Women have a responsibility to more than themselves

....and you have no solution......just run around screaming , "the sky is falling"...and expect everyone else to do the same....


Sorry, I won't get all upset and star screaming hysterically, I'll leave that to you.

I vote Democrat and that's about all I will do.......daughters and granddaughters and great granddaughters better learn to take care of themselves and vote correctly like their mothers and grandmothers had to do....I owe the ensuing generations nothing.

 

No nothing is messed up at all, neither is there any contradiction. In the first case the violent attack on a pregnant woman that leads to the death of a fetus is an action she has not consented to, it is a third party over riding her consent to the fetus to sustain her in a pregnant state, the second item is the woman not consenting for the fetus to keep her in a pregnant state.

This fits perfectly into the "right to be left alone by others" and is why, especially in the US, there is justification in using deadly force in self-defence when others threaten your life, give you serious injuries or violate your liberty regardless of the 'attackers' status as a human being or a person. Consent to who, what, where and when your body is used by another is one of the few things that over ride another persons right to life.

To remove that right from only pregnant females would be a direct violation of the equal protection clause and of the self-defence element of the 2nd Commandment, in order for it not to violate those two things the right to defend yourself, up to an including deadly force would have to be removed from ALL people born or not, the relevance of Biology, Philosophy, and Bioethics isn't really important.

 

For the purpose of the law, a fetus that is killed without the consent of the female is deemed as a judicial person, in much the same way a business can be deemed a judicial person.

The very fact that new laws were required to cover the non-consented death of a fetus only adds to the reality that the fetus are not persons under the law .. if they were no new laws specific to them would have been required.

 

Either the zygote is a living human or it is not. Legally it is both. This is the contradiction/hypocrisy because it can not be both.

This is not rocket science.

 

I am not stating what "I think" a fetus/zygote is.

Under the law the zygote is a "Person" and it is not a "Person". This is a clear contradiction and hypocrisy.

A zygote can not be both a person and not a person.

This is not complicated.

 

Neither is this : """Quote Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post

For the purpose of the law, a fetus that is killed without the consent of the female is deemed as a judicial person, in much the same way a business can be deemed a judicial person.

The very fact that new laws were required to cover the non-consented death of a fetus only adds to the reality that the fetus are not persons under the law .. if they were no new laws specific to them would have been required.""""



It's not rocket science , why can't you get it?

 

All I get is that you are making up nonsense and pretending it is true. A fetus is not deemed a "Judicial Person" in the same way as a corporation.

Back up this nonsensical claim.

What part of the term "Homo sapien" are you having trouble with. Is a corporation now a "Homo sapien" as well.

Quit spouting the first mindless dribble that comes into your head and pretending it makes sense.

 

The mindless drivel would be your posts......just because you can't grasp the facts doesn't make Fugazi wrong.


BTW, I don't own a pathetic. It IS pathetic when "you're" is misspelled "your" as in "your pathetic".

If you mean "you are pathetic" then it's "you're pathetic".....it's not rocket science, just English.

 

From NPR: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/33528...-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

Are corporations people? The U.S. Supreme Court says they are, at least for some purposes. And in the past four years, the high court has dramatically expanded corporate rights.

It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans.

We all know a corporation is not an actual person in the sense that you and I are persons, but they can be treated as persons in some legal circumstances. That is exactly what happens with the UVVA laws. The law says an unborn fetus can be treated as if it is a person in some situations (just like other laws say a corporation can be treated as if it is a person in some situations).

 

Grammar short cuts on a chat forum are not pathetic. A Grammar Nazi pointing out such trivialities is !

The truly lame diversion of someone who has no argument. Your argument was completely destroyed so the best you can come up with is the difference between your and you're.

Truly pathetic.

 

Just because the SCOTUS does stupid things in relation to corporate law ( such rulings have created much confusion and stupidity in law) does not make the courts doing something similar with the UVVA any less stupid.

The fact of the matter is that corporate personhood is different both legally and contextually.

The UVVA does not state that a Zygote should be treated "as if" it was a person. The UVVA states that the Zygote "is" a person.

 

I really don't think there is an argument as to whether the zygote is a living human, the argument is whether it is a person, and as far as UVVA type laws are concerned the status is specific to that law and nothing else, there are numerous laws that under specific circumstances change the status of an item, and as I have repeatedly said, it really makes not difference if the unborn are deemed as persons from conception or not.

 

I didn't say you were

Nowhere in the UVVA does it state that the unborn are persons.

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.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(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.

(d) As used 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.

Please point out where it states the unborn are persons?

 

Uh, it wasn't grammar ...it was spelling.... and if someone doesn't know the difference I can see why they would be confused on other issues....like thinking they "destroyed" someone 's argument...

 

Can you provide a link to a UVVA law that states the zygote is a person?

 

Based upon the assumptions that (a) We the People still operate under the Constitution, and (b) women remain the largest voting bloc, and (c) the historical trend towards an ever more liberal society continues it is fair to say that abortion will never be outlawed in the future.

Granted abortion was legal when this nation was founded and there was the aberration of outlawing it for a period however the Constitution prevailed and remediated that error. The same happened to alcohol and it looks like it is happening again with marijuana.

Legislating morality has consistently failed throughout the history of this nation. There is no reason to believe that abortion is going to an exception to that rule.

 

The LEGAL STATUS of the zygote/embryo/fetus has nothing to do with it's humanity.

 

The UVVA deems the Zygote to be a living human. Obviously all living humans are "persons".

You want to say "this makes no difference" because you want to argue (as I have done) that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of this other person.

The problem is that many do not accept your argument and there are good counter arguments which makes things difficult. Who is to know what the courts will accept (and what they accept depends on who is sitting in the Judges chair).

Change the Supreme court by one or two justices and your argument loses.

The issue of personhood has, for the moment, been settled by the supreme court via the UVVA. The zygote is a person - not in the way a corporation is. The zygote is a living human, a Homo sapiens and as such deserves equality under the law - the same rights as every other person including the right to life.

Good luck arguing against a group of Judges who are starting from this position.

Want to give it a try ? I can play devils advocate if you like.

 

A "Child" is a person. Specifically a "Child in utero" has been defined in law as a person in the UVVA.

As used 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.

All members of the species Homo sapies are humans/living humans/Persons.

 

The "you made a typo" so your argument has no merit fallacy is about as pathetic as it gets.

 

Was done already and it is given in Fugazi's post.

Here is another:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unborn-child/

All members of the species "Homo sapiens" are humans/people/persons

 

No, even before your MISspelling(which isn't a typo) your argument had no merit .

Stating that you "destroyed an argument" does not mean you have destroyed an argument. Quite the contrary considering all the posts proving you wrong.

So in the dream world where a fetus is declared a "person" it would have the same restriction other persons have, it cannot us another's body to sustain it's life.

The woman it's in could use self defense to kill the fetus since it 's harming her without her consent.

 

Prostitution is illegal, Pot is still illegal in most jurisdictions. These have been illegal for almost 100 years. This effort to legislate morality has succeeded in criminalizing things that the Gov't had no legitimate authority to criminalize.

They do this on the basis of bad law - which is why I am calling out the UVVA - because it is bad law.

Would you be "OK" with Abortion being banned for 100 years (like prostitution/pot) in the hopes "Don't worry, the Constitution will prevail".

The courts have been trampling on individual rights and freedoms like they do not even exist of late.

One of the main principles on which this nation was founded - (Individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't)/ Limited Gov't is being trashed left right and center.

The purpose of this principle was to take power away from Gov't. For 200 years the Gov't has been trying to get that power back and they have succeeded.

I agree that in this current political climate banning abortion outright is not likely. This does not change the fact that the UVVA is "bad law" and hypocrisy in law.

Social morays can change. This legal Precedent will be all that much more powerful if they do.

Further - Gov'ts (especially on a local level) often do things which go against predominant social morays. Look at what they did in Texas in trying to restrict abortion via regulations. (A law that was struck down recently).

This was struck down 5-3 and it would have been 5-4 had Scalia not died.

One justice away - that's how far we are away from States being able to effectively criminalize abortion.

 

TBH the personhood status of the unborn is irrelevant to me, either way doesn't have an effect on the legality of abortion, all it does is move the argument from choice to consent.

Yep, sounds like fun.

 

Agreed. It does however, have everything to do with the law and efforts to criminalize abortion.