- Jul 23, 2005
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Fantasea said:FutureIncoming said:Perhaps this may be true on the distant planet on which, apparently, you reside among those alien beings you frequently reference. However, the legislatures of many of these United States see it differently. This is the way a few of them regard the unborn child. This will also give you some understanding of contempt they hold for the Roe v. Wade limitations placed upon them.
Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.
Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).
Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.
Kentucky: Since February, 2004, Kentucky law establishes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."
Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).
It matters to the legislatures of the states listed above, as well as many others.It is viewed the same as a death after birth. In the first case it is natural; in the second case it is deliberate. That is the difference.Brainpower is not the criteria for the right to live; humanness is.NO!!!
Labor is a commodity used by employers. It varies in quality and quantity. Workers offer their labor for sale. Employers buy labor and pay what it is worth to them. Workers are free to sell their labor at the highest price it will command.
Workers who offer quality labor in sufficient quantities are never concerned with minimum wages because they are always able to earn considerably more than that.
The problem lies not with the employer but with the worker. If a minimum wage worker takes the necessary steps to solve his problem, he will no longer have to be a minimum wage worker.
The employer will get more for his money and the worker will get more money for his labor. Everybody will be happier.
Barring accident or disability, the place in which any individual finds himself is the sum total of all of the decisions he has made to that point in his life.You're welcome.
Two things, I would caution against using human laws as evidence for absolute rulings on morality. Laws which deal with morality are generally the product of the general populous' views on morals, not the other way around.
Laws don't have any bearing on morals, it is morals who have bearing on laws.
So, the use of the product as a defense of the means is generally a bad idea.
The second problem that I have is with your personal views towards the employment question. In your thinking, or at least my interpretation of it, there is no leeway for environmental factors.
Not everyone has the same opportunities given to them that you or I have received. Not everyone is able to choose both schooling and eating, as it can be one-or-the-other for some individuals. Not everyone has a safe place to sleep at night. Not everyone has a perfect schooling environment where each child is supported even when failing instead of held back and forgotten about. Yes, America is supposed to be about equality, and to a good extent it is, but total eqality is an unreachable goal, so you should not judge those who don't have it as good as you.