The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat

[sirs]

Based on the consistency of laws across the country that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, with the killing of a pregnant woman.

Is it your position those are merely "stupid laws"

Unfortunately those laws that you refer to are not consistent.

For the most part they are.  Every story I've heard/read, regarding the murder of a pregnant woman has carried 2 counts of murder

And i don't believe i gave a value to the laws in question, perhaps you confuse me with XO.

Perhaps you confuse my question with some supposed conclusion.  I thought the question was pretty clear.  Did I need to make it bold as well?  If that's what you need....Is it your position those are merely "stupid laws"??

Basically trying to facilitate your deliniation of who the government is to protect, being that you still haven't refuted it as a primary function of government.  Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?

[Plane]

  The inconsistancy is that you can't be killed without consequence , just because you have finished your gestation.

So we are back to a disagreement as to when life starts, legally speaking.

Of course and I would not mind being scriptural nor scientific in discussion of where this line belongs.

And apparently the law is in conflict, my understanding being that some states define it for their double murder laws as at conception, others follow more closely the Scotus guidelines for abortion. So is the goal to change Scotus precedent or further legislate from the states, which both require some form of government intervention.

Does the constitution directly address the rights of the unborn?

Is a fetus considered a citizen? What if they were conceived in a foreign land? How would that affect anchor babies?  conceived there, born here.   

And sirs, are the unborn citizens? Based on what?

On what indeed are the unborn denied their citizenship?

[Xavier_Onassis]

One cannot be a citizen of any country without being born first.

Fetuses gain their citizenship only when they leave the womb.

The anti-abortion fanatics will be trying to grant citizen ship to a gleam in a man's eye next. But only if the glimmer is within the US and the eye belongs to a citizen.

A fetus is not a person until it is born. It cannot be a citizen until it is a person.

[sirs]

Yep, that conclusion sure sounded stupid to me

[BT]

  The inconsistancy is that you can't be killed without consequence , just because you have finished your gestation.

So we are back to a disagreement as to when life starts, legally speaking.

Of course and I would not mind being scriptural nor scientific in discussion of where this line belongs.

And apparently the law is in conflict, my understanding being that some states define it for their double murder laws as at conception, others follow more closely the Scotus guidelines for abortion. So is the goal to change Scotus precedent or further legislate from the states, which both require some form of government intervention.

Does the constitution directly address the rights of the unborn?

Is a fetus considered a citizen? What if they were conceived in a foreign land? How would that affect anchor babies?  conceived there, born here.   

And sirs, are the unborn citizens? Based on what?

On what indeed are the unborn denied their citizenship?

Most probably the legal definition of citizenship.

Are you born at conception or born at birth?

[sirs]

Since I try, as time allows, to answer direct questions, and would wish to expect a similar level of courtesy in response, as time allows of course, I'll try for a 3rd time:

Is it your position those laws, spread all over the country, that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed, are they merely "stupid laws"??

Basically trying to facilitate your deliniation of who the government is to protect, being that you still haven't refuted it as a primary function of government.  Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?

[BT]

b]Is it[/b] your position those laws, spread all over the country, that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed, are they merely "stupid laws"??

As in never said they were stupid laws to begin with, i don't know why you insist that you keep working that tangent.

But if it helps i will reiterate that the laws you cite are inconsistent.

[sirs]

Pretty sketch answer to the 1st question, when a simple 1 word answer would have sufficed

Let's try a 4th time on the latter:  Basically trying to facilitate your deliniation of who the government is to protect, being that you still haven't refuted it as a primary function of government.  Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?

Didn't say "all" courts, didn't say "universal", merely referring to most.  So, what say you?  Unborn children don't count as it relates to protection by the government, given its primary function is protection of its citizenry?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
======================================
No, they do not count. An unborn child is not a person, it is a fetus.
You could pass a law stating that a fetus was an endangered, yet tiny, white rhinoceros, but this would not make it so. You could pass a law stating that you could fly, like Superman, but it would be inadvisable to try out your superpowers by jumping off tall buildings.

As Mr Micawber said: "The Law is a ass."

[sirs]

Unborn children, who most courts count as a person in murder trials, don't count in your book?
======================================
No, they do not count.

Didn't ask you.  We already have your position, you're stupid....I mean, you think the laws are stupid.  No need to rehash that stupid tangent

As Mr Micawber said: "The Law is a ass."

Best move to a country that has no laws, would be my recommendation.  Good luck with that

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have no desire to harm any fetus or pregnant woman, so such laws are irrelevant to me. But they are stupid. A fetus is not a person and is not a citizen.

Any attack on a fetus would clearly be an attack on the woman, and there are plenty of laws that make this highly illegal.
Passing these "double murder, mother and fetus" laws is clearly a stupid gesture on the part of some dumb fanatics.

[sirs]

Yea, I think we already got your stupid arguement

[BT]

Unborn children don't count as it relates to protection by the government, given its primary function is protection of its citizenry?

Based on Roe vs Wade, up to a specified point, the answer would be no.

Perhaps you can cite a Scotus case that says the opposite. As you are fond of saying, the ball is now in your court.

[sirs]

So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?

So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?

[BT]

So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?

So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?

My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.

So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman?  What's up with that?  Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?

Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn? Seems to me if the intent was to protect, there wouldn't be two counts to begin with.

No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely.

Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?