When does one gain person-hood?

I believe that you are being disingenuous. If this is truly your criteria then why not argue for the converse? It seems to me that it would be easier to get rid of the fetal homicide laws in the interest of consistency than to change all the laws necessary to consider the unborn as persons due all the protections and obligations that persons currently have under the law.

The truth is that you are pro-life for whatever reason (which I have no problem with) and are trying to use what amounts to an inconsistency in the legal code, fetal homicide laws, to push your position.

 

So you would be content then if fetal homicide laws were repealed, thus eliminating what you perceive as an inconsistency?

 

The only thing that would make things more consistent if we removed it would be Roe and any associated laws. Fetal homicide laws are consistent with all other homicide laws, it is Roe that is out there in left field by itself.

The truth leads me to the conclusion that pro life is the correct position to take. I am not being dishonest at all! Pro life is the position that best aligns with our homicide laws on the books now. You can deny that all you want, but it is the truth!

 

Ah, then there is the incoherent "I am "pro Choice" just because I am "pro choice"" crowd.

Above is a GREAT example of how someone who cannot find a rational basis for his/her own opinion resorts to attacking the poster who opposes his/her position. If you take a close look above, he/she launches off into a personal attack on me after posting some incoherent nonsense about state laws.

Well address the FEDERAL Unborn Victims of Violence Act then. Why is it in place and why would we allow the obvious conflict that a fetus is a person under one circumstance and subhuman under a different circumstance. Same fetus, same age, but only human if one person kills him/her not when another person does.

 

Odd, the basis of my position coincides with most of the people in the civilized world. Is that what you call hard to find?

Cry me a river. I explained the only possible reasons behind your posts. I have not called you any names or labeled you or your posts, which is much less than you do.

What is there to address? It is clear to anyone with the most basic reading ability, but if you want me to explain a particular part please tell me which part you are having difficulty with and I will do my best to clarify it for you. for reference here is the text of the law:

"`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."

If you read the law and understood plain English that would be apparent from the very beginning.

"`1841. Protection of unborn children."

The word person is not part of the law. You are desperately grasping at straws.

That is just your uninformed opinion, not reality.

 

Of course not, they are not the only laws in conflict with Roe. Most if not all homicide laws are in conflict with Roe.

 

And you claim I cannot support my assertions. Where is your proof???

More incoherent babble and personal attacks. Obviously that is all you've got.

So a child is not a "person" in your opinion? You are falling apart here and it is funny to watch.

 

YOU provided the proof and then Grannie. The only group that contradicts my position is the evangelicals. we have covered this extensively before.

What are you talking about. The issue was fetal homicide laws, the federal one specifically and the word "person" does NOT appear. Now you can either demonstrate integrity and recognize that or you can continue your usual dance and avoidance.

 

Name one.
______________________________________________________________

 

All laws prohibiting premeditated homicide.

 

Bravo an excellent line of reasoning. You must be a chess player too.

 

The law has already ruled abortion is legal. If your only defence is the law, you lost before you opened your mouth.

 

It should be.

Aside form the legal proscription, why should this be the case?

How so?

No that's a 'legal American pro-choice position', which is rather irrelevant - ie the legal arguments dont hold much ground in that discussion of abortion should be on what SHOULD take place, not what CAN take place.

 

Your inability to comprehend what you read is astonishing!

So are you alleging that a child is not a person? A yes or no would be great!

 

Obviously you realize you lost this one, or else you would have come back with something more than that turd of a response.

 

You should read my posts and not just knee jerk post attacks.

Which law should I defer to? The ones that say a fetus is a human being and should not be violently killed, or the one that says a fetus is subhuman and killable at will?

 

Yet you are still unable to refute anything or offer a counter argument. Instead you are reduced to this childish tactic of diversion from that inability. Do make an effort and try to post something intelligent and relevant.

 

Why? You don't seem capable of being able to comprehend it!

 

You should do what I have said repeatedly - stay away from any legal arguments, as they are deadlocked.

 

Humor us, give it a try if you are in fact capable.

 

This is an issue of law. Can't stay away from law on an issue of law.

 

Who is "us" do you have multiple personalities? That would explain a lot!

 

Ok, well then I say the law is based on illogical ethics. Natural law is completely farcical. Care to respond? Probably not.

 

So you can NOT add anything intelligent or relevant to the discussion. Why is that of no surprise?

 

Which law? I agree if we are talking about Roe.