CDZ What "is" the current legal definition for a "person?"

[Toronado3800]

Please post your own legal definition for what a natural person is. Provide the link as well.

And.... "if you don't know, just say so"

You are the one who said you knew lol. My reference is the Supreme Court Corporate Personhood thing. Besides the punishment laws I mentiomed earlier, I dunno what you consider the offical legal meaning. Sorry, I don't have the answer you need.

As I explained earlier, this thread is not about "corporate" personhood. It's about the current legal definition for what a "natural person" is.

Do you agree that regardless of what that definition is, it is common ground to all of us?

.....the laws which decide our punishments are important for all of us, I agree! We agree!

I'll argue justice this or that was wrong or this contradicts that though so you won't get me to be subserviant to any individual ruling if that is what you are going for.

Opinion, decisiins and laws are a dangerous thing to read in vacuum. The 2nd Ammendment itself is an example of a poorly written "law". Obviously in 1805 people legally owned guns. The 2nd makes it sound like only militia members, and organized ones at that, could own guns.

 

[Chuz Life]

Please post your own legal definition for what a natural person is. Provide the link as well.

And.... "if you don't know, just say so"

You are the one who said you knew lol. My reference is the Supreme Court Corporate Personhood thing. Besides the punishment laws I mentiomed earlier, I dunno what you consider the offical legal meaning. Sorry, I don't have the answer you need.

As I explained earlier, this thread is not about "corporate" personhood. It's about the current legal definition for what a "natural person" is.

Do you agree that regardless of what that definition is, it is common ground to all of us?

.....the laws which decide our punishments are important for all of us, I agree! We agree!

I'll argue justice this or that was wrong or this contradicts that though so you won't get me to be subserviant to any individual ruling if that is what you are going for.

Opinion, decisiins and laws are a dangerous thing to read in vacuum. The 2nd Ammendment itself is an example of a poorly written "law". Obviously in 1805 people legally owned guns. The 2nd makes it sound like only militia members, and organized ones at that, could own guns.

Wht I am "going for" is explained in the OP.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, a few months ago, I was watching either Discovery, Science or one of those learning channels, and they had a show about this very subject, starting from conception all the way to adulthood, and the different aspects of "personhood" over the course of their life.

Some would say that life begins at conception, but unfortunately, a fertilized egg is incapable of living on it's own, and so is the fetus until very late in the pregnancy. So, they showed the difference between something that could live on it's own, and something that couldn't.

They then talked about becoming a person when the child drew it's first breath, because many believe that a person begins then.

Then there was talk about short term and long term memory, and how the brain develops. Did you know that one of the reasons that most people can't remember anything prior to age 2 is because it takes until around then for the brain to develop long term memory? And, the brain isn't fully developed until you are 18 or 20. And, they then argued that it was our brains that made us "human", and could a person be a whole person prior to full brain development?

I don't know what the real definition of a "person" is, but I know what I believe, and I think that a person becomes a "person" when they draw their first breath at birth. And, the reason I believe that is because in the Bible it says that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the Breath of Life into them.

Thus, you aren't "human" until you take your first breath. And, considering that cessation of breathing is one of the things that they use to determine death, well..........a corpse isn't "human", it's just a piece of meat.

 

[Chuz Life]

You know, a few months ago, I was watching either Discovery, Science or one of those learning channels, and they had a show about this very subject, starting from conception all the way to adulthood, and the different aspects of "personhood" over the course of their life.

Some would say that life begins at conception, but unfortunately, a fertilized egg is incapable of living on it's own, and so is the fetus until very late in the pregnancy. So, they showed the difference between something that could live on it's own, and something that couldn't.

They then talked about becoming a person when the child drew it's first breath, because many believe that a person begins then.

Then there was talk about short term and long term memory, and how the brain develops. Did you know that one of the reasons that most people can't remember anything prior to age 2 is because it takes until around then for the brain to develop long term memory? And, the brain isn't fully developed until you are 18 or 20. And, they then argued that it was our brains that made us "human", and could a person be a whole person prior to full brain development?

I don't know what the real definition of a "person" is, but I know what I believe, and I think that a person becomes a "person" when they draw their first breath at birth. And, the reason I believe that is because in the Bible it says that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the Breath of Life into them.

Thus, you aren't "human" until you take your first breath. And, considering that cessation of breathing is one of the things that they use to determine death, well..........a corpse isn't "human", it's just a piece of meat.

Wow.

Ok.

Well, we all have access to online legal dictionaries
If we have access to this forum. Right?

So, how much trouble is it really. . . To search for, find and then post what the legal definition for a "natural person" actually is?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, a few months ago, I was watching either Discovery, Science or one of those learning channels, and they had a show about this very subject, starting from conception all the way to adulthood, and the different aspects of "personhood" over the course of their life.

Some would say that life begins at conception, but unfortunately, a fertilized egg is incapable of living on it's own, and so is the fetus until very late in the pregnancy. So, they showed the difference between something that could live on it's own, and something that couldn't.

They then talked about becoming a person when the child drew it's first breath, because many believe that a person begins then.

Then there was talk about short term and long term memory, and how the brain develops. Did you know that one of the reasons that most people can't remember anything prior to age 2 is because it takes until around then for the brain to develop long term memory? And, the brain isn't fully developed until you are 18 or 20. And, they then argued that it was our brains that made us "human", and could a person be a whole person prior to full brain development?

I don't know what the real definition of a "person" is, but I know what I believe, and I think that a person becomes a "person" when they draw their first breath at birth. And, the reason I believe that is because in the Bible it says that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the Breath of Life into them.

Thus, you aren't "human" until you take your first breath. And, considering that cessation of breathing is one of the things that they use to determine death, well..........a corpse isn't "human", it's just a piece of meat.

Wow.

Ok.

Well, we all have access to online legal dictionaries
If we have access to this forum. Right?

So, how much trouble is it really. . . To search for, find and then post what the legal definition for a "natural person" actually is?

Because everyone has a different definition for what a legal person is, as well as the fact that it varies from state to state. Getting a solid, one size fits all definition is all but impossible.

And, like I said, I showed you what I've seen and learned, as well as what I think. But to give you the definition you are asking for is impossible because of the way different people and different states view things.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You know, a few months ago, I was watching either Discovery, Science or one of those learning channels, and they had a show about this very subject, starting from conception all the way to adulthood, and the different aspects of "personhood" over the course of their life.

Some would say that life begins at conception, but unfortunately, a fertilized egg is incapable of living on it's own, and so is the fetus until very late in the pregnancy. So, they showed the difference between something that could live on it's own, and something that couldn't.

They then talked about becoming a person when the child drew it's first breath, because many believe that a person begins then.

Then there was talk about short term and long term memory, and how the brain develops. Did you know that one of the reasons that most people can't remember anything prior to age 2 is because it takes until around then for the brain to develop long term memory? And, the brain isn't fully developed until you are 18 or 20. And, they then argued that it was our brains that made us "human", and could a person be a whole person prior to full brain development?

I don't know what the real definition of a "person" is, but I know what I believe, and I think that a person becomes a "person" when they draw their first breath at birth. And, the reason I believe that is because in the Bible it says that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" until God breathed the Breath of Life into them.

Thus, you aren't "human" until you take your first breath. And, considering that cessation of breathing is one of the things that they use to determine death, well..........a corpse isn't "human", it's just a piece of meat.

Wow.

Ok.

Well, we all have access to online legal dictionaries
If we have access to this forum. Right?

So, how much trouble is it really. . . To search for, find and then post what the legal definition for a "natural person" actually is?

Wow is right.

Considering that you constantly post against women's rights to control their body and you always say fetuses are actually babies ...

Am I wrong to ASSume you have considered this question in the past?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

'Personhood' is what the legislatures and courts say it is, not you or me.

Okay....

Some questions.

1. What is the legislature's definition of personhood?
2. Can there be more than one?
3. Should there ever be MORE than one?
4. How many definitions of a "person" is too many?
5. What should be done when (or if) two of their definitions conflict with one another?

Read the SCOTUS blog.

 

[sakinago]

'Personhood' is what the legislatures and courts say it is, not you or me.

It's an abstract term. Should courts be defining something like beauty? Art? Intelligence? Purpose?

If what you say is true, than why didn't we settle on the 3/5s compromise?

 

[JakeStarkey]

'Personhood' is what the legislatures and courts say it is, not you or me.

It's an abstract term. Should courts be defining something like beauty? Art? Intelligence? Purpose? If what you say is true, than why didn't we settle on the 3/5s compromise?

Your merit and style of argumentation is why 'personhood' is what the legislatures and courts say it is.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's interesting to see thengths that some of you go to avoid the question and the point of this thread.

Let me ask the questions another way.

1. Do legal dictionaries exist? Yes or no?
2. Do legal dictionaries in life a definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?
3. Can we all agree that THAT is the legal definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's interesting to see thengths that some of you go to avoid the question and the point of this thread.

Let me ask the questions another way.

1. Do legal dictionaries exist? Yes or no?
2. Do legal dictionaries in life a definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?
3. Can we all agree that THAT is the legal definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?

You have not shown that any of the above is relevant.

If you are disturbed by the current status of Roe v Wade, go to the SCOTUS web page and find it. Then follow the links.

What you are being told is that your questions are irrelevant to most people.

 

[sakinago]

Please post your own legal definition for what a natural person is. Provide the link as well.

And.... "if you don't know, just say so"

You are the one who said you knew lol. My reference is the Supreme Court Corporate Personhood thing. Besides the punishment laws I mentiomed earlier, I dunno what you consider the offical legal meaning. Sorry, I don't have the answer you need.

As I explained earlier, this thread is not about "corporate" personhood. It's about the current legal definition for what a "natural person" is.

Do you agree that regardless of what that definition is, it is common ground to all of us?

.....the laws which decide our punishments are important for all of us, I agree! We agree!

I'll argue justice this or that was wrong or this contradicts that though so you won't get me to be subserviant to any individual ruling if that is what you are going for.

Opinion, decisiins and laws are a dangerous thing to read in vacuum. The 2nd Ammendment itself is an example of a poorly written "law". Obviously in 1805 people legally owned guns. The 2nd makes it sound like only militia members, and organized ones at that, could own guns.

Only when chosen to be read that way. The writing is clear to people who read the way it was intended. "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice it doesn't say government, uniform military, militia, but people as in WE THE PEOPLE, not the governance, a phrase chosen very specifically by the founders. And if you want to know the founders intentions of the second amendment...read it for yourself. They wrote often about it. I don't know why it's such a mystery to people who don't understand the distinction of the word PEOPLE, or that, why don't we just read the founders writings on the 2nd, and what they meant if we are so confused by it. Or that the word militia does not mean a uniform military, but a civilian one, meaning the Continental Congress legalized a civilian military, separate from the government, in order to keep the government in check, so that government does not have a monopoly of force, as well as a form of protection for citizens form whatever other threats are out there.

As for person, it is legally defined. The concept of personhood, is made up individually and can be moved whichever way one chooses to use it.

 

[sakinago]

'Personhood' is what the legislatures and courts say it is, not you or me.

It's an abstract term. Should courts be defining something like beauty? Art? Intelligence? Purpose? If what you say is true, than why didn't we settle on the 3/5s compromise?

Your merit and style of argumentation is why 'personhood' is what the legislatures and courts say it is.

What about my merit and style? And do you know what the definition is?

 

[Chuz Life]

It's interesting to see thengths that some of you go to avoid the question and the point of this thread.

Let me ask the questions another way.

1. Do legal dictionaries exist? Yes or no?
2. Do legal dictionaries include a definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?
3. Can we all agree that THAT is the legal definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?


Correction made.

Man, I'm not liking this phone.

 

[Chuz Life]

As for person, it is legally defined.

That's right!

Now, please post the legal definition along with a link to the source.

 

[Toronado3800]

It's interesting to see thengths that some of you go to avoid the question and the point of this thread.

Let me ask the questions another way.

1. Do legal dictionaries exist? Yes or no?
2. Do legal dictionaries in life a definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?
3. Can we all agree that THAT is the legal definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?

This is getting difficult.
1. Legal dictionaries exist.
2. Legal dictionaries like the one I can post online now have all kinds of definitions. Some are sure to say what a "natural person" is.
3. This is the main problem. We can not agree on whatever definition Bob, Mary, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, Johnnie Cochran, Gerald Uelmen, Carl E. Douglas or Shawn Holley put on whatever website. What we need for your favorite issue is the effective definition of who can be murdered and I gave it to you earlier.

 

[Divine Wind]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

These kids qualify, doncha' think?

 

[Chuz Life]

Just what the thread title says.

This thread is very simple. I am trying to identify and explore some of the common ground that should exist between all sides of the abortion debate.

I encourage those who want to participate to quote and post the LEGAL definitions they use to support their views.

These kids qualify, doncha' think?

Absolutely.

See?

Common ground.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's interesting to see thengths that some of you go to avoid the question and the point of this thread.

Let me ask the questions another way.

1. Do legal dictionaries exist? Yes or no?
2. Do legal dictionaries in life a definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?
3. Can we all agree that THAT is the legal definition for what a "natural person" is? Yes or no?

This is getting difficult.
1. Legal dictionaries exist.
2. Legal dictionaries like the one I can post online now have all kinds of definitions. Some are sure to say what a "natural person" is.
3. This is the main problem. We can not agree on whatever definition Bob, Mary, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, Johnnie Cochran, Gerald Uelmen, Carl E. Douglas or Shawn Holley put on whatever website. What we need for your favorite issue is the effective definition of who can be murdered and I gave it to you earlier.

How about we start with multiple definitions for what a natural person is..... and then see what they all have in common?

 

[KokomoJojo]

natural person has flesh and blood, legal person is an artificial enitity
whats this about? lol