Doesn't matter what the UVVA says, it has NO connection to, or control over, abortion laws You must be to afraid to find the clause that says so
Childhood begins at birth. Prior to the existence of the child there is the zygote, embryo, and fetus. The invented construct of "child-in-the-womb" is an nefarious misrepresentation of the "fetus" that is in the womb. But "child" really has no meaning and even "person" is a little distracting. What is important are the natural rights of the person and the conditions related to the establishment of the person's natural rights. We could identify the "person" starting at the embryo stage of development but at that point many natural rights that will be established for the "person" just don't exist yet. For example that Natural Right to Life cannot exist as long as the "preborn" is a dependent woman (mother) because it is incapable of living outside of the womb. If that right existed then the "preborn" could be removed unharmed and intact, becoming completely independent from the woman (mother), without dying. The Rights of the Person are fundamental and exist for the "Independent" person and not the "dependent" upon the woman (mother). Some try to play word games by saying the infant can't feed itself and that's true but the infant is independent because it's no longer dependent upon the mother to feed it. Anyone can feed the infant. People like to invent their "criteria" when the only criteria that actually applies are the natural rights of the (independent) person.
Sure it matters. You guys continually say the unborn have no rights. The UVVA proved that assertion wrong, unquestionably.
Reminds me of this quote from Casino: A lot of holes in the desert, and a lot of problems are buried in those holes. But you gotta do it right. I mean, you gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you're talking about a half-hour to forty-five minutes worth of digging. And who knows who's gonna come along in that time? Pretty soon, you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all (*)(*)(*)(*)in' night. Swell, then we can vote yours away.
Here read it yourself: Unborn Victims of Violence Act : https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf By the way the mother has been born, so clearly she is not the victim this law was a written to protect.
It would seem your understanding of the term "arbitrary" is lacking. If YOU had the power alone then indeed you could.
Blah blah blah repeat repeat with NO proof whatsoever... Here's some FACTUAL repetition : Doesn't matter what the UVVA says, it has NO connection to, or control over, abortion laws You must be to afraid to find the clause that says so
Not at all, trust me. If everybody on the planet voted away your personhood, I'm pretty sure you'd consider it nonetheless arbitrary.
The proof is in the law itself. You should read the post before cutting and pasting your standard responses.
If the proof is in the law itself you would be able to post the part that says fetuses have rights...... Blah blah blah repeat repeat with NO proof whatsoever... Here's some FACTUAL repetition : Doesn't matter what the UVVA says, it has NO connection to, or control over, abortion laws You must be to afraid to find the clause that says so
"In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-eight (3 states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.[2] These laws do not apply to legally induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion."
I posted the link to the actual law, quit making a fool of yourself. So what part of this do you have difficulty comprehending? § 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. Or This: " 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.’’. BOOM!
What part of this do you have difficulty with : "In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-eight (3 states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.[2] These laws do not apply to legally induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion."
The fact that there is language in the law that is logically opposed to the spirit of the law is irrelevant to the points I was making.
If you make abortion illegal, you force (pregnant) women to gestate and give birth. Own it, unless you are ashamed to. Abortion is legal in my country - at any stage.
Please show where it says the unborn have rights. Hint: it will say "...the right to....." if they have any.
Did you miss this part?: (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 12. (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.
It very clearly is. Unborn children have a right to life, ....uh unless their own mother wants to kill them, then it is OK. ??????? - - - Updated - - - See the way this works is you have to actually read the linked law to see what it says. Don't pull a Nancy Pelosi.
Incorrect once again. If you prevent someone from making one of 2 choices, you are forcing them to do something. Fail once again. If they had rights, those rights would be enumerated. They would begin with "....the right to...." It is illegal to abuse animals, but animals do not have rights. Just because it's illegal to do something to an entity does not mean that entity has rights.
Tell that to the Supreme Court....I'm sure they'll get a laugh..... BTW, what reason would they outlaw abortion? If they claim it's a person, it still won't have more rights than the woman it's in.....or do you think women shouldn't have the same rights as other persons....that would explain a lot . Oh, and want to explain how outlawing abortion will stop it? It won't
Doesn't matter, outlawing first degree murder didn't stop it, using your logic we should abolish the laws against murder.
These terms can also be found in online legal dictionaries, some of which are provided by law firms. "Person" - In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person "Person" - An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx "Human Being" - There are various definitions for a human being. Biologically, they are classified as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, which are a primate species of mammal with a highly developed brain. Humans have the highest brain to body mass ratio of all large animals. They have a life expectancy approaching 80 years old in wealthy nations, walk on two feet and have opposable thumbs. Skin color ranges from almost back to pale pinkish-white. Height and weight varies, depending on locality, historical factors, environmental, and cultural factors such as diet. Human beings are characterized by the ability to speak. They have a high capacity for abstract thinking and are commonly thought to possess a spirit or soul which transcends the physical body. The spiritual aspect of human beings is often defined in terms of rituals and religion. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/human-beings/ "Human Infant Born Alive Law and Legal Definition" Human infant who has been born alive means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/human-infant-born-alive/ And this one is very good... Person, human being, child, and individual as including born-alive infant - (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words person, human being, child, and individual, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term born alive, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section. (My emphasis) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8 IOW a fetus is not legally a "person", "child", or "human being"..... a fetus is a fetus. And so all the determination by right-to-life folks to call a fetus a "human" or "child" or "person" are emotional and psychological tricks intended to win agreement falsely.
