Who Does The Government Think They Are Prohibiting Intentional killing?

Yup, it's true and I proved it. I am not demonizing them , I simply stated a fact. ...one of those things you're so afraid of.

 

It does recognize personhood of a fetus. "in the case of" is irrational and completely irrelevant. A fetus is either a person or is not a person, the situation does not determine whether or not an entity is a person.

- - - Updated - - -

You demonized them alright, and by deflecting from the horrific fact of what an abortion actually by attacking people who disagree with you, you lost the debate and proved yourself irrelevant to the discussion. Congrats! You have never met a fact you didn't hate!

 

I didn't attack anyone I stated a fact...if you want to refer to those who want to force women to give birth as demonized, I won't argue

 

You don't know any facts on this subject, so you clearly did not state one. You seem to have facts and idiotic lies confused.

 

Just as you can't see a world without controlling other people.

 

None of the above really matters very much, even IF a fetus at any stage of development were to be deemed a person then it is legally seen as the same as any other born person and as such it cannot use another persons body without their consent.

Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.
How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

notice how I include the relevant legal proof, where as you resort to biased religious sites as proof

 

Oh the irony of the above comment, plus the hypocrisy of it.

Still waiting for your links to the relevant facts Whaler, instead of your opinion that is.

 

Read then, they are posted all through this thread and others.

 

"All through this thread" ???? You have ONE (1) in the OP which is a biased religious BS site.....

 

Disagree, and so do most state laws who prohibit abortions beyond a certain point, AND THAT POINT IS NOT BIRTH! The UVVA also clearly does recognize the personhood of children, who are in utero, AT ANY STAGE of DEVELOPMENT. It is all there in the language of the law, no need to idiotically continue to dispute what is obviously and literally true!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

http://brainshavings.com/tag/uvva/

"Now the abortion industry confronts a law that recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and they can read the writing on the wall. If they don’t gut this bill, the will of the people might actually be preserved … and that hurts the abortionists’ bottom line."

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...Rev.+553&key=08470d3f54f2fe9f1fad6749428fa0f4

Discusses the fact that the UVVA was used to support the case of Laci and Conner Peterson in that it allowed the death of Connor to be prosecuted as a murder, which is ALWAYS the killing of a person!

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ep-Fl/Fetal-Development-Human.html

Fills in the gaping holes in your understanding of human development.

 

not a single link to ANYTHING you post, you seem to think your opinion constitutes proof .. it doesn't, only a truly arrogant person would think that, are you an arrogant person?

 

I guess you don't realize how idiotic that is given the post I posted directly above that nonsense you posted contains multiple links.
Am I an arrogant person? No just confident that I am correct on this issue, and I have spent years researching the issues in depth. Ironically, all you post is opinions yet you accuse me of something horrific because I have an opinion.

 

Yup! Once you realized your HUGE lie about having linkS in this thread you quickly threw in a bunch AFTER you lied about it.....

 

Sorry I thought I was conversing with an adult, my mistake.

 

The bit you guys usual ignore

(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.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the courts can, and do, define things for the purpose of a specific law .. just as they have done in the UVVA. If as you seem to erroneously think that UVVA type laws did in fact recognise the fetus as a person in all aspects then elective abortion would already be illegal, and yet we find that UVVA type laws are ONLY relevant when a fetus has been killed WITHOUT the consent of the female. and as such it can easily be seen (by those with logical thinking) that UVVA type laws are, in fact, about strengthen the consent laws as far as pregnant women are concerned.

UVVA type laws have been around since 2004 (11 years) and yet not a single instance of these laws being used against Roe has been brought to court. One can surely say that if pro-life lawyers believed it did establish the personhood of a fetus they would have brought it to court .. have they?

The truth of the matter is that most lawyers and judges do not find that the UVVA in ANY of its forms establishes personhood for the fetus in anything but that law and that is tied to the consent of the female.

UVVA did not exist until AFTER that trial, so how could it be used to support the case, and it was only prosecuted as a murder due to the death of Laci and it was assumed she had not given consent to the fetuses death. As usual you miss the important fact of the very link you provided;

The UVVA makes it a separate and distinct crime to murder a fetus, at any stage of development, during the commission of a violent act against the mother

Which has nothing to do with my post . .so a nice attempt at a red herring by you. Deal with the legal aspects please or yet again are you unable to do so.

 

I didn't read your response until after I had posted mine, so thank you for finally posting some semblance of evidence to support your position . .however, that evidence does not equate to what you are attempting to prove, and nothing in it actually disputes the numerous things I have posted as far as consent and self-defence laws are concerned, do you want to try again?

Well by evidence of your posts you are an arrogant person, but that is your right. You may be confident that you are right .. however you have posted little to prove you are right, and just like you I have also spent years researching the issues in depth, as to all I post being opinions that is plainly BS. EVERYTHING I post can and is backed up by law .. I even directed you to two threads that deal specifically with the issues, which includes the numerous references and links . .have you even read them yet?

You opinion is yours, I merely ask you to provide evidence to support that opinion, which you rarely do and when asked to do so you find ways to evade, usually by trying to demean others through sarcastic comments ie calling them "skippy" or such like.

The offer has already been made for you and I to debate this properly under agreed rules, yet you have run away from that challenge, if you are as confident in your opinion as you say you are then what are you afraid of?

 

Sure. But in our species, the process called fertilization consumes and fuses sperm and egg.

Referring to a Homo sapiens in the zygote stage of life as an "egg" is ignorant in the extreme and confirms the author of such a sentiment needs a refresher (or initial education) in the field of Biology.

 

Except the person did not refer to a Homo Sapien in the zygote stage as an egg, the actual statement was "The Lie that a fertilized egg is a Person continues, pssst no brain = no person.", the actual reference is a "fertillized egg" which is biologically correct.

Even the definition of zygote agrees with the statement made.

Zygote - 1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.- http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zygote

ovum is also another word for egg ergo the above definition could just as easily say "1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized egg before cleavage"

So I would respectfully suggest that you do the refresher course.

 

An ovum is an egg. Get over yourself.

 

Wrong.

UVVA does not grant personhood or abortion would be illegal and Roe overturned.

In fact, UVVA does not grant anything. It simply allows an additional charge to be tacked on when a pregnant woman is assaulted. It's not that far off from hate crime laws which allow additional charges to be added to a base criminal charge when it's determined that the crime was committed with specific intent. It's no more than an additional book to throw at a perp.

It's a largely symbolic and entirely pointless law. It's cheered because it's assumed that the law will be used as a springboard towards personhood which was it's complete intent in the first place. It's what I would an intermediary law(there may even be a real term for it, but I'm not aware of it), one used simply as a rest stop on the way towards a far more restrictive nonsensical legal atmosphere in which women no longer retain control of their bodies. Just because the underlying intent was to use it to challenge Roe does not make it more than it actually is.

Geez, put the word unborn in the title and people don't bother reading any farther or analyzing what they did manage to read.

 

you are being dishonest again, I have never denied that there is a politically motivated abortion exception written into the law, but it obviously recognizes the unborn as a child, and therefore a person.

the truth is that you are being dishonest yet again, as that is completely untrue and unsupported by fact.

Interesting that you would post this quote from the law that clearly shows the fetus is a person by law. You cannot murder a non person.

Science is your enemy, I know. The truth is offensive to you?

 

This is untrue. The law contains a specific exception giving the killer mother a pass. BTW, this would be completely unnecessary if the child in utero is not a person. You are correct in that it does not grant personhood, no law does. It recognizes the personhood that has always existed, but was ignored by the Supreme Court in Roe. The UVVA effectively renders abortion a permissible homicide.

 

And in humans, after fertilization there is no longer any kind of structure we can call an egg. Get over yourself.

If a zygote is an "egg" than so is every other age group. The label makes as much sense when applied to an adult as it does them.

 

It gives the mother a pass because it has to. And by doing so, it does not grant personhood. But you're right, it should be unnecessary because a mother's rights shouldn't be under constant threat to begin with.

Personhood for a fetus hasn't always existed. It doesn't exist. It may exist in the future, but hopefully people will wise up before that.

UVVA does not make anything illegal that wasn't already illegal. It does not change any law or require anyone to do anything differently. It simply gives prosecutors an additional charge to tack on while in the process of charging someone for the initial and primary offense in the first place, that being the assault of the mother. This is literally no different than if you came and keyed my car and in addition to charging you with vandalism, I could also ask that you be charged with being mean to an automobile. That additional charge is not possible without the primary offense and it's no different here.

It's an empty law that does absolutely nothing but make pro-lifers feel good because you think that your incorrect interpretation of what the law is and actually does means it furthers your cause. And of course because you know it will be used to challenge Roe. But the law and the facts do not agree with your assessment because you're attaching your own emotional value to it which is morphing it from what it is in reality to what it is in your fantasy.

 

A zygote is an egg: