Children don't have the right to vote, do they? The court should appoint someone to act as a representative on the fetus's behalf. If the mother causes damage through reckless endangerment, do you think that should just be ignored? Personally, I don't believe not wearing a seatbelt is reckless endangerment, in fact I would not have such a big problem if people were not required to wear seatbelts.
(My bold) Except that the charge of feticide is never free standing - that was why I asked about convictions based solely on the injury/death of the fetus. There aren't any. & I don't concede that it's a child, unborn or whatever words of art you want to apply. It's a fetus until it draws its first breath. Once in the World, it can be recognized as a person. & you can bandy words about until the heat death of the universe - the law isn't going to budge on the understanding of a person. The AMA @ Margaret Sanger's urging took on the role of prenatal & birth & abortion provider in the US. The AMA is not going to cede that ground to anybody without a fight. If you want to tilt @ windmills, be my guest.
In vitro or other means of non sexual reproduction do NOT reduce the statement that reproduction is the primary function of sex into the realm of opinion. The human mind, augmented with computers is quite capable of filling all the gaps of god, given time.
They are classified as persons "for the purpose of THIS law", not for society overall. To try to sneak in a back door justification for disallowing abortions.
Same here. So, now can you see how the UVVA and other fetal homicide laws establish the 'personhood' of the children killed?
Yeah, they establish personhood under certain circumstances and make exceptions for others. It's a very stupid law, imo. Just like my local state law that having a camel in my bathtub on Thursdays is wrong and illegal. I don't get why only Thursdays, but apparently it's illegal.
Of human reproduction? To reproduce. Pray tell now what is the primary means of intercourse (if there is a primary function at all)? And please back that up with some real proof thank you. I don't know why it's so hard to do. Surely your opinion is based on concrete evidence and you should be able to just Google it, right? That's what I usually do.
Again, the actual language of the law does not support your claims about it. The law specifically says that - in a case where the child is targeted intentionally, there doesn't even have to be any charges for the assault against the mother. It goes straight to U.S. Code 1111, 1112 and 1113 - when the killer intentionally targets the child. And those laws are found OUTSIDE of the language of the UVVA itself. You're entitled to that belief, I suppose.... but to the extent that the UVVA and all the other Fetal Homicide Laws remain in effect, you guys already lost that debate. Justice Potter predicted (when debating Roe) that it could be established - that a child in the womb is a "person." The UVVA makes good on his prediction. I didn't need permission or approval to do my thing for children's rights.
If you were a defense attorney... Would you allow such a law to remain unchallenged (Constitutionally) and for a conviction to send your client to prison for life? Not that you alone could do anything but make an appeal... But you should see where I'm going with this. If that's what the UVVA and other fetal homicide laws are doing.... They should be easily overturned. Shouldn't they? - - - Updated - - - I don't like to make assumptions.
I don't suppose anyone sees the necessity for overturning them, with the exception for abortion they are working OK.
When we start being as sensitive to all God's creatures then perhaps I might allow your question consideration, however as humans are callouse and uncaring about Gods other creatures, killing them off at will, I cannot grant exception to humans. Humans deserve get as good as they give. So final answer, no, it shouldn't be protected. In fact as humans are the most vile and obnoxious form of life on this planet, they should rightly be exterminated all together. Just my humble opinion.
I'm asking about the lawyers who's client is sent to prison for a conviction under the UVVA. Or family members of that person... Why do you suppose the language of and the convictions under the UVVA has not been challenged or overturned... FOR THE ONES CONVICTED? If you were convicted for MURDER - for killing anything other than another person... Would you let that go unchallenged? What does the continued standing of those convictions tell you about the law?
Wow, VHEMT might be the type of organisation you're looking for, although their idea of human extermination is far more peaceful and avoids killing. Their motto is “May we live long and die out”. http://www.vhemt.org/
If man weren't so hateful and destructive (and I think greed drives a lot of the despicable behavior too) I could go with that. I fear that he's taking the earth with him at this point and soon Earth will be another Mars and the feckless humans will wonder how it happened. But thanks for the link.
Yes, when it becomes that (a sentient being), I am all for protecting it. But its not at the embryonal stage.
Is it fair to say that they have to live long enough and develop past a point where you can't stomach denying them anymore?
Because, and only because, I have higher brain, the seat of human mind. Embryos, and also braindead people, do not have one and thus you may kill them. Given time?? Do you really want to protect *potential* human beings? You may as well ban contraception, lol
