20 week Abortion act Passes House of Reps.

[Montrovant]

Let's see. First there is the scientific fact that we human beings do not reproduce by metamorphosis like frogs and butterflies do. That is, we don't reproduce by breeding to create one organism that later morphs into another. Science has determined that in human beings (all mammals, actually) our young is the same organism throughout each individual's lifespan. Likewise, scientists have determined that "aging" begins at conception too. So, one field of science actually confirms and supports the conclusions drawn by the other.

Secondly, we have legal determinations like our fetal homicide laws, laws against patents on human beings (embryos) etc. That define and recognize "children in the wombs" as human beings and children, already. Those laws do not say "it's a child in the womb UNLESS the mom wants to abort." They say that it's a "child in the womb" and a crime of murder to kill one in a criminal act BUT, we are going to give women a free pass if they don't want it.

Thirdly and also legally, the legal definition for what a natural person is is simply "a human being" and "a human being" in ANY stage of their development certainly meets that criteria.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." I just provided scientific and legal systems that support my reasoning. Have you? Can you provide a legal source that says that brainwaves are actually a scientific or legal requirement for human "personhood?"


You might not have picked that thought out of a hat. . . but the conclusions you draw from it is never the less 'arbitrary.' Because, among other things, you completely ignore the relevance of court cases involving children born with absolutely NO capacity for thoughts, feelings or the ability to see, hear or feel pain. . . where the courts recognize those children as having the same right to the protections of our laws that any other human being has.

The Constitution mentions birth only to establish citizenship. Not Personhood. It is ludicrous to suggest that the framers of the Constitution would deny that children in womb are human beings/ persons today. . given the knowledge and images we have today (that THEY didn't have) such as 3d ultrasounds, genetics, etc.

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

It does not, however, mean that the fetus is a person for the purposes of the 14th amendment.

If a state passed a law making it murder to kill, say, any primate, would that make all primates persons under the 14th?

 

[Chuz Life]

You seem incapable of accepting a difference between a person, particularly in the context of the constitution, and a human being. They are not necessarily exact synonyms.

I have gone over and over the fact that the courts, including the Supreme Court, consider things such as fetal homicide laws perfectly acceptable while still maintaining the Roe v Wade ruling; the judicial system of this country sees a difference between a statute calling a fetus a person and a person in the context of the 14th amendment.

My conclusions regarding the brain being responsible for making a person are not arbitrary. They are, in fact, based in large part of the current human understanding of anatomy and physiology. The brain is the organ which is responsible for our thoughts. Without the brain, there is no thought. Consider personality; without thought the person in personality does not exist. Again, you may disagree with my view, but that does not make it arbitrary.

I also seem to have a stronger grasp of the legal view of the term person than you do. Yes, certain fetal homicide laws, or other statutes, may define a fetus as a person. That does not mean that a fetus is a person in the context of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, however. Legally, a corporation can be a person, yet it is not covered by all of the protections granted persons in the constitution. So legally, my view has just as much validity as yours, and once again, is far from arbitrary.

There is also the medical side. As far as I know, when the brain dies, there is a nearly universal belief in the medical community that a person is dead. The body's other organs might be kept functioning mechanically, but the person is considered to be dead. This is accepted both medically and, I believe, legally. So again, tying the brain to what makes a person a person is not arbitrary.

You have no idea what the framers of the constitution would believe about when someone gains constitutional protections today, nor do I.

I'm not sure what the ability to see or hear has to do with what I've said. I didn't mention anything about those senses. I also don't know what cases you are talking about, so I cannot comment on them.

I will happily admit to there being a great deal of gray area on this subject. Look at something such as the Terri Shiavo case; was the essential person still alive, or was it nothing but a shell that used to hold that person? How exactly can we know whether or not someone still has the capacity for thought given our current understanding of brain function and ability to observe that function? I am neither an expert nor do I believe I know the answers to all possible questions regarding what makes a person a person. I believe without reservation, however, that if my brain were able to be removed and destroyed, yet the rest of my body kept functioning through mechanical means, that I would be dead; the body being kept functioning would not be me, would not be the person I am.

I do not deny that some statutes make a fetus a legal person. They do not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution, however.

I accept that you consider a person to be a person from the moment of conception (at least, that is what I gather from your posts). I know that many others agree with that opinion. However, that also does not make a fetus a person within the context of the constitution.

Legally, a fetus can both be a person and not be a person. The law is like that.

You disagree with the way I personally define what is a person. That does not make my reasoning arbitrary, just something you consider to be wrong.

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

 

[otto105]

Would they support this law in Islamic and Muslim countries?


I'm thinking not since when pro-life congressman knock up women not their wives they do.

 

[Chuz Life]

Would they support this law in Islamic and Muslim countries?


I'm thinking not since when pro-life congressman knock up women not their wives they do.

Dafuq?

English is not your first language. Is it.

 

[otto105]

Would they support this law in Islamic and Muslim countries?


I'm thinking not since when pro-life congressman knock up women not their wives they do.

Dafuq?

English is not your first language. Is it.

Sorry, did I have to mention rep Tim Murphy for you to keep up.

 

[Chuz Life]

Would they support this law in Islamic and Muslim countries?


I'm thinking not since when pro-life congressman knock up women not their wives they do.

Dafuq?

English is not your first language. Is it.

Sorry, did I have to mention rep Tim Murphy for you to keep up.

"I'm thinking not since when" I read your first barely decipherable comment, I was actually able to put the remaining pieces together, myself.

 

[Coyote]

There is no way to answer a post that long - point by point - on this pos phone of mine.

Suffice it to say, that when a child in the womb is already legally recognized as a person enough to have their killers charged with MURDER? That's person enough for me.

Edit; As for your claim that the government can have it both way and have the child be recognized as a person in one situation but deny their personhood in another? I can't disagree more. If the government can do that with the rights of a child in the womb. . . They could do the same to you. Or me. Or to anyone else in any other situations where the government sees fit.

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

Is a human without brainwaves a person?

 

[Faun]

If the government can so easily have it both ways, as you claim. . .

Why then did they say this in the Roe v Wade decision;

IX
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Great, so now explain how a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment...

If you are so ignorant that you really can't see how a MURDER charge for killing a child in the womb serves to establish the personhood and the Constitutional rights (to not be murdered) for tge child killed? Im afraid any further explanation will be a waste of time with you.

It doesn't establish personhood. Appeals to such charges have gone down in flames because folks convicted of fetal homicide were charged with killing a fetus, not a person.

Is a fetus a citizen? Is a fetus counted to determine the number of representatives in Congress?

Are illegal aliens or any other non-citizens "persons?"

Are they counted to determine representatives?

Did persons exists before census takings?

Illegal aliens and non-citizens can become citizens because they're "persons," a fetus can't until it's born. And with that possibility comes with the possibility of being counted. Also not an option with a fetus until it's born.

 

[Chuz Life]

Depends on the state. As you’ve been shown, in some states, such convictions are for killing a fetus, not a person.

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

Is a human without brainwaves a person?

According to several State supreme court cases, they are.

DEATH OF BABY K' LEAVES A LEGACY OF LEGAL PRECEDENTS

 

[Coyote]

It is always fetal homicide isnt it? Not homicide. That eould seem to be applying a legal distiction.

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

Is a human without brainwaves a person?

According to several State supreme court cases, they are.

DEATH OF BABY K' LEAVES A LEGACY OF LEGAL PRECEDENTS

She clearly had brainwaves. You realize that don't you?

 

[Chuz Life]

Make all the legal distinctions you want.

As long as the charge is murder... That means the child that was killed was a person in a much more significant way than a corporation is.

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

Is a human without brainwaves a person?

According to several State supreme court cases, they are.

DEATH OF BABY K' LEAVES A LEGACY OF LEGAL PRECEDENTS

She clearly had brainwaves. You realize that don't you?

So did Terri Schiavo.

 

[Coyote]

Legal distinctions are made for a reason. Im not the one making it.

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

Is a human without brainwaves a person?

According to several State supreme court cases, they are.

DEATH OF BABY K' LEAVES A LEGACY OF LEGAL PRECEDENTS

She clearly had brainwaves. You realize that don't you?

So did Terri Schiavo.

Is a human without brain waves a person?

 

[Chuz Life]

If you think it's ok to have legal distinctions which determine that a human being is a person in one situation but that same human being is NOT a person in another situation? I don't think there is any point in us ever talking about this again.

Is a human without brainwaves a person?

According to several State supreme court cases, they are.

DEATH OF BABY K' LEAVES A LEGACY OF LEGAL PRECEDENTS

She clearly had brainwaves. You realize that don't you?

So did Terri Schiavo.

Is a human without brain waves a person?

Yes.