• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.

I would suggest that that is your interpretation....Doesn't make it fact. In fact the law has language in it directly opposing this view, but I am not a lawyer, and it would have to be determined through the court system....Do you know if challenges have been brought over this law? If so, what is the current status in its swim up the stream toward the SC?

The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

Irrelevant. The UVVA passed AFTER Roe No? So unless that law has been settled by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional then there is a real dichotomy in the laws concerning this question of person hood in utereo no?

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The right to privacy is here to stay.

So, is it that the SCOTUS never can make a mistake, and reverse itself, or is it only selective in what you think should be the case? For instance, Do you also believe that the ruling on Dred Scott is still in force? Or was that overturned by the SCOTUS from its original ruling in the matter?
 
I would suggest that that is your interpretation....Doesn't make it fact. In fact the law has language in it directly opposing this view, but I am not a lawyer, and it would have to be determined through the court system....Do you know if challenges have been brought over this law? If so, what is the current status in its swim up the stream toward the SC?



Irrelevant. The UVVA passed AFTER Roe No? So unless that law has been settled by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional then there is a real dichotomy in the laws concerning this question of person hood in utereo no?

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.



So, is it that the SCOTUS never can make a mistake, and reverse itself, or is it only selective in what you think should be the case? For instance, Do you also believe that the ruling on Dred Scott is still in force? Or was that overturned by the SCOTUS from its original ruling in the matter?

The UVVA was passed after Roe vs Wade which is why they had they specified in the law that the law did NOT affect a woman's right to have an abortion.

While once in while a decision is overturned the right to privacy with regards to reproductive rights has been reviewed and upheld more than a few times since 1965.

That is 48 years and counting.

And while I am not a judge I have discussed the feticide laws, the UVVA , and Roe vs Wade at some length with my cousin who is row a retired judge and did serve as a State Supreme Court judge.
 
Bill Baird, founder of the nation's first abortion referral center, wrote in his 1993 article
"The Politics of God, Government, and Sex: a Thrity-One-Year Crusade"
in the Saint Louis University Public Law Review:



1993 -Bill Baird

Like Bill Baird, it's often interesting to read the history of those who remain heroes of a movement. Here's another.

A Dark Past | National Review Online
 
For someone beaten on all angles, with facts, with logic, with more facts, with facts from your own cases [ i.e., Roe v Wade ] provided, with facts from their own laws proffered [UVVA 2004] proven so far off on knowledge of our Constitution, with so so many of your proven factual inaccuracies littered all along the way like a garbage truck that lost its lid throwing trash in all directions while hauling this garbage down the internet interstate... you sure take a tiny modicum of truth and mostly illogical prevarication and throw it out there as if victorious...

I will give you props on a Clintonian approach to being proven wrong...

And the morally deprived aspect of this declaration of victory...simply deplorable...

PS I note with a wry chuckle how you are now dropping the F on ZEF... that will not quite cover it, sorry to have to inform...but it was funny.

Your need to declare a typo as a sign of your victory reveals the nature of your "victory"
 
So is the 13th.

Despite your side's whining about it, there is no slavery here, unless you consider a contract you willingly, voluntarily agree to up front as being slavery. So, if you believe that a mortgage is slavery, do not sign on the bottom line, if you think pregnancy is slavery, abstain... or take your chances. Voluntary servitude is not covered by the 13th, happy to inform ya...
 
Despite your side's whining about it, there is no slavery here, unless you consider a contract you willingly, voluntarily agree to up front as being slavery. So, if you believe that a mortgage is slavery, do not sign on the bottom line, if you think pregnancy is slavery, abstain... or take your chances. Voluntary servitude is not covered by the 13th, happy to inform ya...

Pregnancy is not a contract, and abortion is still legal

Woman are not slaves to the abortion banners sick sense of morality
 
Your need to declare a typo as a sign of your victory reveals the nature of your "victory"

Maybe more like a Freudian slip on your part, eh?

There is no harm, sangha, with admitting defeat, it is already borne out by what has gone on before... should be no tremendous shame in that, if you learn from your mistakes. Debate should be about learning, research, realizing where your weaknesses are, shoring those up, if possible, honing your arguments... or, in your case, reevaluating your perspective and changing it to be the more correct one... you have much work ahead of you if you maintain your present posture... if you want to go the smarter path, I have already done the majority of the work here.

Good luck, but better to have developed the proper skills...
 
Maybe more like a Freudian slip on your part, eh?

There is no harm, sangha, with admitting defeat, it is already borne out by what has gone on before... should be no tremendous shame in that, if you learn from your mistakes. Debate should be about learning, research, realizing where your weaknesses are, shoring those up, if possible, honing your arguments... or, in your case, reevaluating your perspective and changing it to be the more correct one... you have much work ahead of you if you maintain your present posture... if you want to go the smarter path, I have already done the majority of the work here.

Good luck, but better to have developed the proper skills...

There is no debate with you. All you have done is repeat delusions which have no basis in reality.

How else to explain to an abortion banner who thinks he has "won" that abortion is 100% legal?
 
Pregnancy is not a contract, and abortion is still legal

Woman are not slaves to the abortion banners sick sense of morality

Abortion is still legal up to a certain point, you can rely upon that only for the time being. Pregnancy is the result of a coming together of minds and bodies, the signatures of both parties being in the DNA. Merriam Webster contract : 1. a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable. As soon as abortion becomes illegal, you can be sure that that pregnancy will be just that, a contract between the two parties creating a child. Paternity is already binding in many cases.

And we are in agreement, women are not slaves, voluntary servitude is not slavery.
 
Abortion is still legal up to a certain point, you can rely upon that only for the time being. Pregnancy is the result of a coming together of minds and bodies, the signatures of both parties being in the DNA. Merriam Webster contract : 1. a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable. As soon as abortion becomes illegal, you can be sure that that pregnancy will be just that, a contract between the two parties creating a child. Paternity is already binding in many cases.

And we are in agreement, women are not slaves, voluntary servitude is not slavery.

Talking about delusions, where did you get the idea that DNA is a form of consent to a contract?

You do realize that two people having sex does not fulfill the criteria used to determine that a contract has been formed?

And once again, like the tin foil hat guy on the corner, you seem to think you have the power of prophecy.
 
There is no debate with you. All you have done is repeat delusions which have no basis in reality.

How else to explain to an abortion banner who thinks he has "won" that abortion is 100% legal?

First of all....

Abortion is not 100% legal... do you even pause to think before hitting the submit button...? One cannot perform an abortion at any time in the pregnancy, you are aware of that are you not? Abortion within a certain prescribed time frame is still legal, abortion outside of that time frame, depending upon certain specific circumstances might be legal if those very specific criteria are met, partial birth, for example, abortions are illegal... why do you keep stepping into this stuff where it so easy to call you on what is factually untrue [ again and again and again and...]? You know what they say the definition of insanity is, do you not? Doing something over and over again expecting a different result.

Funny what you call delusions are facts that you cannot disprove... I have listed them time and again, you keep avoiding them, but if one is not physically blind... but does not or just cannot see what is right before him, what then must the rest of us conclude? I leave you to ponder that one...
 
First of all....

Abortion is not 100% legal... do you even pause to think before hitting the submit button...? One cannot perform an abortion at any time in the pregnancy, you are aware of that are you not? Abortion within a certain prescribed time frame is still legal, abortion outside of that time frame, depending upon certain specific circumstances might be legal if those very specific criteria are met, partial birth, for example, abortions are illegal... why do you keep stepping into this stuff where it so easy to call you on what is factually untrue [ again and again and again and...]? You know what they say the definition of insanity is, do you not? Doing something over and over again expecting a different result.

Funny what you call delusions are facts that you cannot disprove... I have listed them time and again, you keep avoiding them, but if one is not physically blind... but does not or just cannot see what is right before him, what then must the rest of us conclude? I leave you to ponder that one...

Abortion is 100% legal. Repeating your delusions does not make them true
 
Talking about delusions, where did you get the idea that DNA is a form of consent to a contract?

You do realize that two people having sex does not fulfill the criteria used to determine that a contract has been formed?

And once again, like the tin foil hat guy on the corner, you seem to think you have the power of prophecy.

DNA is much better than a signature, signatures can be forged...DNA is almost as good as a fingerprint.

Secondly, I made no statements solely about sex, I did about sex and a resulting pregnancy. One does not determine paternity from sex only, one determines paternity with sex and pregnancy. This would establish a legal relationship between a father and his child...legal obligations that are enforceable. Call it what you will... i have no particular affinity for the word "contract", but it does convey the idea of the legal obligations that are recognized.

You are aware, all this name calling [ "delusional", "tin foil hats", "nut baggers", the GOP being the "party of the stupid"], is presenting an unbecoming and, to some, what might be considered a rather immature image... this is debate, remember. Prove your points, let the folks decide. Actually, when my opponents start doing that, rather than get upset, I just understand it is, perhaps, their most face saving way of conceding they really have no further argument, that they are admitting defeat.
 
Abortion is 100% legal. Repeating your delusions does not make them true

Gosh, this is almost painful for me to have to do... but let us just test you to see if abortion is 100% legal.

Is partial birth abortion legal?

Let me remind you of this:

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a US law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion". Under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." In 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by SCOTUS in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
 
The Z in ZEF just stands for zygote which is a fertilized egg.
Almost two thirds of all zygotes either pass through the body without implanting or self abort within the first week implantation.
Some pro life people think pregnancy begins when an egg is fertilized but pregnancy does not begin until implantion occurs.

Pregnancy does start when the female egg is fertilized with the male sperm...the pregnancy continues with implantation...
 
Bill Baird, founder of the nation's first abortion referral center, wrote in his 1993 article
"The Politics of God, Government, and Sex: a Thrity-One-Year Crusade"
in the Saint Louis University Public Law Review:



1993 -Bill Baird

I am sure this all makes a lot of sense to you...but it is mostly rhetorical silliness from this Billy Baird guy.

First of all, just because it has not been done in the past does not mean that this omission of not being considered human, a person, cannot be rectified in the future. The 13th and 14th Amendments did just that, for example.

No pregnant woman, and her child, counts as 2 in the census, but when a pregnant woman is killed it IS considered a double homicide.

Birth is pretty big, no doubt... just like being 18 is big in being an adult... do we give out pre-adult certifications as well? No.

Not that we generally like to think of it this way, but, living people are pre-dead, are they not...? I mean, that seems logical enough to me. Its just the reality.

And I would more say acorns aren't people and embryos are not oak trees, but like an oak seedling is not an acorn any longer and yet is not an adult oak tree as it is not yet relying on photosynthesis to gain its energy, an embryo is one in several stages in the development of all human persons.
 
Beggars can't be choosers. They were lawyers, after all. Look at this recent dumb ass roberts, who didn't even rule on the constitutional merits of Obamacare, he ruled in fear "they" would think "his court" was a bit too kangeroo-ish.

luckily he is a lifetime appointee, lucky for him at least, and he can say such stupid **** without being thrown out on his ear, which is what he deserved.

The fact remains that they weren't 'leftys' as you claim they were.
 
Despite your side's whining about it, there is no slavery here, unless you consider a contract you willingly, voluntarily agree to up front as being slavery.

I already debunked this argument. There is no basis in contract law for anything like what you are describing.
 
DNA is much better than a signature, signatures can be forged...DNA is almost as good as a fingerprint.

Secondly, I made no statements solely about sex, I did about sex and a resulting pregnancy. One does not determine paternity from sex only, one determines paternity with sex and pregnancy. This would establish a legal relationship between a father and his child...legal obligations that are enforceable. Call it what you will... i have no particular affinity for the word "contract", but it does convey the idea of the legal obligations that are recognized.

You are aware, all this name calling [ "delusional", "tin foil hats", "nut baggers", the GOP being the "party of the stupid"], is presenting an unbecoming and, to some, what might be considered a rather immature image... this is debate, remember. Prove your points, let the folks decide. Actually, when my opponents start doing that, rather than get upset, I just understand it is, perhaps, their most face saving way of conceding they really have no further argument, that they are admitting defeat.

DNA is not a signature. It can be used to identify individuals, but it is not a form of consent, nor does it prove consent.

And two people having sex with a pregnancy resulting does not form a contract either. Your comparing it to a contract is just really wacky and has no basis in the law. In addition, the father of a ZEF has no legal obligation to the ZEF. This is just another wacky idea.

My wording is not unbecoming. It is realistic. It's a reasonable characterization of then nonsensical claims you've been making, such as how you believe that there is some legal obligation between the father and a ZEF. Calling it a delusion is 100% accurate.

And you might well take your own advice and prove your own claims. So far, all you've done is make claims while providing nothing to support them besides the fact that you actually believe in your delusions.
 
Gosh, this is almost painful for me to have to do... but let us just test you to see if abortion is 100% legal.

Is partial birth abortion legal?

Let me remind you of this:

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a US law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion". Under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." In 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by SCOTUS in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

All you've done is show how pedantic you can be.
 
First of all, just because it has not been done in the past does not mean that this omission of not being considered human, a person, cannot be rectified in the future. The 13th and 14th Amendments did just that, for example.

Your insistence on arguing about what may happen in the future is the weakest and most cowardly tactic one can use in a discussion as it is nothing more than a ploy to avoid debate, used by those who lack an argument with a factual basis

One could just as easily say that., in the future, abortions will be allowed at any time (including post-birth), by any person (including at-home abortions performed by the mother herself) and be completely paid for by the govt. Your visions of the future are nothing more than fantasy, and are not in any way an "argument" fit for debate.

Let us know when you want to move out of the realm of fantasy, and engage in some actual debate
 
Just a question for sangha....Are you in favor of late term abortion? Or even "post birth"?
 
I already debunked this argument. There is no basis in contract law for anything like what you are describing.

Well, I have hardly read everything you have ever written, no disrespect intended. Why don't you reference your "debunking" so I can have a little look see myself, not that I don't trust you... or that I do trust you. I just like to measure things myself, to verify. How does paternity work in your estimation? No legal obligation? You only have responsibility for the child if you signed something agreeing to it beforehand, is that how paternity law goes? Men are off the hook if they don't have a formal contract, is that it?

Wow...Methinks someone is much mistaken...
 
Well, I have hardly read everything you have ever written, no disrespect intended. Why don't you reference your "debunking" so I can have a little look see myself, not that I don't trust you... or that I do trust you. I just like to measure things myself, to verify. How does paternity work in your estimation? No legal obligation? You only have responsibility for the child if you signed something agreeing to it beforehand, is that how paternity law goes? Men are off the hook if they don't have a formal contract, is that it?

Wow...Methinks someone is much mistaken...


Seems to me, that legally, Sexual relations would fall under this rule....

'Implied Contracts Although contracts that are implied in fact and contracts implied in law are both called implied contracts, a true implied contract consists of obligations arising from a mutual agreement and intent to promise, which have not been expressed in words...'

implied contracts legal definition of implied contracts. implied contracts synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
Back
Top Bottom