Yeah and it's a bullshit attempt by Republicans to make abortion murder in an indirect way because they KNOW it is bullshit that can't pass honestly. And you weren't direct enough and honest enough to just say it.
There has always been legal concern for the fetus in cases of accident, crime, etc. The fact that some managed to change the words to make it sound like the fetus is a person is totally irrelevant in terms of the issue here. Its like claiming that the SC ruling is somehow final or means something more than just a ruling, when the very fact that they invalidated the decades old law is evidence that it is NOT final, but actually just a political view of the existing Republican court. And, there one might point to that the perfidy of the Republicans in our legislature are responsible for that change toward politicizing the issue.
Snowflake??? LOL , project much? LOL nobody has the ability to “ endow” anyone with personhood! A bi partisan Congress passed the law Cupcake!!!
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT grant personhood to a fetus.... LOLOLOL that did NOT refute my statement !!!...it agrees with it LOL So WHAT! You just said NOBODY grants personhood yet you insist the UVVA CAN! ....your frustration has you confused
FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT grant personhood to a fetus.... LOLOLOL that did NOT refute my statement !!!...it agrees with it LOL So WHAT! You just said NOBODY grants personhood yet you insist the UVVA CAN! ....your frustration has you confused LOL, no , the UVVA is NOT "recognizing" a fetus as a person which would be the same as granting it personhood.....I know that's subtle and so you will never get it but then you don't want to face the fact that a fetus is not a person.
It simply is not the same thing as granting “ personhood”. The UVVA recognizes the human rights of what? A meaningless clump of cells? A tumor? Do you really not understand how crazy you sound?
The UVVA does NOT recognize the fetus as having rights.... Were you looking in a mirror when you said that? FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT grant personhood to a fetus.... You just said NOBODY grants personhood yet you insist the UVVA CAN! ....your frustration has you confused LOL, no , the UVVA is NOT "recognizing" a fetus as a person which would be the same as granting it personhood.....I know that's subtle and so you will never get it but then you don't want to face the fact that a fetus is not a person.
So glad we have someone who can tell the women of this country what they "need"? Did you have to get a post secondary education to qualify for that position?
And a complete lack of empathy. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right Morals is doing what is right no matter what you are told. I suspect you fall into the former.
The UVVA provides human rights protection for children in utero at ANY stage of development. There is no denying that!
FoxHastings said: ↑ The UVVA does NOT recognize the fetus as having rights.... Were you looking in a mirror when you said that? FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT grant personhood to a fetus.... You just said NOBODY grants personhood yet you insist the UVVA CAN! ....your frustration has you confused LOL, no , the UVVA is NOT "recognizing" a fetus as a person which would be the same as granting it personhood.....I know that's subtle and so you will never get it but then you don't want to face the fact that a fetus is not a person. FoxHastings said: ↑ NO, the UVVA did not and CANNOT grant personhood to a fetus.... You just said NOBODY grants personhood yet you insist the UVVA CAN! ....your frustration has you confused LOL, no , the UVVA is NOT "recognizing" a fetus as a person which would be the same as granting it personhood.....I know that's subtle and so you will never get it but then you don't want to face the fact that a fetus is not a person.
