What a stupid question! If you are so pro-fetus, who do YOU think should make decisions concerning the fetus? And, what do you have to say about the embryos that get flushed daily in IVF labs? And, what about all those "snowflake babies" gradually rotting in cryo storage - listed as property.
This, too, is just plain muddled. Killing someone's fetus has NOT "always been defined as killing a person". Texas, for example, has always had penalties for an assault on a pregnant women that caused the fetus to die. But, it was NOT considered killing a person until they changed the law a few years back, PURELY for partisan political purpose. Plus, this has NOTHING to do with the topic of abortion rights. It has to do with assault on a pregnant woman that causes the fetus to die.
You are, yet again, attempting to put forth a critique of my view, without being aware of what my argument is. I am just going to call you Clueless, from this point, until you respond to one of my posts, with an actually applicable argument. So I do not consider myself "Pro- fetus," as you arbitrarily label me, but rather "Pro-Choice." Not so rabidly Pro-Choice that I am against any and all restrictions, applying to abortion, but so that I support our current federal standard for abortion, which is "fetal viability." That is at about 24 weeks, though hospitals, and individual practitioners, can vary by a week or so, in either direction. I consider a Pro-Life position-- or pro- fetus, if you prefer-- to be against most abortions, in principle, with perhaps only exceptions for rape, incest, & threat to the life (or health) of the mother. So my own personal feelings, which would actually prefer that our standard cutoff-- except for exceptional situations-- was at 20 or 21 weeks (5 months), which is the point at which about 98.7% of abortions currently fall within, is clearly within the Pro-Choice, not the Pro- Life camp. Again, these terms are absolutist, but most people's views are not. That is, I would wager that most in the Pro-Choice ranks, still feel there should be some time limit, for abortions; most do not support abortions in the final trimester of pregnancy. If you demand of other Pro-Lifers, that they approve of abortions right up to onset of labor, Clueless, that's just tough, for you.
No, it is your attempted equivocating, in this post, which is muddled. But Sometimes, it has. So your point is moot. If the killing of the fetus is charged as a homicide, Clueless, then it certainly IS relevant to the medical killing of that same fetus. To be clear, I do recognize the two circumstances are not the same, which you would know, had you read my earlier posts. If one has as rigid a mindset as yourself, Clueless, then this inconsistency should present a contradiction, to your reasoning. I see that you have taken the lazy way out, by just chalking up all the states that define fetuses, at least who are harmed by an assailant, as "human beings," as having been done for "purely... partisan political purpose(s)." This, despite that there are also Blue states, like California & Connecticut, which do this. To someone who can better appreciate the shadings in-between black & white, this is not such a conundrum. I pointed out that our laws are often conditional. That is, for example, that the exact same action, of killing a person (why not let's say), can be called a homicide (murder), or manslaughter, or be deemed as self-defense, or defense of another, and not be considered a crime, at all. Further, their are whole classes of citizens-- such as doctors, soldiers, or police officers, for example-- who are allowed to do things which normal civilians are not. So I see no inconsistency in acknowledging the woman's right to end her pregnancy, as a member of that special class, at least to a certain point. Why only to a point, you may ask, Clueless? Because I also recognize the shadings between a zygote and a newborn child. It is a huge transformation that takes place, so that it seems ludicrous to consider it non-human when it is still in transit, in the birth canal and, two minutes later, when its head emerges-- Taa- DAAAAH! -- to have it suddenly become human. Alakazam! Rather, it is a journey, which begins as something far from an actual human being-- in most peoples' minds-- to become ever more similar. Once the fetus is seen as more human than not, it would be logical that would affect things, such as the woman's right to end its existence, or the severity of the punishment, for someone who killed it, in assaulting a pregnant woman. If you are unable to consider two different variables, simultaneously, then it would be pointless for me to try to make you see this, from my perspective.
So if a woman is at 28 weeks and will die if she gives birth you don't believe she should get an abortion if it saves her life !!!!!! That's sick...
THE UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act ) does NOT GIVE FETUSES THE STATUS OF BORN PEOPLE.....IT DOES NOT GIVE THEM RIGHTS NOR CALL THEM PERSONS NOR GIVE THEN SSN OR COUNT THEM IN THE CENSUS....
Can you read? I specifically mentioned "exceptional situations." FYI-- since you apparently couldn't figure this out, for yourself-- a health emergency as you stipulate, is an exceptional situation. It is also a situation which the current "viability" standard recognizes as an exceptional circumstance. Did you really have such a ridiculous idea, as that I wouldn't recognize this is a special case? If so, why?
SO WHAT? 39 states have laws that define a fetus as a person and/or its killing (other than in an approved abortion) as a homicide. The UVVA may be your Holy Scripture, but that does not apply to everyone else, FYI. It is a specious argument, to base personhood status on the census, and yet to ignore homicide laws. Fetuses are, like mothers, their own special class which, in some ways, are treated as humans, and in other ways, are not considered as such. This supports the idea in my post, that they are moving toward this goal, during gestation. But to any reasonable person, a fetus that is 85 or 90% human, is not the same as something that is only the potential beginnings of a human being, to be treated as not at all human. You may choose to feel that, at 99% human, a fetus should be regarded as nothing more than a growth, like a mole, but that is not how the law treats it, or how most people think of it, that anything less than 100% is completely inhuman.
I guess you don't read, or understand what you read, very well. No m***n, these exceptional cases are already set it medical practice, and in law. We have already had this conversation, about life/health of the mother and serious birth defect, found late in pregnancy. I accept the standard practice, which should have been clear by my accepting the "viability," standard, even if I, personally, would be more comfortable with a threshold that didn't run right up to that edge. Have you no ability to make a reasonable appraisal? Because there is nothing in my post which should lead to your misguided ideas, that I would not be basing my opinion on the status quo.
SHOW IT . It is what rules on killing fetuses in pregnant women. The UVVA treats fetuses as VICTIMS NOT PERSONS. IT CANNOT bestow personhood on fetuses and NEITHER CAN YOU. If a fetus is a PERSON when killed then why can't it be a PERSON before it's killed and GET A SSN and be counted in the census??? . OMG, "mothers" are NOT a special class but I see you think they are """treated as humans, and in other ways, are not considered as such."" What ARE you babbling about? A human fetus is 100% human ....what TF do YOU use for "science???????
What, are you incapable of using Google? You are just contributing to the stereotype of women as being helpless, and unable to take charge. I posted this already, in a recent abortion thread in which, of course, you were a vocal participant. But here's to redundancy Your constant harping on the UVVA, by the way, is inaccurate-- it is not the only law, governing this, as the snip, below, will show*. You are only expressing ONE SIDE of the issue, the Pro-Choice side. See below. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx [Snip] State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women 5/1/2018 The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every session, pro-life and pro-choice advocates garner support for policies around this issue. The debate concerning “fetal homicide” hinges on the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. Pro-life advocates typically support legislation that defines the fetus as a person under fetal homicide laws, or otherwise confers rights or protections upon the fetus or unborn child. Common references to such laws include the *Fetal Protection Act, the *Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the (*)Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these laws say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and address both unborn children and their mothers. Pro-choice advocates typically focus on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus. They tend to support policies that do not confer rights or personhood status upon a fetus. Such advocates focus on enhancing penalties for an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the victim. For the purposes of this webpage, NCSL describes these types of legislation as “penalty-enhancement for crimes against pregnant women.” These are described and listed towards the bottom of this webpage. This webpage is intended to include a range of legislation on this issue and is not intended to serve as a source for legal definitions. State Fetal Homicide Laws Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*). [End Snip] If you go to the site, you can see the specifics of every state's laws, many of which define a fetus as a human. Speaking of which: The better question, would be WTF do you use, in lieu of a dictionary? I am using the word human, to mean human being. Hence, it is a synonym for person. We've already done your stupid, confusing dance of your saying that a fetus is "human-- the adjective-- but not human, the noun," and I want no more of that utterly pointless exercise. So what you say, above, seems contradictory: anything that is a 100% human being, is a person. No one but you needs to state that a fetus, growing inside of a human, is a human fetus. That is understood. Since we are not discussing any other type of fetus, it is a completely meaningless distinction. So my "science" is perfectly right-- or do you disagree that a human is a person? So, if you are contending that a fetus is not a person-- hello! anybody awake in there?-- you cannot simultaneously claim that it is, nevertheless, a human being. Sorry if that went over your head, but "human," is an acceptable substitute for "human being." I am afraid that means you will actually need to be able to read for context, instead of just assuming that the word human is always being used as an adjective. If it helps, because there is generally no need whatsoever, in this conversation, to specify that this is the type of fetus being discussed, I will not generally use the word as an adjective, anywhere that it can serve as a noun.
You really should read a post before responding. And, your pure ad hom style is still just plain stupid.
SHOW WHERE THE LAW SAYS A FETUS IS A PERSON...YOU HAVEN'T. ↑ FACT : The UVVA treats fetuses as VICTIMS NOT PERSONS. ↑ What ARE you babbling about? A human fetus is 100% human ....what TF do YOU use for "science??????? "human" is an ADJECTIVE...A human is a noun as in legal human being. YOU seem to think something can be 85 % human YOUR WORDS """""""""""""This supports the idea in my post, that they are moving toward this goal, during gestation. But to any reasonable person, a fetus that is 85 or 90% human, is not the same as something that is only the potential beginnings of a human being, to be treated as not at all human. You may choose to feel that, at 99% human, a fetus should be regarded as nothing more than a growth, like a mole, but that is not how the law treats it, or how most people think of it, that anything less than 100% is completely inhuman. """" when FACTS say it's either 100% human or NOT human.... So a human heart is a human ??!!! REALLY! Does it have a SSN ? How about a human cell? Is a human cell a person!! ACCORDING TO YOU THEY ARE PERSONS Only for those who think they determine what words mean to suit their erroneous ideas.. LOL, who appointed you the ruler of what English words mean....human is an ADJECTIVE....and even YOU can't change that...
The apparent, cluelessly hypocritical nature of that comment, demonstrates the value of your opinions. No, this is what you said: WillReadmore said: ↑ If you are so pro-fetus, who do YOU think should make decisions concerning the fetus? And, what do you have to say about the embryos that get flushed daily in IVF labs? And, what about all those "snowflake babies" gradually rotting in cryo storage - listed as property. You were clearly challenging my opinion, which you now claim to share with me. Perhaps YOU should better, "read...post(s) before responding"-- including your own.
Your ability to understand things, is very compromised, perhaps only by this subject matter, however. The issue you are supposedly debating with me, is whether or not a fetus is a person. As I explained, I was using the word, "human," to mean "a person." It should be obvious to anyone, I am not claiming that human fetuses, are not human. But we both agree that this does not necessarily make them a person. I don't know what personal criteria you use, as all you redundantly say is that the UVVA doesn't give fetuses all the rights of people. I do not disagree with this, & it is a meaningless argument, on your part. I was clearly saying that the fetus becomes more and more fully a person, during its gestation. We both agree, also, that at birth, a child is a person. What my argument, to which you responded, explained, was the idea that I do not take it to be an instantaneous transformation, from "non person" into person, at the moment of birth. Rather, I argued that it was a process, over which time, the fetus ever more resembles a complete human being, becomes ever more fully "a person." This should not be such a difficult argument, as it seems to be for you, to follow. Again, I have no way of being sure of where you stand on this because, despite the great deal that you post on the issue, you do not say very much. Yes, I know that my answers are often longer than yours; but I am adding information, along with my additional words. As far as I can tell, from your posts, you make no differentiation, in terms of humanness, of personhood, between a zygote, embryo, first trimester fetus, and third trimester fetus. I was merely saying that I do find the later stage fetus to be more of a "person," closer to complete, than it had been in earlier stages. If this explanation still leaves you confused, I cannot simplify it any further than that. According to this post, you are clueless. Having a Social Security number or a cell phone may be part of your own definition of a "person"-- who knows, by the paucity of explanation of them, you have offered-- but it is not mine; nor would I contend, do most people think that way. But I never said that a few cells equals a person, either. You seem to make your arguments on auto pilot, regardless of how inapplicable they are to the stated opinion of the person with whom you are debating. As to my providing evidence of a fetus being legally defined as a "human being," i.e., a person, the website I linked & Snipped for you, gives the legal language of 38 states, individually, many of which do define a fetus this way, as regards its being killed by an assailant of its mother. I told you this. So to pretend that I have offered no supporting evidence, is disingenuous, as well as just lazy, of you. Here are just a few examples. Note that they can differ, so please not to make the fallacious assumption that I would agree with them all. I am merely showing that there is a legal basis for treating a fetus like a person, in some circumstances. These are from the link that I just gave you, in post #288 (and I previously posted them as well, in an earlier argument in which you took part). [Snip] Alabama* Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal. Alaska* Alaska. Stat. § 11.41.150 et seq., Alaska Stat. § 11.81.250, Alaska Stat. § 12.55.035, and Alaska Stat. § 12.55.125 (2005) relate to offenses against unborn children. The law provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years. The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law. Alaska Stat. 11.81.900(b)(64) defines an unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development. Arizona* Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1102, § 13-1103, § 13-1104 and § 13-1105 define negligent homicide, manslaughter and first and second degree murder. The law specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann § 13-701, § 13-704, § 13-705 and § 13-751 define aggravated circumstances in the sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law specifies that the defendant shall not be released until the completion of 35 years if the murdered person was under 15 years of age or was an unborn child. The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age. Arkansas* Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child at any stage of development. The law specifies that these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented, an act committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during testing or treatment, or an act committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. California Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. Florida* Fla. Stat. Ann. §775.021(5) states that anyone who commits a criminal offense and, in the process, causes bodily injury to or the death of an unborn child commits a separate offense if the provision or statute does not otherwise specifically provide a separate offense for such death or injury to an unborn child. At the end of the subsection, the state defines unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. Georgia* Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide. A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by causing any injury to the mother of such child. The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life. Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties. Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb. The law defines feticide by watercraft in the first and second degrees and provides for penalties.
It does NOT become a person until birth....when it becomes detached and separate from the mother. AGAIN, a HUMAN ZEF is always and completely HUMAN....What TF can't you get about that? It does NOT become a person until birth....when it becomes detached and separate from the mother. LOL, the desperate resorting to schoolyard insults... NO, it is NOT....but one must be a PERSON to have a SSN and a fetus can't get one....and I NEVER MENTIONED CELL PHONES.. NONE of that gives a fetus the rights of a person and NONE of it deems a fetus as a person. An UNborn child is just that...a child that hasn't been born,,,that doesn';t mean it's a child with rights....your "proof" is silly and meaningless
You demonstrate your cluelessness, once again. You are responding to my quote: "According to this post, you are clueless." Apparently the similarity to your own post, which I quoted just ahead of my reply, escaped you: FoxHastings said: ↑ How about a human cell? Is a human cell a person!! ACCORDING TO YOU THEY ARE PERSONS [End] This assertion of yours is absolutely, 100% false. So, if my gentle mimicry of your own phraseology, pointing out that you were making utterly fictional contentions about me-- to show that you were looking at my post, which was as easy to arrive at the correct answer from, as if you were adding 2+2, and yet somehow you were giving an answer of 684-- constitutes a "schoolyard insult," then your posts, saying that I considered a single human cell to be a person, is proof that you never made it through grade school. In fact, in another part of that post, you claimed that I believe a near fully grown fetus was less than 100% human. So this seems rather contradictory of you, don't you think (that I could consider a single cell to be a human being, yet believe that a fully- formed fetus was less than 100% human)? You do know what the word "contradictory," means, don't you? From my quoted material: Arkansas* Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child at any stage of development. Your inability not just to be able to draw conclusions, but apparently even to be able to read, is just getting too pathetic, to believe this discussion will yield any fruit. Wrong again: a "child," is a human being, and so a person. See if you find that word defined as not meaning "a person." child /CHīld/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: child; plural noun: children a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority. "she'd been playing tennis since she was a child" Similar: youngster young one little one boy girl baby newborn infant toddler schoolboy schoolgirl adolescent teenager youth young man young woman young lady young person young adult juvenile minor junior stripling fledgling whippersnapper son daughter son and heir scion descendant offspring progeny issue neonate bairn wean laddie lassie pickney kid kiddie kiddiewink nipper tot tiny tiny tot shaver young 'un lad lass teen teenybopper sprog rug rat ankle-biter babe babe in arms hobbledehoy derogatory: brat chit urchin guttersnipe a son or daughter of any age. "when children leave home, parents can feel somewhat redundant" an immature or irresponsible person. "she's such a child!" a person who has little or no experience in a particular area. "he's a child in financial matters" This is why I say, "clueless"-- not as an insult, per se, but as a factual description of how helpless you appear at understanding what anyone else says, at least on this topic. I have already explained your error, that you are thinking of "human," as an adjective, and I meant it as a substitute for "person," which is the noun form of "human," as in human being. If something that simple, flies over your head, multiple times, it seems pointless to hope that you will ever eliminate whatever is blocking even your rudimentary comprehension skills. Well here is where our opinions differ. Though, like most things, you state this as if it were a fact, in truth this is nothing more than your own opinion. If it were true, one could not be charged with murdering, a non- person (as I showed you, can occur in the majority of states-- 38 of them). Also, this is the basis for 3rd trimester abortions-- except in cases of previously undiscovered birth defects, or a complication endangering the life or health of the mother-- not being legal in most of the world. The places that they are legal-- Canada & 7 U.S. states-- I know that Canadian doctors will generally not do them. So there is your proof that most people think of 3rd trimester fetuses as deserving the same protections as newborns, because they are close enough to being a full fledged person, at that point, that this cannot be ignored, until it is actually born. I disagree with your seeming belief that a late stage fetus is not more of a person, than an early stage one. The early, only potential person, becomes recognizably a person, before its actual birth. That is why there is a time limit on any woman who wants to rid herself of her fetus-- not according to me; according to worldwide practice! Can you explain why, if someone wants an abortion, 5 1/2 months shouldn't generally be a sufficient amount of time to get around to it? There are other rights which have time limits upon them, in the law. So it is, with good reason, for abortion. Your opinion that until the minute it is born, a fetus is nothing more than an organ of the mother, from which she receives no benefit-- a second appendix, as it were-- is very much an extreme minority viewpoint.
You did. And if a fetus is a person then why doesn't it get a SSN or be counted in the census? And please try to note I never mentioned "cell phone " as you thought previously when you mistook "census " for "cell phone"...LOLO Abortion is legal and will stay legal....and even if fiends get it banned and women's rights destroyed as you seem to want....there will STILL be abortions
Again, I don't know which part of, "I am Pro-Choice," is confusing you, but your arguing as if I were against abortion, shows that you have no idea what of you are saying (is that preferable to you, over being called clueless?). I don't know if you accept a smiley face, in lieu of corroboration, but I do not. So if I say that I did not argue something, your merely replying, "you did," is not a counter argument. If there is any truth to your contention, you should be able to quote my saying what you claim I did. If you do not do this, it is tacit, but damning, evidence, that you are mistaken, or just making these things up. I showed you, once more, the statutes supporting my assertion-- beyond just common sense, and it being the overwhelming majority of people's opinion, evidenced by abortion laws (and medical ethics standards) which prohibit late stage abortions, the world 'round. In fact, in most of the world, abortion is illegal after the 1st trimester. My advocacy has ONLY been against any further extension of the current U.S. SCOTUS litmus, beyond the point of fetal "viability." So, as you (should) see, your entire reply was moot, and non sequitur. [Partial Snip (1 of 38 states)] Arkansas* Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child at any stage of development. The law specifies that these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented, an act committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during testing or treatment, or an act committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. [End] Again, that is not my own definition. But at some point after the midpoint of gestation (20 weeks) I have contended that the fetus becomes too much of "a person," to not consider that factor, & therefore limit abortion. That is what is called a logical argument, in case you might want to try making one, sometime. Just to evaluate our relative positions: I have world practice, reasoned deduction, and quoted law, on my side. Your argument (whatever it is) has only your own voice, on which to rely. IOW, your argument, by any measure of debate, has been soundly whipped. Please spare us all the pathetic spectacle of your simply repeating your same old, unsupported claims, ad infinitum. Or at least, spare me, because you are giving no credible argument, to which I may reply. It is only sad for you, when I have to explain that the way you would verify your allegations of what I have posted, would be for you to actually quote me.
A fetus is not a PERSON...and your support of abortion rights while thinking a fetus is a person (meaning you think abortion is murder since it's killing a PERSON) is rather confusing.... It seems to be confusing for you as well Show where the law says a fetus is a person....you never have and once again, seems strange you support murder of a person....verrry odd..
This proves you to be illiterate, since I just re-posted the law that "says a fetus is a person." In fact, it is even part of your quote! Get someone to read it to you, this 3rd time I'm doing it: [Partial Snip (1 of 38 states)] Arkansas* Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, defines "PERSON," to include an unborn child at any stage of development. The law specifies that these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented, an act committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during testing or treatment, or an act committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. [End Snip] Secondly, I cannot tell you what it says about your intelligence, without getting this post deleted, that you claim-- -- when I was crystal clear that I do NOT support murder of what I consider to be a child; that is, however, key to my perspective. Once I believe a fetus is close enough to being a person, to consider it as such, I am against abortions, from that point onward. This is what I wrote (and you quoted) occasioning your ridiculous, & unjustifiable, misunderstanding of my viewpoint: *(for insuring this quote is reproduced, in any quoting of my reply): Again, that (the previously quoted Arkansas law) is NOT my own definition. But at some point after the midpoint of gestation (20 weeks) I have contended that the fetus becomes too much of "a person," to not consider that factor, & therefore limit abortion. It doesn't get much clearer than that, so if you cannot understand my meaning, I suggest that pastimes which involve reading are evidently not your thing; maybe you should try Sudoku.
