The myth that pro-life views oppress 'women'

A firm or body corporate can be a juridical person, but the meaning is not limited to a firm or corporation. If it were, the definition would indicate that, but it simply uses those as examples.

And let's not forget, the term "natural person" is defined as:

"A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person."
http://thelawdictionary.org/natural-person/

The term "child-who-is-in-utero" is a legally generated term from the UVVA.

 

Actually there is also the common sense issue of the fact that every person is a zygote at one point. But yes, the UVVA does recognize the personhood of a child, who is in utero. The distinction was necessary because of the nonsensical legalization of abortion. There is also a specific exception for abortion written into the law, which would be completely unnecessary if the fetus was not a human being/person. Logic and reality are just not on your side.

 

Yet all entities covered under "juridical person" are unnatural, "such as a firm" . A human fetus is obviously a natural person. You are floundering here.

 

That is actually not a "term". The law describes the unborn entity as a child. Then specifies that the child is in utero. It is descriptive of the people it is intended to protect.

Actually read the law, before you comment on it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

 

"Unsupported nonsense" ?

So you don't believe there are two sexes....OK....I know that facts and science aren't part of your argument ...


Now, as to you your calling names like cupcake, junior, etc., it is ALWAYS a sure sign the poster is flailing, failing, floundering and desperate because they know they're wrong

 

I see, so the abortion homicide oppresses and horrifically victimizes both genders and you think that makes it an honorable act? WOW

 

Why do you always have to lie to attempt to prove any point.....I never posted that ""abortion homicide oppresses both genders".....as you claim I did and , as USUAL, you claim something that you have no proof for....


BUT YOU believe that saying there are two sexes is "unsupported nonsense"

 

It was a question. One you FAILED to answer BTW. And where did I say you posted that sentence specifically? And where did I say what you claim here, speaking of lies.

 

I have read the law. It never uses the word "child" without the qualifier "who is in utero." Never. That means that a "child" is not the same thing as a "child-who-is-in-utero."

I have never seen the term "child-who-is-in-utero" anyplace other than the text of the UVVA. It's a legally generated term.

 

Anti abortion laws repress women in the same way men who want to murder are repressed. Like today, I really feel like killing my next door neighbor, that son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). And if you tell me I cannot do that without going to jail, hell, you are repressing me!! This is the argument the pro murderers use, who want a "right" to kill their unborn baby, because she screwed up, was irresponsible, and got herself knocked up. Irresponsible people always want an easy way out of the mistakes they make, for they don't feel they should have to pay for any mistake they make. It is just that simple.

Pro abortionists, simply boil down to one simple fact. They no longer value human life. And they are in good company for many men over history have not valued human life, and killed millions, because of it. And if they don't value the life of the unborn, in particular circumstances, they will not value your life either. This makes them exceedingly dangerous. For they demand a right to murder another human being, and one that cannot defend itself. Like shooting fish in a barrel. And until this rationality rules, we will continue on with our great lack of respect for anyone's life, but our own.

 

You were hard to take seriously before but with you claiming that saying there are two sexes is "unsupported nonsense" it is impossible now....rant on....

 

That doesn't mean a zygote is a person. Every oak tree was once an acorn, but that doesn't mean squirrels eat oak trees.

The juridical personhood.

Were attackers of pregnant women charged with two murders before Roe v Wade? No they weren't, so the legalization of abortion had nothing to do with the writing of the UVVA as a "distinction." Fetuses were never in history recognized by law as "victims" before UVVA. You are using the UVVA, a law that specifically exempts abortion as homicide, to "prove" abortion is homicide. Logic and reality are just not on your side.

 

It's also common sense to recognize that we don't treat persons as we would treat zygotes, and vice versa, we don't treat zygotes as if they were persons. It would be completely unnecessary to have a UVVA if a "child who is in utero" were a person, because existing laws against murder would apply. For the purposes of the UVVA act ONLY, the "child who is in utero" is to be treated AS IF it were a person.

 

Yeah but women–most women–in their heart of hearts, want to KEEP the baby. They just so often feel pressured and coerced not to.

When you allow choice for some, it opens up the door to exploitation for all the others. Once abortion becomes a routine process, just walk into your local neighborhood clinic, it's easy to force women into getting their developing unborn children killed. A little threatening, a little emotion blackmail, a little bit of fear...

 

By whom?

 

AGAIN, YOU do NOT know what is in women's "heart of heart" or more importantly what they are thinking.

You want a totalitarian state where NO one has a choice in anything. Yes, sounds like you do.

"""""A little threatening, a little emotion blackmail, a little bit of fear... """ ...some lies and distortions and you have the "pro-lifers" summed up really well.

 

And you know this how? For centuries women have been pressured and coerced to marry and give birth, now they finally have a choice and you're suggesting that they feel pressured and coerced not to. Sorry, but you have a mistaken impression. Women are STILL pressured and coerced to give birth. Any woman who chooses abortion does so of her own free will.

Maybe so, that's why we're going to allow choice for ALL women. It seems you truly know a lot about forcing women to do your will, but you and men like you are going to be surprised. Women are not going to respond to your threatening, emotional blackmail, and they're not going to be fearful of you. That's because you can no longer force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their own best judgement.

 

It's like the reason for the minimum wage—employees choose to work for their employer of their own free accord, but that doesn't mean they are not being exploited.

In this case, choice = exploitation. Or do any of the 'choicers' out there disagree?

 

Exploitation by WHOM?

 

Their boyfriend, their father, the rest of society who tells them they have to match up to all the other women out there who aborted their pregnancies away.

 

There's another sign of your total disrespect for women. Women have brains whether you want to believe it or not. They are quite capable of thinking for themselves . Sure , some MAY be pressured but that doesn't mean they give in. AND MORE are pressured to have babies than not....

It's wrong to pressure anyone into life changing events....Anti-Choicers have no right to butt in and try to influence or FORCE women to have babies, coercion is wrong from either side.

Anti-Choicers don't really want to influence women, they want to FORCE women to have babies...

 

Are you suggesting that abortion is trendy? To be accepted by society, you must abort? I don't believe there is any of his type of pressure on women. It think it has more to do with the burden of child raising or giving away a baby to adoption, people are a little more narcissistic by nature.

 

9 times out of 10 it is all you have, that and cherry picking

- - - Updated - - -

Really care to defend that position as I requested you do and from which you ran away.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting, so you think self-defence can become illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet another strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

wouldn't worry about it Fox, that poster can only create strawman arguments as they know anything else has been blown apart. The poster will disappear again in a while.

 

Just more BS with no real facts to back it up, a common theme from you

 

No more or less than you want the right to kill a person who injuries you without consent. Most of your comment relies on emotional BS with a thick layer of hyperbole.

- - - Updated - - -

more unsupported BS

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes beneath the crap you post I can almost see a sense of humour.