ProChoiceDanielle
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Busta said:
I guess you missed the word UNBORN before the word CHILD. :roll:
Busta said:Here is an example of the law determining that an unborn child is a person.
The law uses science and common scence to detrmin homicide.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/homicide_killing_unborn_child.htm
American Law Reports ALR5th Volume 64 (1998) Annotation
HOMICIDE BASED ON KILLING OF UNBORN CHILD
Alan S. Wasserstrom, J.D.
Whether the slayer of an unborn child or fetus can be convicted of a homicide has been the subject of controversy among state and federal courts. While under the common law a conviction was only possible if the child was born alive that is no longer a universal rule under state and federal statutes. Accordingly, convictions may be won where death of the child occurs before birth where the courts consider the child to be viable or a person or human being under the governing statute. For example, in the case of State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286, 64 ALR5th 901 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997), the court held that an unborn child is a "person" for the purposes of the first degree murder statute and the fact that a mother of a pre-born child may have been granted certain legal rights to terminate the pregnancy did not preclude the prosecution of a third party for murder in the case of a killing of a child not consented to by the mother. The court rejected the defendant's argument that his actions in killing the child, accomplished by a savage beating of the mother, should be considered equivalent to conduct under the state's misdemeanor abortion statute. The court, instead, determined that the state legislature never intended to treat the unconsented (by the mother) killing of a pre-born infant, in the context of a physical assault on the mother, as anything other than a murder of the infant. This annotation examines all cases addressing the homicides of unborn children under statutory provisions, but does not consider the myriad cases decided under common law.
vergiss said:...but didn't Roe vs. Wade rule that a foetus was not a person?
Busta said:By vergiss:
"...but didn't Roe vs. Wade rule that a foetus was not a person?"
Not exactly.
The conclusion held that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave women the right to abortion during her entire pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.
The supreme court did not address an unborn child being a "person" one way or another, it simply gave a woman the legal right to abortion.
By PorChoiceDanielle:
"Yet again, Can you provide proof? Science does not disagree with me, and neither does the law. The law states a fetus is not considered a child OR a person until birth. "
I just gave you your proof. Science determines what the court calls "viable", because "viable" means that the unborn child could, however unlikely, survive outside the mother. It is this scientific and legal determination of "viability" which could bring homicide charges agents an aggressor.
The law does clearly state that an unborn child could be considered a person, but that a mother has the legal right to abort that person.
"There is an argument without God at all time."
Is there?
The foundation of the legal authority of the United States is God.
"...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."
This means that any right that you have was given to you by God.
"And for the support of this deceleration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence,...."
This means that Gods authority and God's kingdom are the foundation of authority of the deceleration of independence; without which there is no U.S.A.
If you deny the divine authority of God then you deny the legal authority of the United States.
"I guess you missed the word UNBORN before the word CHILD."
" ...the court held that an unborn child is a "person" for the purposes of the first degree murder statute..."
No, I didn't miss it.
"And so does the constitution of this fine country."
The Constitution does not state that an unborn child is not a person.
When you take God out of the argument, there is no argument because God is the foundation of United State's law. You can not even argue law if you deny God.
blogger31 said:Very well put! Amazing how people seem to skip over phrases that doesn't relate to their argument isn't it.
vergiss said:So what you're saying is that the US legal system is full of contradictions and lacks any logic whatsoever?
vergiss said:So what you're saying is that the US legal system is full of contradictions and lacks any logic whatsoever?
blogger31 said:No, I am saying the US Constitution is clearly written and some people like to misinterpret it to further their own twisted agendas, like killing unborn children.
vergiss said:Not really. It doesn't state than an unborn child is a person.
...what do suspected terrorists have to do with abortion?
vergiss said:1. A foetus is no more a baby than a baby is a teenager. You can't just skip stages of development because one fits better with your attempts at guilt-tripping.
2. Ah. Like the wife who had two abortions, then two adoptions, because you decided what was right?
3. As a opposed the things I've heard anti-abortionists call pro-choicers? Diddums.
By the way, which God are we talking about in the US Constitution? If it's the Christian one, then wouldn't I be exempt, being Jewish and all? Awesome.
vergiss said:...what do suspected terrorists have to do with abortion?
vergiss said:Yes, thank you, I do know the basic principles of my faith. However, there are those out there who'd beg to differ with what you'd said. I've had many a crazy Christian fundie tell me I worship a false God and am going straight to Hell when I die. So - if this is the case, am I exempt? What about atheists, as they don't believe in any gods?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?