Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


Thanks Tree76Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 31st, 2016, 02:36 PM   #31
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
If I am understanding this correctly, you are claiming that a fetus must meet both these requirements before they can be legally recognized as a child.

Assuming that my assumption is correct, can you please share the legal source for where you are getting these qualifications from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
No, I said nothing about legality.

The question was when did I consider a fetus becomes a child.
Okay, two questions.

1. Do you have a problem with using legal definitions?

2. Do you intend to get the legal definitions changed to reflect your idea about what they should be?

Last edited by Chuz Life; January 31st, 2016 at 03:03 PM.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 03:23 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 13,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
Okay, two questions.

1. Do you have a problem with using legal definitions?

2. Do you intend to get the legal definitions changed to reflect your idea about what they should be?
I don't have a problem with legal definitions as long as we understand that's what we are using.

I don't need to get anything changed. Abortion is currently legal. The laws that you refer to have nothing to do with the legal definition of fetus vs. human being. For the most part they deal with the unwilling termination of a pregnancy or the harm done to fetus that eventually is carried to term.
Thanks from Hollywood
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 03:47 PM   #33
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
Okay, two questions.

1. Do you have a problem with using legal definitions?

2. Do you intend to get the legal definitions changed to reflect your idea about what they should be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I don't have a problem with legal definitions as long as we understand that's what we are using.
Great. As abortion is as much a legal issue as it is anything else, I may come back to this latter on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I don't need to get anything changed. Abortion is currently legal. The laws that you refer to have nothing to do with the legal definition of fetus vs. human being.
Do you see the disparity between the conclusions between Roe v Wade which essentially declares that a fetus is not a person and the subsequent Fetal Homicide laws which defines a child in the womb as "a human being" and make it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
For the most part they (the laws) deal with the unwilling termination of a pregnancy or the harm done to fetus that eventually is carried to term.
True.

However, do we not have to consider what the charge of murder says about the victim killed - when someone is charged with murder for killing a "child in the womb?"

Last edited by Chuz Life; January 31st, 2016 at 03:52 PM.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 05:29 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 8,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
A fetus does not have "brain activity?"

perhaps before the brain is formed. but children at birth have a functioning and active brain. studies show they have memories from before their birth.

so should a scan of brain activity be required of an unborn child be required before someone is allowed to rip it to pieces?
in an ideal world, yes. thats the requirement at the other end, we require a scan confirming no brain activity at the end of a life before we rip it to pieces
(pieces that we use for transplants).

but this is not an ideal world. its not feasable to actually do fetal brain scans. we are reliant on research and our knowledge of embryology, which tells us its somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks when the brain 'turns on' for lack of a better term. it isnt a single moment, it isnt like a light globe switching on, its a slow process, more like a piece of fruit ripening on a branch.

hopefully we have laws that match the science. we pretty much do, with some exceptions. it seems that the laws match the science largely by accident rather than design.
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 05:33 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 8,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
The whole "brain activity" thing is a big red herring anyway.

Neither brains nor brain activity is found in any of the legal definitions for natural 'persons' or for 'personhood.'
so? that just shows there are some laws that are out of date. wouldnt be the first time.
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 05:39 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 8,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
fetus (latin for small child)
foetus is latin for small child

sartorius, a muscle in the thigh, is latin for tailor.

cancer is latin for crab.

if an anatomist is the first person to describe a certain anatomical or pathological feature, they earn the right to name it. generally they use a latin term that is suggestive or descriptive of the thing in question. to take "small child" literally is as foolish as claiming your thigh can make clothes, or you need chemotherapy to kill crabs.
Thanks from Sabcat
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 05:48 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 13,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
Great. As abortion is as much a legal issue as it is anything else, I may come back to this latter on.



Do you see the disparity between the conclusions between Roe v Wade which essentially declares that a fetus is not a person and the subsequent Fetal Homicide laws which defines a child in the womb as "a human being" and make it a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act?
I do see a disparity but the disparity is the result of those opposed to abortion and their attempts to confer legal personhood on a fetus.

Again, these laws do not define personhood, they just make the actions illegal in an attempt to do what you are doing right now....use those laws to confer a legal status on a fetus.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
True.

However, do we not have to consider what the charge of murder says about the victim killed - when someone is charged with murder for killing a "child in the womb?"
And now here you are being a bit misleading and disingenuous.

The first link you have leads to the Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) Legal Encyclopedia entry about murder.

The second link leads to LII's listing of the US Code (specifically Section 1841 "Protection of Unborn Children") which is under Title 18, Chapter 90A

You are attempting to equate Murder with this law...yet this is a separate Chapter from Chapter 51 which covers Homicide.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...t-I/chapter-51

Someone charged under Section 1841 is NOT being charged with "murder" as that is a separate crime under Chapter 51
Thanks from Sabcat
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 06:12 PM   #38
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I do see a disparity but the disparity is the result of those opposed to abortion and their attempts to confer legal personhood on a fetus.

Again, these laws do not define personhood, they just make the actions illegal in an attempt to do what you are doing right now....use those laws to confer a legal status on a fetus.







And now here you are being a bit misleading and disingenuous.

The first link you have leads to the Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) Legal Encyclopedia entry about murder.

The second link leads to LII's listing of the US Code (specifically Section 1841 "Protection of Unborn Children") which is under Title 18, Chapter 90A

You are attempting to equate Murder with this law...yet this is a separate Chapter from Chapter 51 which covers Homicide.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...t-I/chapter-51

Someone charged under Section 1841 is NOT being charged with "murder" as that is a separate crime under Chapter 51
The unborn always had legal personhood. It was twentieth century liberal and agenda driven activist courts that stripped that away. It was murder to kill an unborn baby under the law. This has been codified since Leges Henrici Primi of 1115.
Thanks from Chuz Life
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 06:18 PM   #39
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I do see a disparity
Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
but the disparity is the result of those opposed to abortion and their attempts to confer legal personhood on a fetus.
Something he Supreme Court said in the oral arguments for Roe v Wade might explain some of that. You see, the SCOTUS said that a State COULD establish personality for a human fetus and were a State to do so, "the case for abortion become near impossible to make."

Since that day, several States have been incrementally trying to exactly that which the SCOTUS said they COULD do.

Does that make sense?

Beyond that, you used the word "confer" above.

Do you really believe that "personhood" is something that comes from the government as a grant or as an award of sorts? That our basic human rights are extended to us by others in Government?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Again, these laws do not define personhood, they just make the actions illegal in an attempt to do what you are doing right now....use those laws to confer a legal status on a fetus.
Natural Persons / Personhood is legally defined as "a human being" in the legal disctionaries. I never claimed it was defined in laws - although, I'm sure it is defined there too in some laws where lawmakers feel the need to be clear on it.

What I am most intrigued by is your (repeated) comment that you feel our rights are "conferred" to us from our government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
And now here you are being a bit misleading and disingenuous.

The first link you have leads to the Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) Legal Encyclopedia entry about murder.

The second link leads to LII's listing of the US Code (specifically Section 1841 "Protection of Unborn Children") which is under Title 18, Chapter 90A

You are attempting to equate Murder with this law...yet this is a separate Chapter from Chapter 51 which covers Homicide.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...t-I/chapter-51

Someone charged under Section 1841 is NOT being charged with "murder" as that is a separate crime under Chapter 51
I think you are having trouble reading the law.

It clearly says in section C

"(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".

Section 1111 - is MURDER
Section1112 - is Manslaughter
Section 1113- is Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter

Please take some extra time on this as I have some things to tend to here at the home and I won't be able to continue for a little while.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old February 1st, 2016, 12:24 PM   #40
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
The whole "brain activity" thing is a big red herring, anyway.

Neither brains nor brain activity is found in any of the legal definitions for natural 'persons' or for 'personhood.'

And (like I posted earlier) we have extreme legal cases where children have been born with only a brain stem and no capacity for thought, feeling pain or anything like that. . . and the courts ruled that they were still entitled to the same Constitutional rights that the rest of us are entitled to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
so? that just shows there are some laws that are out of date. wouldnt be the first time.
I was talking about legal definitions.

Are you saying that our legal definitions are out of date?

If so, why and how so?
Chuz Life is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
abortion, chuz, conception, interview, life, life begins, nwolfe35, qanda



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life - Haribol2332 Religion 4 December 8th, 2013 08:23 AM
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life - Jaya Jagannath Conspiracy Theories 2 October 29th, 2013 02:53 AM
Atheist Life vs. Religious Life tadpole256 Atheism 4 February 14th, 2009 06:03 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.