Post 45, from where did you get the bold part? Oh, pointing out the truth and your lies are now insults. There is another big surprise.
Nope - post # 50 from this thread: "Originally Posted by prometeus It is unfortunate for you that you are unable to understand even that simple language. Have someone explain it to you." That is an insult, since you claim not to know what one is.
The wiki page does not contain: "The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".
You apparently cannot read at all! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act It is the end of the first paragraph on the web page. Here is the ENTIRE paragraph! "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]" Now it is blatantly clear YOU ARE LYING!!!
I can read just fine but you have proven again that you do not understand anything you read. The law does not contain any of that wording. You are attempting to pass as fact the cometary by wiki as part of the law. It is not.
You are WRONG AGAIN !!!! (no surprise) From the actual enacted law language!!! "`(d) ..., the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'." "CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN `(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother. ` (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html The law language is IDENTICAL to the pertinent part of the Wikipedia quote. Your lies just never cease! Don't you get tired of being wrong ALL THE TIME?
Are you really this desperate and you think that by more lies you can hide previous ones? Why not post the entire text? Here let me do it for you and I will, as before, highlight the important parts that give you so much difficulty to understand. As i said, have someone explain them to you.
I see nothing there that proves your alleged point. The language that you stated was not there is CLEARLY THERE! EVEN IN YOUR POSTED QUOTE! After all it's not a dictionary, it is a law. It only addresses the definitions of words as they pertain to it. So once again, is the definition of human being situational? Can the same entity be a human being in one situation and a meaningless "glob of cells" in a different situation? YES or NO???? Still dodging the question I see.
Nope, "The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." is not contained anywhere in the law.
It is a factual statement and you have been exoposed as a blatant liar. Your credibility, if you ever had any, is gone now!
I did not state that it was part of the law, it was you and since it is NOT part of the law, that makes YOU the liar.
It obviously says what I stated. Your lies in the face of overwhelming proof of my correctness just make you look even more foolish than usual.
The law does not contain the words you said it does. Not only does that not make your assertion correct but it makes it a lie.
You are mistaken. It says essentially the exact same thing I posted. You are just acting like a small mentally disturbed child.
How I act is irrelevant to the fact that you lied. That was YOUR action and it is an undeniable fact that you are poorly attempting to deny, divert from or cover up.
You are denying that which is blatantly obvious. The text you claimed that is in the law is not and thus you lied since it has been repeatedly pointed out to you before and you knew, but purposely claimed it anyway. That is lying and you did it.
