Gillibrand: Anti-abortion laws 'against Christian faith'

[Hoodat]

No, not separate.   Yes, living within its mother's body, but unable to survive otherwise.    It is indeed the mother's responsibility, not the State's.

@Jazzhead

Let's focus on Pennsylvania Commonwealth law for a moment.  According to Commonwealth statute, crimes against an unborn child include first, second, and third degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated assault.  As someone working in the legal profession, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?  And how do you reconcile that legal fact with your contention that the state has no rights here?

[Hoodat]

If the mother so chooses.   Not the State.   

The Constitution says otherwise.

For the umpteenth time:   It is a noble thing to try to persuade and support a woman to do the right thing.   Typically, a woman who seeks to abort is in a desperate situation, with no easy options.    But while persuasion is good, enlisting the State to deny a woman's autonomy is a denial of her most basic liberty.

Funny you should mention persuasion since the vast majority of persuasion is directed by men who wish to avoid 18 years of child support after engaging in unprotected sex.  Abortion is and always has been for the man - not the woman.

Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.   

Let States choose their own abortion laws.  Let society have the ability to value human life.

[Right_in_Virginia]

If the mother so chooses.   Not the State. 

For the umpteenth time:   It is a noble thing to try to persuade and support a woman to do the right thing.   Typically, a woman who seeks to abort is in a desperate situation, with no easy options.    But while persuasion is good, enlisting the State to deny a woman's autonomy is a denial of her most basic liberty. 

Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.   

There must be parameters around this "choice" ... strong, enforceable parameters.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Let's focus on Pennsylvania Commonwealth law for a moment.  According to Commonwealth statute, crimes against an unborn child include first, second, and third degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated assault.  As someone working in the legal profession, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?  And how do you reconcile that legal fact with your contention that the state has no rights here?

I've explained this many times.    The fetus's rights are against third parties, and are in fact derived from the rights of the mother.    The mother wants her child, and a third party causing the loss of that child is actionable harm. 

[txradioguy]

Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.

And yet thanks to Progressives like you... here we are in 2019 with states using Roe to justify “abortion” after the baby is born.

[Sanguine]

 

Cute.

You want to back up your bs now?

Quote from: Jazzhead on May 20, 2019, 03:23:45 PM

    Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.

"Patriarchal"?  Because women are too stupid to understand what having sex means?  Or, they're too weak to say "no"?  What the hell are you saying here?

[Hoodat]

I've explained this many times.    The fetus's rights are against third parties

The mother is a third party.  If a pregnant mother shoots herself in the stomach, she can be charged with murder under Pennsylvania Commonwealth law.  So again, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?

This is a legal question.  I am asking you for the legal basis for which Pennsylvania is able to regulate this.

[Jazzhead]

The mother is a third party.  If a pregnant mother shoots herself in the stomach, she can be charged with murder under Pennsylvania Commonwealth law.  So again, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?

This is a legal question.  I am asking you for the legal basis for which Pennsylvania is able to regulate this.

I just did. 

[Hoodat]

I just did.

You most certainly did not.  You pulled something out of thin air about how the fetus only has protection against third parties, and that these protections are derived from the rights of the mother.  But at no time did you provide a legal basis for this.  Nor did you consider the absurdity of this claim immediately after pulling it out of thin air since the baby does indeed have protection against the mother (which was just pointed out to you and which you completely ignored).

So again, please show me the legal basis that allows the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to create law protecting an unborn baby against murder and aggravated assault.  Again, this is a legal question.

[Jazzhead]

You pulled something out of thin air about how the fetus only has protection against third parties, and that these protections are derived from the rights of the mother. 

That's correct.   A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother.   

[Hoodat]

That's correct.   A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother.

At least you admit that you pulled it out of thin air.

[Sanguine]

At least you admit that you pulled it out of thin air.

I'm not sure that's where he's pulling it from.

[Jazzhead]

At least you admit that you pulled it out of thin air.

Read the PA statute you linked to (Section 2608(a)(3)):

Nonliability.--Nothing in this chapter shall impose criminal liability:

(1)  For acts committed during any abortion or attempted abortion, whether lawful or unlawful,in which the pregnant woman cooperated or consented.

(2)  For the consensual or good faith performance of medical practice, including medicalprocedures, diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment, the use of an intrauterinedevice or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulation, fertilization or theimplantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.

(3)  Upon the pregnant woman in regard to crimes against her unborn child.

The statute is aimed at third parties,  not the fetus' mother.    Just like I said.     

[Hoodat]

Read the PA statute you linked to (Section 2608(a)(3)):

The statute is aimed at third parties,  not the fetus' mother.    Just like I said.     

You still are not answering the question.  Again, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?

[Jazzhead]

You still are not answering the question.  Again, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?

I already did. 

[Hoodat]

I already did.

You most definitely did not.  You cited Pennsylvania law that specifically holds a mother to be non-liable when it comes to murder and assault against "her unborn child".  But you continue to ignore the question as to what gives Pennsylvania the right to determine its own laws in this matter.

[Jazzhead]

You most definitely did not.  You cited Pennsylvania law that specifically holds a mother to be non-liable when it comes to murder and assault against "her unborn child".  But you continue to ignore the question as to what gives Pennsylvania the right to determine its own laws in this matter.

I addressed the law YOU cited, and pointed out that your statement about the law's application to the mother was false.   As I said before,  Pennsylvania defines certain crimes against fetuses that are perpetrated by third parties.    The mother's loss includes the loss of her child.   The "rights" of the fetus are really just the rights of the mother.   

[roamer_1]

It is indeed an extraordinary and precious thing.    Which is why it must be the mother's choice,  because above all else a baby needs a mother's love.

Oh, I would very happily let the question be decided by mothers - not females, mothers only... those having already bourn a child, knowing its value.

And were that the case, your position would fail miserably.

[Hoodat]

I addressed the law YOU cited, and pointed out that your statement about the law's application to the mother was false.

You are correct.  Pennsylvania law does indeed declare a mother non-liable when it comes to murder and assault against "her unborn child".  The law expresses the will of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding liability for the injury or death of an unborn child.  In other words, Pennsylvania has the right to decide for itself whether or not a mother could be held liable, and Pennsylvania exercised that right.  And most importantly of all, you have just acknowledged that right by citing the very law that Pennsylvania enacted.

So I will ask yet again.  Can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?

[Jazzhead]

You are correct.  Pennsylvania law does indeed declare a mother non-liable when it comes to murder and assault against "her unborn child".  The law expresses the will of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding liability for the injury or death of an unborn child.  In other words, Pennsylvania has the right to decide for itself whether or not a mother could be held liable, and Pennsylvania exercised that right.  And most importantly of all, you have just acknowledged that right by citing the very law that Pennsylvania enacted.

So I will ask yet again.  Can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?

Yet again I repeat - a pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother.   The PA law confirms that.   The fact that it defines certain crimes committed by third parties against a mother which also happen to harm her fetus do not convey legal rights upon the fetus.    The crimes are not committed "against the unborn child";  they are committed against the mother and the fetus she is carrying.   

This is getting boring, Hoodat.   

[Hoodat]

Yet again I repeat - a pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother.

According to Pennsylvania law.

The PA law confirms that.

No, it does not confirm anything since there is nothing that comes before it.  The Pennsylvania law creates the BASIS - within Pennsylvania.  Other States establish their own precedents by creating their own laws.

The fact that it defines certain crimes committed by third parties against a mother which also happen to harm her fetus do not convey legal rights upon the fetus.

Again, within Pennsylvania, from the law you cited.

The crimes are not committed "against the unborn child"

The phrase "against the unborn child" is a direct quote from the law.  So yes, they are crimes committed "against the unborn child".

they are committed against the mother and the fetus she is carrying.

If a person takes egregious action against "the mother" which results in the death of the child, but not the death of "the mother", the law defines that as murder/manslaughter (a crime) against only the child and not the mother. 

This is getting boring, Hoodat.

Boring?  You should be worn out from all the dodging and weaving you have been conducting.  For post after post after post, I have asked you for the legal basis for your opinions.  And this time, you actually gave one - a Pennsylvania law - a law that epitomizes Amendment X being put to action.  The law is a textbook case of a State determining its own laws when it comes to the life of an unborn baby, which has been my contention from Day One.  And for three years, I have witnessed you rail against the right of Pennsylvania or any other State from doing exactly that. 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you insist on relying on Pennsylvania Commonwealth law to absolve a mother of any wrongdoing in the harm or injury to her unborn baby, then I should be afforded the same right here in Georgia to establish our own laws that reflect the goals of our society.  Capisce?

[mountaineer]

Related (from the Babylon Bee, just in case it's hard to tell whether it's satire):

Democrats Warn That Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Reduce Access To Essential Campaign Donations
May 22nd, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Republican proposal to withdraw Title X federal funding from Planned Parenthood could cause a dangerous drop in the abortion provider’s campaign contributions to liberal political candidates, Democratic leaders sternly cautioned during a press conference earlier today.

“Planned Parenthood does much more than perform abortions,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters. “They provide crucial services to marginalized Democrat candidates, like spending over $30 million to support pro-abortion candidates in the upcoming midterm elections.”

“If we do not prop up Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars,” she continued, “where will Democratic candidates go for the vital health care services Planned Parenthood is known for, like their $2000-per-plate fundraising dinners and slick political advertising campaigns?”

“This is a human rights issue,” she added somberly. ...

link

[Jazzhead]

Hoodat - YOU are the one who cited Pennsylvania law and then lied about what it said.   I pointed out the language in the law that says clearly that the fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. 

And so what I've been saying all along is correct,  no matter how much you squirm.   

[Sanguine]

Thanks, @mountaineer.  I did have trouble deciding whether it was really satire or not. 

[Hoodat]

Hoodat - YOU are the one who cited Pennsylvania law and then lied about what it said.   I pointed out the language in the law that says clearly that the fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother. 

And so what I've been saying all along is correct,  no matter how much you squirm.

Nice try, @Jazzhead, but your "no legal rights vis a vis the mother" argument was offered four days before the Pennsylvania statute was posted.  In other words, your entire "no legal rights" contention was pulled out of thin air, just as I stated.  But once the Pennsylvania statute was posted you foolishly used it as the basis for your earlier claim.  And by doing so, you affirmed the right and exercise of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to set its own laws in regard acts "against the unborn child".  In other words, your entire 'Constitutionality of Roe' argument has been complete and total bullsh!t this entire time.  So enjoy your Pennsylvania law.  It is your entitled right as a citizen of Pennsylvania to vote for a legislature that enacts laws such as this.  But also know that it is my right as a citizen of the State of Georgia to do the same.  And as your legislature specifically and explicitly holds the mother non-liable for said injury or death of her unborn child, my legislature will specifically and explicitly lay out its own laws in this regard with due process under the Constitution of the United States of America, God bless it.