenews....orn-child-under-nrlc-backed-law/#.WKxjb2VlnMU


http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

Lets just be clear that you just defended a woman's right to choose by posting these stories. It is 100% legal and safe for women to have abortions if they choose and that's not going to change. You may now resume racking up more frequent loser miles.

 

It obviously and actually LITERALLY says it protects "Children in utero at any stage of development" from homicide. Now it takes only a minimal education to understand that one cannot be a victim of murder or homicide of any type unless one is a person.

Claiming otherwise just makes you look uneducated.

 

Are you a moderator here (I don't see moderator under your screen name, which is why I'm asking)?

I haven't seen you best anyone in debate on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

You might want to crack open a dictionary. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. 1. the zef isn't a person and 2. even if it were, if abortion is legal, it CANNOT be murder.

 

It seems a lesson in logical fallacy is in order