• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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 understanding

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So I'm trying to get my head around fetal homicide, feticide. Someone help me understand this. A common argument to make abortion illegal is people say that these laws prove it's murder. Murder isn't in the constitution it's left up to the states. It's my understanding that these laws of fetal homicide, and feticide are relatively new. It looks like they started coming up in the states around 2004 from my research. If this is true then there is no way for it to overturn Roe versus Wade? How would this get to a federal Supreme Court? In Roe VS Wade oral arguments the question of life is withdrawn. So hypothetically if he came back to the federal court like this would they argue when life begins?
 

Scrabaholic

certified sane
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
22,912
Reaction score
16,295
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Those laws specifically exclude abortion. Murder, by definition, is an ILLEGAL act. Abortion is legal, therefore it is not murder.
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Those laws specifically exclude abortion. Murder, by definition, is an ILLEGAL act. Abortion is legal, therefore it is not murder.

So just for clarification, if I was to be charged for a double homicide in a drunk driving accident hitting a woman that's pregnant and killing the unborn fetus. There's no way I could argue that case that would go to the federal Supreme Court on the fact that the unborn fetus is not recognized as having rights under the Constitution from the case Roe vs wade?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So just for clarification, if I was to be charged for a double homicide in a drunk driving accident hitting a woman that's pregnant and killing the unborn fetus. There's no way I could argue that case that would go to the federal Supreme Court on the fact that the unborn fetus is not recognized as having rights under the Constitution from the case Roe vs wade?
It may depend on the age of the fetus. Roe v Wade gives the State an interest in the life of an unborn human after the first trimester (future taxpayer, see?). On another hand, consider the fetus as property --when a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term, even before the end of the first trimester, killing the fetus violates property laws for certain, regardless of anything about "homicide", the killing of a human (personhood irrelevant). After the first trimester, State interest can declare that fetal homicide is as bad a thing as any other action the State frowns upon (like maybe arson).
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It may depend on the age of the fetus. Roe v Wade gives the State an interest in the life of an unborn human after the first trimester (future taxpayer, see?). On another hand, consider the fetus as property --when a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term, even before the end of the first trimester, killing the fetus violates property laws for certain, regardless of anything about "homicide", the killing of a human (personhood irrelevant). After the first trimester, State interest can declare that fetal homicide is as bad a thing as any other action the State frowns upon (like maybe arson).

Well it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole trimester thing gets thrown out the window with Planned Parenthood verse Casey. So now what justice Blackmun laid out for trimester to be federally governed is thrown out. And roe versus Wade still stands to say that the unborn fetus is in personhood until it is born and then has life and let's say a birth certificate that gives it constitutional rights. So if I'm right on this than states can now by law even in the first trimester make it a fetal homicide and charge for double murder in the first trimester? And really I'm just trying to figure out if you could fight that all the way to the federal court and challenge it unconstitutional because of Roe vs wade? And I'm curious with this be a case where we just decide at what point life begins?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Those laws specifically exclude abortion. Murder, by definition, is an ILLEGAL act. Abortion is legal, therefore it is not murder.

That's only because of the way the left has characterized babies pre and post birth.
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's only because of the way the left has characterized babies pre and post birth.

George Bush Junior sign the unborn victims of violence act with the clause separating the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
George Bush Junior sign the unborn victims of violence act with the clause separating the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's also why for the same reasons. He was a good man, but he occasionally we the way of the loud voices and he bent a rule or two. Because of the way the left has characterized babies pre and post birth.
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Those laws specifically exclude abortion. Murder, by definition, is an ILLEGAL act. Abortion is legal, therefore it is not murder.
Although that's true, killing is still wrong. And you have to wonder what Gods thoughts are on the matter.
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it does. The left sees fetus's as a nonhuman nobody, and a parasite before birth, and when born, suddenly, it's a human. Now THAT makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This makes no sense whatsoever.

C'mon, you're not new here. All arguments are on the table when it comes to blaming "the left" for literally everything certain people don't like.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Although that's true, killing is still wrong. And you have to wonder what Gods thoughts are on the matter.

I don't much care what your imaginary sky fairy's thoughts are on any matter.
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't much care what your imaginary sky fairy's thoughts are on any matter.

Nor do I about your views ��
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,190
Reaction score
20,612
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So I'm trying to get my head around fetal homicide, feticide. Someone help me understand this. A common argument to make abortion illegal is people say that these laws prove it's murder. Murder isn't in the constitution it's left up to the states. It's my understanding that these laws of fetal homicide, and feticide are relatively new. It looks like they started coming up in the states around 2004 from my research. If this is true then there is no way for it to overturn Roe versus Wade? How would this get to a federal Supreme Court? In Roe VS Wade oral arguments the question of life is withdrawn. So hypothetically if he came back to the federal court like this would they argue when life begins?

There is no fetal homicide law that can also be used to deem abortion murder, all one has to do is look at the definition of abortion, murder and the verbiage of the fetal homicide laws. By definition nothing in them match up that are equal to abortion.
SO any argument based on fetal homicide is a complete and dishonest failure because the definitions of the terms in question already prove they are not equal and any case brought up solely on that wouldn't even get the light of day by SCOTUS.
 

BrettNortje

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
793
Reaction score
22
Location
Cape Town
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Abortion is killing a fertilized egg. if the egg is not fertilized, then there is a period. if a condom is worn, then the egg is not fertilized. this denies life to eggs, so, would you say it is the same thing? i mean, killing a person is wrong, so every egg should be fertilized one might say?

Of course, the egg once it is fertilized is a living thing. if you kill a living person, it is murder. there is plenty of chances to make the right choice, so, seeing as how only a minor amount of babies are aborted, it probably won't make a difference to his population explosion some people talk about, yes?

Now, if the baby comes to a family that cannot support them, then they need to observe even on a minimum wage job, they can afford another loaf of bread every fortnight and a little milk. this will see the baby through to school time. as soon as they enter school, they can be sent to state supplied services - if that is not done, isn't it a good cheap idea? i know the right are are against abortion, so, how about a minor sum for this type of service?
 

Scrabaholic

certified sane
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
22,912
Reaction score
16,295
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Although that's true, killing is still wrong. And you have to wonder what Gods thoughts are on the matter.

No, killing is not always wrong. My god is pro-choice.



Yes it does. The left sees fetus's as a nonhuman nobody, and a parasite before birth, and when born, suddenly, it's a human.


Prove it.



C'mon, you're not new here. All arguments are on the table when it comes to blaming "the left" for literally everything certain people don't like.

Point taken.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,814
Reaction score
26,641
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So I'm trying to get my head around fetal homicide, feticide. Someone help me understand this. A common argument to make abortion illegal is people say that these laws prove it's murder. ...




The feticide laws and or or the UVVA ( unborn victims of violence act ) reconize abortion is legal.

The law only takes affect if an unborn was killed during a crime against the pregnant woman.

When an unborn is killed during an attack on the woman feticide laws may be used against the attacker.
Although many think murder charges are being brought against the attacker...the fact is the attacker is actually charged with violating the feticide law or the UVVA.

It is important to understand that the UVVA or state feticide laws and Roe vs Wade are not conflicting laws.


Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA and state feticide laws passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.

~~~~
The feticide laws apply only when a crime against the woman was made.

There is no charge during a legal abortion if the woman or her legal representive consented to the abortion because elective abortion is legal under both feticide laws and the UVVA.


All state feticide laws have a clause specifing that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
~~~~
People who violate UVVA are not charged with murder. They are charged with violating UVVA

And the UVVA defines the feticide as ""intentionally killing or attempting to kill an "unborn child in utero".

In the recent Florida case where the man gave his girlfriend abortion pills and told her they were antibiotics was charged with violating the UVVA.

He was not charged with murder.

He was charged with intentionally causing the death of " and intentionally attempted to kill and did kill,
the unborn child in utero of R.L.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1841 and 1111 ( a )."
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, killing is not always wrong. My god is pro-choice.





Prove it.




Point taken.

True again, but killing without a heart, against a tiny human life, who is totally without guilt or fault, is wrong. And your response was Prove it! That's not very nice of but I'm confused. What do you want proof of? All I said was that leftists feel that a baby is. Not a baby until it's born. You asked me to pro that? Why would you ask me to prove what every body knows already Anyway
 

RamFel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
382
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The feticide laws and or or the UVVA ( unborn victims of violence act ) reconize abortion is legal.

The law only takes affect if an unborn was killed during a crime against the pregnant woman.

When an unborn is killed during an attack on the woman feticide laws may be used against the attacker.
Although many think murder charges are being brought against the attacker...the fact is the attacker is actually charged with violating the feticide law or the UVVA.

It is important to understand that the UVVA or state feticide laws and Roe vs Wade are not conflicting laws.


Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA and state feticide laws passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.

~~~~
The feticide laws apply only when a crime against the woman was made.

There is no charge during a legal abortion if the woman or her legal representive consented to the abortion because elective abortion is legal under both feticide laws and the UVVA.


All state feticide laws have a clause specifing that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
~~~~
People who violate UVVA are not charged with murder. They are charged with violating UVVA

And the UVVA defines the feticide as ""intentionally killing or attempting to kill an "unborn child in utero".

In the recent Florida case where the man gave his girlfriend abortion pills and told her they were antibiotics was charged with violating the UVVA.

He was not charged with murder.

He was charged with intentionally causing the death of " and intentionally attempted to kill and did kill,
the unborn child in utero of R.L.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1841 and 1111 ( a )."

Bravo. Good post. When can you write something about the entire abortionment?
 

Scrabaholic

certified sane
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
22,912
Reaction score
16,295
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
True again, but killing without a heart, against a tiny human life, who is totally without guilt or fault, is wrong. And your response was Prove it! That's not very nice of but I'm confused. What do you want proof of? All I said was that leftists feel that a baby is. Not a baby until it's born. You asked me to pro that? Why would you ask me to prove what every body knows already Anyway

Prove the assertion in the quote I made above my request. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.
 
Top Bottom