• 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!

Fetal homicide laws.

Misreading? Do you honestly believe that mac misread the post and that is why he asked where I got the information, then he went on to "disprove" what I said and stated that "Facts suck, don't they?" in an attempt to show how wrong I was?

But even allowing for a misread which it was not, one would believe that a person would have the honesty or debating integrity to say 'hey I misunderstood and ....' instead he accused me of spinning and making a lame argument. neither of which is correct. The OP is there, I made no comment of what the data I presented meant, only asked what if anything it meant for the abortion debate.

If you read my past posts you know that I neither seek of claim victory as it does not exist. However, one does, over time, exhibit certain characteristics of their debating style. I am caustic, others are less than honest.

Yes, I think Mac misread your post. Yes, it probably would have been easier to have just said that. (Sorry, Mac...if you didn't misread it, my bad all around.) Yes, you are claiming "victory" when you say you handed Mac his ass on a plate. Yes, it's quite a lame victory. Well, it's lame; not a victory at all. And, finally, yes, you are often caustic. Man! I agreed with you a LOT here.
 
Yes, I think Mac misread your post. Yes, it probably would have been easier to have just said that. (Sorry, Mac...if you didn't misread it, my bad all around.) Yes, you are claiming "victory" when you say you handed Mac his ass on a plate. Yes, it's quite a lame victory. Well, it's lame; not a victory at all. And, finally, yes, you are often caustic. Man! I agreed with you a LOT here.
In retrospect the 'ass handing' was a poor choice of words, but then again I am just a bloody foreigner and lack the perfect wording(s) at times.
 
viability or "quickening.""

I always thought that quickening was when one could feel the baby moving.

Yes, I said baby; because nobody is waiting for that day is likely considering abortion.
 
I know that. What I'm saying is that the ideas behind those laws are inconsistent with the ideas behind legal abortion. If a fetus is a person, then those laws are fine, and causing the death of one should be homicide. In that case, abortion should be illegal. If a fetus is not a person, then legal abortion is fine, but causing the death of someone else's fetus should not be homicide. At most it should be punished on a level similar to damaging another's property, or animal cruelty laws. That's the inconsistency I'm talking about.

As I understand it, the law in this case (as in the law with regard to degrees of murder vs manslaughter) goes to intent. Therefore, if a woman intended to carry to term, then there is a life of value on the line. Value which she herself ascribed, by staying pregnant and making plans.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think Mac misread your post. Yes, it probably would have been easier to have just said that. (Sorry, Mac...if you didn't misread it, my bad all around.) Yes, you are claiming "victory" when you say you handed Mac his ass on a plate. Yes, it's quite a lame victory. Well, it's lame; not a victory at all. And, finally, yes, you are often caustic. Man! I agreed with you a LOT here.

I did and didn't. At first I took it to mean something along the lines of "of the states that do, most don't" which is completely incorrect of course, which in my view is the only honest way to go about that argument he presented. However, as soon as I posted I realized he was going to lump in the states that have no specific fetal homicide laws (but prosecute it anyways, btw) I considered editing my response, but thought, "hmm, let's see if he'll do what I think he will." And he did. Maybe it's me splitting hairs, but I feel strongly that his approach on the matter is disingenuous (to use a common DP word.)

Technically he is correct, but I'm relatively certain it's purely by accident. I am certain he had no idea how many states did or didn't have them, but assumed. I may be wrong there, but I doubt it. I took the overall feel of his post to mean that few states prosecuted fetal homicide, which is certainly false. If this isn't the case, than I am wrong in assuming he meant that.
 
"hmm, let's see if he'll do what I think he will." And he did.
What is it exactly that I did that you so much "expected" considering that I made no declarations or drew any conclusion from fetal homicide laws vis a vis abortion?

Maybe it's me splitting hairs, but I feel strongly that his approach on the matter is disingenuous (to use a common DP word.)
What exactly IS disingenuous considering I made no statements? I do not think you are splitting hairs or anything else for that mater. You are just desperately trying to discredit me because I am not buying into ANY of your arguments.

I'm relatively certain it's purely by accident.
What is "relatively certain"?

I am certain he had no idea how many states did or didn't have them, but assumed.
Why would I assume anything like this especially in the light of the fact that the data is readily available for anyone interested? You have read my past posts and well know that I do not assume, so this is, to use your words, just lame.
Still, what would you accept as proof that i did not assume and what would it mater? I am asking to see if doing a past post search is worth it.

I took the overall feel of his post to mean that few states prosecuted fetal homicide, which is certainly false.
Well you totally blew it, as I have never made any assertion to that effect or implied it. If anything I am in favor or severely punishing any and ALL acts of violence toward any and everybody.
 
What is it exactly that I did that you so much "expected" considering that I made no declarations or drew any conclusion from fetal homicide laws vis a vis abortion?

What exactly IS disingenuous considering I made no statements? I do not think you are splitting hairs or anything else for that mater. You are just desperately trying to discredit me because I am not buying into ANY of your arguments.

What is "relatively certain"?

Why would I assume anything like this especially in the light of the fact that the data is readily available for anyone interested? You have read my past posts and well know that I do not assume, so this is, to use your words, just lame.
Still, what would you accept as proof that i did not assume and what would it mater? I am asking to see if doing a past post search is worth it.

Well you totally blew it, as I have never made any assertion to that effect or implied it. If anything I am in favor or severely punishing any and ALL acts of violence toward any and everybody.

Which statements didn't you make?

Some states have them some do not.

Statement.

Some include all stages of pregnancy from conception some do not.

Statement.

Come to think of it most states do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability or "quickening."

and statement.

If you follow the logical flow of the three statements in your original post, it indicates that some have the laws and some don't. Actually most have them and a few don't. Then your statement goes on to indicate that of the ones that do, most do not prosecute prior to viability, which is again false. Because of the order of your statements and the way they are worded it indicates what I have stated.

Despite the confusion over whatever it is you did or didn't say, All states provide harsher penalties for violent crimes against pregnant women, most have fetal homicide laws, and most of those don't care what stage of pregnancy she's in.
 
Which statements didn't you make?



Statement.



Statement.



and statement.

If you follow the logical flow of the three statements in your original post, it indicates that some have the laws and some don't. Actually most have them and a few don't. Then your statement goes on to indicate that of the ones that do, most do not prosecute prior to viability, which is again false. Because of the order of your statements and the way they are worded it indicates what I have stated.

Despite the confusion over whatever it is you did or didn't say, All states provide harsher penalties for violent crimes against pregnant women, most have fetal homicide laws, and most of those don't care what stage of pregnancy she's in.
Please spare us the double talk BS. It is really unbecoming. On the other hand if you truly have difficulty understanding my posts either disregard them or ask for clarification.

The thread is about fetal homicide laws and how they relate to abortion if at all. It is NOT about violence against pregnant women and your diversion by introducing it is in the least dishonest AGAIN.

Fact remains that MOST STATES DO NOT HAVE LAWS PROTECTING FETUSES PRIOR TO VIABILITY OR "QUICKENING" and that is either bu not having fetal homicide laws at all or specifically excluding the early stages of pregnancy.
 
Please spare us the double talk BS. It is really unbecoming. On the other hand if you truly have difficulty understanding my posts either disregard them or ask for clarification.

The thread is about fetal homicide laws and how they relate to abortion if at all. It is NOT about violence against pregnant women and your diversion by introducing it is in the least dishonest AGAIN.

Fact remains that MOST STATES DO NOT HAVE LAWS PROTECTING FETUSES PRIOR TO VIABILITY OR "QUICKENING" and that is either bu not having fetal homicide laws at all or specifically excluding the early stages of pregnancy.

Most states have fetal homicide laws. That's the law recognizing that crimes can be committed against the unborn child and that they will be punished. End of story.
 
Most states have fetal homicide laws. That's the law recognizing that crimes can be committed against the unborn child and that they will be punished. End of story.

Absolutely correct.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 21 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).
Fetal Homicide State Laws

Math skills, people. Math skills.
 
Most states have fetal homicide laws. That's the law recognizing that crimes can be committed against the unborn child and that they will be punished. End of story.
Let me re-repeat the main point of this thread as obviously you still do not grasp it. Violence against pregnant women and fetuses is NOT the issue or the topic. You clinging to it only makes you look foolish and show that you have no real argument on the topic.
However, the fact that in most states killing a fetus in the early staged of pregnancy is not a crime, demonstrates that the lives of early fetuses, coincidentally the same time frame in which most abortions are performed, is not significant enough to be considered a crime on its own.
 
Let me re-repeat the main point of this thread as obviously you still do not grasp it. Violence against pregnant women and fetuses is NOT the issue or the topic. You clinging to it only makes you look foolish and show that you have no real argument on the topic.
However, the fact that in most states killing a fetus in the early staged of pregnancy is not a crime, demonstrates that the lives of early fetuses, coincidentally the same time frame in which most abortions are performed, is not significant enough to be considered a crime on its own.

Let me repeat and emphasize so that perhaps YOU can understand it:

Most states have fetal homicide laws. That's the law recognizing that crimes can be committed against the unborn child and that they will be punished. End of story.
 
Let me repeat and emphasize so that perhaps YOU can understand it:
You can repeat the nonsense all you want it still does make any sense as relating to the thread and the OP.
But just i case you could not figure it our till now I'll use a bit larger letters and brighter colors in the hope that it could finally be understood by you.

THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS NOT VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN AND WHETHER IT IS OR SHOULD BE PUNISHED. THE TOPIC IS HOW FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS RELATE TO ABORTION OR WHAT IF ANYTHING THEY ADD TO THE ABORTION DEBATE.

In light of what this thread IS about, the fact that in most states killing a fetus in the early staged of pregnancy is not a crime, demonstrates that the lives of early fetuses, coincidentally the same time frame in which most abortions are performed, is not significant enough to be considered a crime on its own.
 
You can repeat the nonsense all you want it still does make any sense as relating to the thread and the OP.
But just i case you could not figure it our till now I'll use a bit larger letters and brighter colors in the hope that it could finally be understood by you.

THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS NOT VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN AND WHETHER IT IS OR SHOULD BE PUNISHED. THE TOPIC IS HOW FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS RELATE TO ABORTION OR WHAT IF ANYTHING THEY ADD TO THE ABORTION DEBATE.

In light of what this thread IS about, the fact that in most states killing a fetus in the early staged of pregnancy is not a crime, demonstrates that the lives of early fetuses, coincidentally the same time frame in which most abortions are performed, is not significant enough to be considered a crime on its own.

Good lord, dude. The recognition that crimes can be committed against the unborn is how it relates to abortion. Rights for the unborn. You cannot be too simple to get that.
.
 
Good lord, dude. The recognition that crimes can be committed against the unborn is how it relates to abortion. Rights for the unborn. You cannot be too simple to get that.
.
It is illegal to kill a number of species of animals, is it because they have rights?
 
Price...tea...china.
Crimes can be committed against animals too, yet they have no rights. Point is that recognition as a victim of crimes is not a recognition of rights.
 
Crimes can be committed against animals too, yet they have no rights. Point is that recognition as a victim of crimes is not a recognition of rights.

How about Social security benefits, inheritance rights, or insurance liability. The comparison of human rights and animal rights is no more relevant than the comparison to the rights of Peruvian tree gnomes.
 
How about Social security benefits, inheritance rights, or insurance liability. The comparison of human rights and animal rights is no more relevant than the comparison to the rights of Peruvian tree gnomes.


A fetus has none of those rights.
 
A fetus has none of those rights.

Again you are wrong. I've posted the legal decisions already and won't do it again for your benefit.
 
How about Social security benefits, inheritance rights, or insurance liability.
Obscure single occurrences do not make blanket policy. Why don't you show us in any of the applicable codes, laws or rules that apply where fetuses are included? If the court cases you cited would have set legal precedents they would be reflected in the rules and codes.

The comparison of human rights and animal rights is no more relevant than the comparison to the rights of Peruvian tree gnomes.
You are barking up the wrong tree if that is your understanding of this topic.
 
Obscure single occurrences do not make blanket policy. Why don't you show us in any of the applicable codes, laws or rules that apply where fetuses are included? If the court cases you cited would have set legal precedents they would be reflected in the rules and codes.

You are barking up the wrong tree if that is your understanding of this topic.

Legal decisions are not obscure single occurrences. All court cases set legal precedence, unless overturned. None of the cases I cited were overturned. You, sir, are barking up the wrong tree, not I.
 
Legal decisions are not obscure single occurrences. All court cases set legal precedence, unless overturned. None of the cases I cited were overturned. You, sir, are barking up the wrong tree, not I.
You should look up what legal precedent is and how it is established.
 
Back
Top Bottom