Originally posted by LethalFemme
The biggest of these and perhaps the most used throughout time(I assume it has been used here) is God. For many the minute this word is heard they're forced into a silence never disagreeing, never uttering a word of contradiction for fear of eternal damnation.
I've always wondered how Jesus Freaks were able to reconcile the eternal damnation thing. I mean, if God created the devil, and the devil had a choice to follow God or not to follow God... why did God give the Devil and all of his heavenly host the choice to follow him or not to follow him? Or how about Adam? Why did God give Adam a choice between Good and Evil? Was it because he loved him too? Was it because he didn't want them all to be mindless slaves, but truly wanted to have a loving relationship with all of them?
So you see, all of the eternal damnation sh*t is just the inner manifistation and by product of the stupid choices that people make. You ever heard of the expression, "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face"? Well that's what the Devil, his fallen angels, and the people who make stupid choices are really doing. It's all just an extension of people being stupid and selfish, doing stupid things that eventually leads them to their own personal Hell, which God and everyone else who follows him really doesn't even have to play a part in. All they really have to do is sit back and seperate themselves into another dimension or world or whatever...relax, have some pity, and eat some popcorn while watching the fireworks.
So my life philosophy is just do whatever the f*ck you want with your life, I really don't care. Have as many abortions as you want, screw a dog, commit infanticide, f*ck as many guys/girls/whatever as you want....just so long as you realize in the end the real person that your screwing over in the end is yourself.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Fear the eternal damnation.Fear the wrath of GOD!
...
herbwank
The only thing I'm fearing is what's coming out of big boy there's mouth.fear
Originally posted by Gay Guy
I've always wondered how Jesus Freaks were able to reconcile the eternal damnation thing. I mean, if God created the devil, and the devil had a choice to follow God or not to follow God... why did God give the Devil and all of his heavenly host the choice to follow him or not to follow him? Or how about Adam? Why did God give Adam a choice between Good and Evil? Was it because he loved him too? Was it because he didn't want them all to be mindless slaves, but truly wanted to have a loving relationship with all of them?So you see, all of the eternal damnation sh*t is just the inner manifistation and by product of the stupid choices that people make. You ever heard of the expression, "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face"? Well that's what the Devil, his fallen angels, and the people who make stupid choices are really doing. It's all just an extension of people being stupid and selfish, doing stupid things that eventually leads them to their own personal Hell, which God and everyone else who follows him really doesn't even have to play a part in. All they really have to do is sit back and seperate themselves into another dimension or world or whatever...relax, have some pity, and eat some popcorn while watching the fireworks.
So my life philosophy is just do whatever the f*ck you want with your life, I really don't care. Have as many abortions as you want, screw a dog, commit infanticide, f*ck as many guys/girls/whatever as you want....just so long as you realize in the end the real person that your screwing over in the end is yourself.
I remember when they gave that lesson on Sesame Street
Originally posted by LethalFemme
The only thing I'm fearing is what's coming out of big boy there's mouth.fear
Looks kind of sexy if you ask me, of course..I'm used to seeing that kind of thing. My ex boyfriend was a bit of a slobberer as well.. 😛
Originally posted by LethalFemme
I remember when they gave that lesson on Sesame Street
Actually I got that lesson from the Archdeacon at the Cathelic Church that I grew up in. And before anyone ask, no being molested by a Catholic priest did not make me Gay.... 😠 😆
Originally posted by Gay Guy
So my life philosophy is just do whatever the f*ck you want with your life, I really don't care. Have as many abortions as you want, screw a dog, commit infanticide, f*ck as many guys/girls/whatever as you want....just so long as you realize in the end the real person that your screwing over in the end is yourself.
Except the dog. And since infanticide legally refers to the killing of a child that has actually been born, they would be getting a pretty raw deal as well.
Lets just remember that while living ones own life is perfectly fine, it does not give a person completely free reign and immunity from social and legal conventions.
Actually I got that lesson from the Archdeacon at the Cathelic Church that I grew up in. And before anyone ask, no being molested by a Catholic priest did not make me Gay....
Sigh.
Originally posted by Gay Guy
Looks kind of sexy if you ask me, of course..I'm used to seeing that kind of thing. My ex boyfriend was a bit of a slobberer as well.. 😛
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Originally posted by Gay Guy
Actually I got that lesson from the Archdeacon at the Cathelic Church that I grew up in. And before anyone ask, no being molested by a Catholic priest did not make me Gay.... 😠 😆
Sesame Street>>>>>>>>>>Catholic Churchmhm
Originally posted by LethalFemme
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
It is when you have frequent herpe's outbreaks and gum decay which causes bloody gums.😉
Originally posted by LethalFemme
Sesame Street>>>>>>>>>>Catholic Churchmhm [/B]
Almost right..hold on let me fix..
Sesame Street>>>>>>>>>Catheolic Church
both are not======= to
Christianity.
😂 🤣 💃 🤣 😂
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And since infanticide legally refers to the killing of a child that has actually been born, they would be getting a pretty raw deal as well.
in·fan·ti·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd)
n.
1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.
😂
3 months, 6 months, 9 months whatever..if you kill a bunch of pregnant chicks who are pregnant, then you've commited infantacide. See..I told you I was an English teacher. It's for you to go back to teh skool little won...
🤣 💃 🤣
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Lets just remember that while living ones own life is perfectly fine, it does not give a person completely free reign and immunity from social and legal conventions.
You know, I'm thinking that you have a problem understanding people, or perhaps you just have a problem with being proven wrong, so you just pretend to not understand, so that if anyone asks you why your argument is so full of sh*t, you can just say, "I didn't know you were talking about sh*t, I just though you were talking about ships."
So let me repeat my argument in words that even you can understand. Commiting infanticide while a woman is pregnant with her child is her CHOICE. Society says she has the right to take the life of the baby shes carrying in HER body. According to the LAW, The life that she is carrying in her body is HERS to CHOOSE what to do with, not SOCIETIES.
I'm not preaching anarchy, I'm talking about giving people more choices to do what they want to do. Abortion is legal, so who the f*ck cares if it's not moral or technically murder. It's LEGAL. My point is that as long as a person is not BREAKING THE LAWS in the COUNTRY where they LIVE, then it's okay for them to SCREW DOGS, KILL BABIES, WHATEVER. Just so long as the GOVERNMENT that GOVERNS them says that it is LEGAL than it's okay for PEOPLE to do WHATEVER the f*ck THEY WANT.
DO i MAKE MYSELF CLEAR? 🙂
Originally posted by Gay Guy
in·fan·ti·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd)
n.[b]1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.😂
3 months, 6 months, 9 months whatever..if you kill a bunch of pregnant chicks who are pregnant, then you've commited infantacide. See..I told you I was an English teacher. It's for you to go back to teh skool little won... 🤣 💃 🤣 [/b]
No, that is not correct. An unborn child is not an infant (infant being a child below seven years of age but still having been born.) Just like during the first initial phase of pregnancy the foetus is not classified as unborn child. Infanticide is: the killing of a newborn or a child who falls within the period of infancy.
A pregnant women who has an abortion is not committing infanticide, legally or technically. A person who kills a pregnant women is also not committing infanticide in terms of the legal definition.
So. Does does thou like those apples?
You know, I'm thinking that you have a problem understanding people, or perhaps you just have a problem with being proven wrong, so you just pretend to not understand, so that if anyone asks you why your argument is so full of sh*t, you can just say, "I didn't know you were talking about sh*t, I just though you were talking about ships.
Hmmm - I just think you prescribed the medicine you are meant to be taking for yourself.
So let me repeat my argument in words that even you can understand. committing infanticide while a woman is pregnant with her child is her CHOICE. Society says she has the right to take the life of the baby shes carrying in HER body. According to the LAW, The life that she is carrying in her body is HERS to CHOOSE what to do with, not SOCIETIES.
Once again wrong - you do the pro-choice stance no good by taking a stupid and erroneous line that uses words like murder and infanticide (though I guess, if you are indeed Whob., that is your purpose.)
Infanticide is a crime: it is killing the a child that has already been born. Understand?
I'm not preaching anarchy, I'm talking about giving people more choices to do what they want to do. Abortion is legal, so who the f*ck cares if it's not moral or technically murder. It's LEGAL. My point is that as long as a person is not BREAKING THE LAWS in the COUNTRY where they LIVE, then it's okay for them to SCREW DOGS, KILL BABIES, WHATEVER. Just so long as the GOVERNMENT that GOVERNS them says that it is LEGAL than it's okay for PEOPLE to do WHATEVER the f*ck THEY WANT.
It is not murder, nor is it infanticide - infanticide is 100% different from abortion, so no, it is not ok till kill babies, but legally and technically speaking abortion does no kill babies. Nor is it legal to engage in a sexual act with a dog. What you are doing is trying to group a legal act in with non legal ones, which as a result makes the legal one appear monstrous and immoral.
So, ready to go back to school yet?
DO i MAKE MYSELF CLEAR? 🙂
Less and less with each post.
Originally posted by Gay Guy
in·fan·ti·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd)
n.[b]1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.😂
3 months, 6 months, 9 months whatever..if you kill a bunch of pregnant chicks who are pregnant, then you've commited infantacide. See..I told you I was an English teacher. It's for you to go back to teh skool little won...
🤣 💃 🤣
You know, I'm thinking that you have a problem understanding people, or perhaps you just have a problem with being proven wrong, so you just pretend to not understand, so that if anyone asks you why your argument is so full of sh*t, you can just say, "I didn't know you were talking about sh*t, I just though you were talking about ships."
So let me repeat my argument in words that even you can understand. Commiting infanticide while a woman is pregnant with her child is her CHOICE. Society says she has the right to take the life of the baby shes carrying in HER body. According to the LAW, The life that she is carrying in her body is HERS to CHOOSE what to do with, not SOCIETIES.
I'm not preaching anarchy, I'm talking about giving people more choices to do what they want to do. Abortion is legal, so who the f*ck cares if it's not moral or technically murder. It's LEGAL. My point is that as long as a person is not BREAKING THE LAWS in the COUNTRY where they LIVE, then it's okay for them to SCREW DOGS, KILL BABIES, WHATEVER. Just so long as the GOVERNMENT that GOVERNS them says that it is LEGAL than it's okay for PEOPLE to do WHATEVER the f*ck THEY WANT.
DO i MAKE MYSELF CLEAR? 🙂 [/B]
Your logic is flawed in a way that you will never realize the mistake of following it. So how about stfu.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, that is not correct. An unborn child is not an infantA pregnant women who has an abortion is not committing infanticide, legally or technically. A person who kills a pregnant women is also not committing infanticide in terms of the legal definition.
So. Does does thou like those apples?
in·fan·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfn-s)
n. pl. in·fan·cies1. The earliest period of childhood, especially before the ability to walk has been acquired.
2. The state of being an infant.
3. An early stage of existence: Space exploration is still in its infancy.
Law. The state or period of being a minorin·fan·ti·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd)
n.
1. The act of killing an infant.2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.
Don't see anything bout something having to be already being born in those definitions dude to qualify it as an infant...once again..you're definitions are flawed..and so is your logic.
😮💨 😂 🙄 😂 😮💨
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm - I just think you prescribed the medicine you are meant to be taking for yourself.
Listen man..the only medication I'm taking right now is estrogen, and that's because I just had hip replacement surgery. I'm not trying to go for gender re-assignment surgery or anything, scientifically, it's been proven that men with higher estrogen levels are shown to have less fractures to the hip. My doctor prescribed it to me for my HIP..GET IT.😠
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Once again wrong - you do the pro-choice stance no good by taking a stupid and erroneous line that uses words like murder and infanticide (though I guess, if you are indeed Whob., that is your purpose.)Infanticide is a crime: it is killing the a child that has already been born. Understand?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which defines a violent attack on a pregnant women as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her unborn child. The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
🙄
If you KILL a bunch of PREGGERS in the UNITED STATES than it would be considered INFANTICIDE. Where the hell have you been over the last couple of years?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is not murder, nor is it infanticide - infanticide is 100% different from abortion, so no, it is not ok till kill babies, but legally and technically speaking abortion does no kill babies. Nor is it legal to engage in a sexual act with a dog. What you are doing is trying to group a legal act in with non legal ones, which as a result makes the legal one appear monstrous and immoral.So, ready to go back to school yet?
It IS INFANTICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES IF YOU KILL A BUNCH OF PREGANANT WOMEN.
IT is only MURDER in the UNITED STATES if someone other than the PREGNANT women commits the INFANTICIDE. It is LEGAL in the UNITED STATES for a woman to kill her OWN CHILD while it is in HER body. TEH LAW says that its OKAY so that makes it OKAY.
Your still completely missing the point. I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. As long as the LAW says that ITS OKAY for a woman to COMMIT INFANTICIDE on a child that is in HER BODY then ITS OKAY in my book.
I don't give a rat's ass if she CHOOSES to INFANTICIDE her child. It means less of my tax money will go to having to pay for another WELFARE whelp, and less baby daddy mamma drama on the daytime talkshows.
SO anyway i AGREE WITH YOU. Do whatever the f*ck you want, as long as the government says its okay, you have nothing to worry about..
Sheesh...never got so much opposition from someone I agree with.
Originally posted by LethalFemme
Back on subject abortion is a sensitive issue. It's not a glamorous option there's a lot a woman thinks about before she commits to it. What it'll do to her physically, emotionally and mentally. And the real question for me is should men have a right to help decide abortion laws?
A good question.
It's easy to tell men to just f..k off since they will NEVER be in the situation of being being pregnant and not wanting to.
HOWEVER... there are cases, where girls/women "entrap" men by becoming pregnant and HAVING a child. It's somewhat of a dilemma in my world, and I'm not sure what my stance is yet...
On one hand, if the girlfriend becomes pregnant and the guy doesn't want to be a father yet, he should be able to "sign off" the rights/responsibilities to the child if he'd rather she had an abortion. BUT... it's the woman's body... maybe her religion forbids her to HAVE an abortion... And then she's in trouble...
Or what about the other case... The guy wants the child and the girls does not?
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Why the hell do you keep repeating this? What makes you think Omega is taking a one sided argument? And what makes you think he's trying to convince you to take a one sided argument?You're assuming there is only two stances here. He's not asking you if your stance is either black or white. He's asking you to clean up your vague comments. But technically you're taking a one sided stance whether you want to believe that or not because you're speaking through your own point of view. And that, in itself, is one sided.
Fair Enough. I will simplify my argument, and then end it there. I honestly am tired of repeating my stance to different people, but this will hopefully be the last time someone asks me to clarify my "vague" comments or to "make a stance":
A) I think Abortion is immoral in most cases. Immoral to me, does not equal EVIL. There are different degrees of "immorality". I just think it's a bad and unfortunate thing, but not "evil". For example, punching someone in the face is immoral, but not evil. Slitting someone's throat with a knife is both immoral AND evil. Abortion, in my eyes, does not fit in with "evil", just "immoral".
B) I would NOT vote to BAN Abortion. Why? Because although I feel it is an immoral thing, I do not feel it is on par with things such as murder, torture, or control. To BAN ABORTION..would not only be forcing a woman to endure the pain and effect of unwanted childbirth, but it would also be an act of CONTROL over her life and choice. To BAN Abortion, would be WORSE in my eyes, than actually having the Abortions.
C) I believe that EDUCATION is the most important factor here. I feel that A woman should be exposed and educated on ALL OPTIONS and Consequences before she decides to make any decision. Abortion is a drastic act. It is a FINAL act, and cannot be taken back. It is ALSO an act of killing...I do not think Abortion should be done lightly, or out of fear. I think it should be WELL thought out before enacted.
Originally posted by crazylozer
From dictionary.com
Evil: morally bad or wrong
Immoral: violating principles of right and wrongHmm, sounds like immoral and evil mean the same thing, no?
1) You just seem to be rambling on about nothing. Yes, you are indeed judging when you see someone do something immoral. To judge means to form an opinion or idea of something based on consideration. So unless you don't recognize that a person did anything wrong, you realize that the person did something wrong. Since wrong and right are opinionated...yes, you do judge people.
2) You just don't get it. Is a foetus have its own life or not? If it does, then is it human? If it is human, then getting rid of it is killing. Following that, abortion is the equivalent of killing a person.
Here is the big idea. Try to keep up.
[B]A foetus may or may not be a human being. There are arguments either way. If you do indeed believe that it is so, then you should logically equate abortion with killing. If you then oppose killing, you should oppose abortion. Pro-choice advocates, for the most part, do not believe that foetuses are living people; thus they can believe that abortion is not wrong while simultaneously believing that killing is wrong.
3) See above, and try to see why everyone is repeating the same point in order to make you understand.
4) A) See above
B) Duh! Not many support the right of people who choose to murder others.
C) No one said that; don't put words in other peoples mouths.
D) Not everything is about Liberal and Conservative. No one is throwing around those terms; you simply are drawing lines around people, sorting them into groups from what you believe to be the respective groups. In truth, the two camps of thought are ambiguous, with no real definitions. People are merely pointing out the flaws in your logic. [/B]
Read my post again Lord Urizen, and get back to me.
kthxbi
Originally posted by Gay Guy
Don't see anything bout something having to be already being born in those definitions dude to qualify it as an infant...once again..you're definitions are flawed..and so is your logic.😮💨 😂 🙄 😂 😮💨
Well, it's not my fault that you have so little common sense. An unborn child is not an infant - just as there are different stages of pregnancy, there are different stages of childhood - infancy begins at the moment a child is born and lasts until they turn seven. Prior to birth they are unborn - logic, and not legally considered infants. An infant starts being an infant the moment they are born and lasts until that age.
Listen man..the only medication I'm taking right now is estrogen, and that's because I just had hip replacement surgery. I'm not trying to go for gender re-assignment surgery or anything, scientifically, it's been proven that men with higher estrogen levels are shown to have less fractures to the hip. My doctor prescribed it to me for my HIP..GET IT.😠
Your ability to come up with bizarre things to distract from your illogical arguments should be considered the stuff of legend.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004(Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which defines a violent attack on a pregnant women as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her unborn child. The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
🙄
If you KILL a bunch of PREGGERS in the UNITED STATES than it would be considered INFANTICIDE. Where the hell have you been over the last couple of years?[/b]
All it seems to be showing is that you have no understanding of the law. Trust me, just going to the government legislation site and cutting and posting the definition does not equal understanding on your part. In fact, you have just proved my point. It is the "Unborn Victims of violence Act" - an act that recognises the difference between an unborn, and an infant or child. An act that recognises that it is a crime to harm an unborn child - unborn.
So, as I have said before, and will say again - the devil is in the detail, and minor variances. The legislation you mentioned there is different from laws that deal with infanticide. Also, you failed to take into account the changing nature of laws - murder is, now, a far more streamlined set of laws. Laws such as infanticide, regicide and patricide are less relevant legally and only really used by media and the like.
Why? As the effort to make the law seem fairer and less caste like has progressed it has led to alteration of of definitions - if you kill someone that is what is important, not if they are a king or father or child. The remnants of these earlier criminal states is in the maximum sentence one can get (more severe for the killing of a police officer or a child) - so once again let me say - the law does not, by definition, make the death of an unborn baby an act of infanticide. And likewise having an abortion is not infanticide, as it is not an infant, and more importantly not a crime.
It IS INFANTICIDE IN THE UNITED STATES IF YOU KILL A BUNCH OF PREGANANT WOMEN.IT is only MURDER in the UNITED STATES if someone other than the PREGNANT women commits the INFANTICIDE. It is LEGAL in the UNITED STATES for a woman to kill her OWN CHILD while it is in HER body. TEH LAW says that its OKAY so that makes it OKAY.
No, it is NOT infanticide. And it is NOT legal for a women to kill her own baby. IT is NOT legal for an unborn to be killed after the period in which an abortion may legally be performed except in situations where the mothers life is at risk, or in the case of multiple unborn, where the one risks the life of the others.
Abortion is NOT infanticide. A women who chooses to have an abortion is NOT choosing to commit infanticide. She is choosing to have an abortion. In cases where a women is assaulted and looses the unborn during the abortion period it is still undecided how this should be considered legally due to the legal definition of the foetus at that stage - thus the possibility of it being considered manslaughter. It is NOT infanticide.
DOES capitalising things help you understand professor?
Your still completely missing the point. I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. As long as the LAW says that ITS OKAY for a woman to COMMIT INFANTICIDE on a child that is in HER BODY then ITS OKAY in my book.
The problem is I would prefer not to have my arguments associated with idiotic ones, even if they did agree with me. Why? Because misinterpreting and using insightful, erroneous definitions does not help.
I don't give a rat's ass if she CHOOSES to INFANTICIDE her child. It means less of my tax money will go to having to pay for another WELFARE whelp, and less baby daddy mamma drama on the daytime talkshows.
One for the road: It is NOT infanticide. A mother who commits infanticide is committing a crime. A mother who has an abortion is NOT committing infanticide. So stop saying they are.
SO anyway i AGREE WITH YOU. Do whatever the f*ck you want, as long as the government says its okay, you have nothing to worry about..Sheesh...never got so much opposition from someone I agree with.
If a person disagrees with me or not I will debate them if they are taking a line that is incorrect and likely to incite the other side for no reason - which is what you are doing. Infanticide is a crime. Abortion is not. By calling abortion infanticide you are muddying the waters and appearing an idiot if you claim to be supporting choice.
Originally posted by The Omega
BUT... it's the woman's body... maybe her religion forbids her to HAVE an abortion... And then she's in trouble...
Or what about the other case... The guy wants the child and the girls does not?
thats was my scenario. my ex-girlfriend got pregnant and she wanted to have an abortion and i was like "ARE YOU FUKING JOKING!?" then i realized that it is her body and her choice to make. if i couldve gone through the pregnancy myself i wouldve, but thats neither her nor there. the whole damn thing almost broke apart my entire family.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, it's not my fault that you have so little common sense. An unborn child is not an infant..
One Hundred Eighth Congressof the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004' or `Laci and Conner's Law'.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:
`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
`Sec.`1841. Protection of unborn children.
`Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
`(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.
`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
`(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.
`(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1),
and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
`(d) As used in this section, 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.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:
1841'.SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN- Subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919 (article 119) the following new section:
`Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child
`(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
`(2) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
`(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
`(3) 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 paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
`(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) In this section, 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.'.(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 919 the following new item:
`919a. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
BUDDHA'S F*CKIN HAIRY GAY ASS MAN!! YOUR NOW OFFICIALLY RETARDED. READ THE F*CKIN CONDENSED VERSON OF THE BILL ABOVE MAN!!!
WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING? 😮💨
GIVE ME SOME OF THAT SH*T WHEN YOU'RE DONE!!!
YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS THICK.
Teh LAW recognizes ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IN UTERO as being A HOMOSAPIEN!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT A HOMOSAPIEN IS? IT'S A HUMAN BEING DUDE.
KILLLING a BUNCH OF PREGNANT CHICKS AT ANY STAGE OF THEIR PREGNANCY WOULD BE CONSIDERED INFANTICIDE!!!!
THE LAW CONSIDERS THE CHILD TO BE A FULLY HOMO SAPIEN(HUMAN) REGARDLESS OF WHAT STAGE OF IFANCY THE CHILD IS IN!!!
Any way as I said before I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU AND I have the SAME VIEW. WE're both SMART GUYS, AND REALIZE THAT KILLING THE UNBORN INFANT is the WOMAN'S CHOICE!!!
And ANYONE who DISAGREES with US IS a RETARD, and NEEDS to PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES of the POOR WOMEN WHO either FORGOT TO USE birth CONTROL, OR THE VERY FEW who ge RAPED AND want TO PROVE To teh WORLD THAT two WRONGS can MAKE EVERYTHING RIGHT!!!
LIKE GHANDI SAID, AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND, so what he meant WAS THAT if you GET RAPED/HURT/WHATEVER, HURT SOMEONE ELSE back, SO Then everyone AND EVERYTHING WILL be EQUAL AND BEETER again..
i'M DONE with this debate. HAVE A NICE DAY... 🙂
Originally posted by crazylozer
Read my post again Lord Urizen, and get back to me.kthxbi
I DID read your post, but sadly find it irrelevant.
Immoral- does not automatically equal Evil. Immoral , in my version of the word, just means bad, you are using the word out of religious context. In religion, immorality is Sin, and every sin is equal to another.
It's a very black and white way of thinking, not the mentality I share on the matter.
Immorality ranges from bad to evil. You have disregarded the point I made about the fist/knife example, which is your right to do so. However, u fail to realize that I was specifically answering YOU with that point, and if you feel my stance is once again mistaken, then ultamately there is nothing more I can do for you on that matter. 😉