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

[sakinago]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

This is a bill that specifically address infants born alive, during an abortion. Goznel stuff

 

[sakinago]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

And also a fetus still breaths.

 

[Care4all]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

And also a fetus still breaths.

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

 

[Chuz Life]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

 

[sakinago]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

And also a fetus still breaths.

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

It is not presently the legal definition of a person, which is a human being. This specific bill is stating that it's wrong to kill a "fetus", if it is still breathing outside of the womb. The fetus still breaths in the womb, uses its lungs and circulatory system to transfer gasses, which is the definition of respiration (one of the pillars that defines life), a transfer of gasses, but the gasses it receives obviously come from the mother, instead of "air" outside of the womb. Lungs however, due to their neccisary fragile structure, take longer to fully develop, since we're talking about a thousands of "bubbles" of very thin layer that's able to allow gasses to pass through both into the blood, and back out of the blood. Which is why the amniotic fluid is filled with surfactant, so when the fetus is practicing using its breathing muscles to breath (even though it's just fluid going in and out), the surfactant acts like a lube that keeps these "bubbles" from sticking together. You pull a fetus out of the womb early, it will try to breath, but the lungs will not be developed enough to breath and properly exchange air without the "bubbles" sticking together, and causing the lungs to collapse.

And legally, the fetus is still protected under law as life in the case of mudering a pregnant women, which is a double homicide. Or when say a mother is stabbed and survives but the fetus dies, that's still a homicide. Doesn't matter if the women was on her way to aborting it just before, still legally considered human life, still considered a homicide.

Here's a better question. If there was a case like terry chiavo, we'll call it sherry tiavo. If The husband wanted to pull the feeding tube from sherry, but a doctor said wait wait wait, I can predict with great accuracy there is an 86% chance sherry will make a full recovery in around 7 months, and be a fully functioning human being again...Would it be ok for the husband to still pull the feeding tube?

 

[Care4all]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

And also a fetus still breaths.

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

It is not presently the legal definition of a person, which is a human being. This specific bill is stating that it's wrong to kill a "fetus", if it is still breathing outside of the womb. The fetus still breaths in the womb, uses its lungs and circulatory system to transfer gasses, which is the definition of respiration (one of the pillars that defines life), a transfer of gasses, but the gasses it receives obviously come from the mother, instead of "air" outside of the womb. Lungs however, due to their neccisary fragile structure, take longer to fully develop, since we're talking about a thousands of "bubbles" of very thin layer that's able to allow gasses to pass through both into the blood, and back out of the blood. Which is why the amniotic fluid is filled with surfactant, so when the fetus is practicing using its breathing muscles to breath (even though it's just fluid going in and out), the surfactant acts like a lube that keeps these "bubbles" from sticking together. You pull a fetus out of the womb early, it will try to breath, but the lungs will not be developed enough to breath and properly exchange air without the "bubbles" sticking together, and causing the lungs to collapse.

And legally, the fetus is still protected under law as life in the case of mudering a pregnant women, which is a double homicide. Or when say a mother is stabbed and survives but the fetus dies, that's still a homicide. Doesn't matter if the women was on her way to aborting it just before, still legally considered human life, still considered a homicide.

Here's a better question. If there was a case like terry chiavo, we'll call it sherry tiavo. If The husband wanted to pull the feeding tube from sherry, but a doctor said wait wait wait, I can predict with great accuracy there is an 86% chance sherry will make a full recovery in around 7 months, and be a fully functioning human being again...Would it be ok for the husband to still pull the feeding tube?

I'm not certain that's a good question for me....
I was against Schiavo's husband pulling the plug...she was alive to me, killing her through any means, was simply wrong...and thru dehydration seemed unusually cruel as well!

 

[Care4all]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

they do, and I posted it above, but here is the part that does mention breathing being a part of person-hood status...


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

they do, and I posted it above, but here is the part that does mention breathing being a part of person-hood status...


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

That is a definition of "birth" not personhood.

Note where it says "as including a born alive infant" "of that member."

Your own quote acknowledges that they are a "member of the species" even before they emerge from the womb (birth.)

 

[sakinago]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

they do, and I posted it above, but here is the part that does mention breathing being a part of person-hood status...


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Again this is referring to a case of botched abortion. If that's the definition you want to go with, then pretty much any abortion past a month, month and a half would be illegal...which I'm fine with (I'm sure you're not). But that's what going on when you're NOT trying to kill the fetus, pulsing umbilical, beating heart, and breathing muscles working.

 

[sakinago]

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

And also a fetus still breaths.

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

It is not presently the legal definition of a person, which is a human being. This specific bill is stating that it's wrong to kill a "fetus", if it is still breathing outside of the womb. The fetus still breaths in the womb, uses its lungs and circulatory system to transfer gasses, which is the definition of respiration (one of the pillars that defines life), a transfer of gasses, but the gasses it receives obviously come from the mother, instead of "air" outside of the womb. Lungs however, due to their neccisary fragile structure, take longer to fully develop, since we're talking about a thousands of "bubbles" of very thin layer that's able to allow gasses to pass through both into the blood, and back out of the blood. Which is why the amniotic fluid is filled with surfactant, so when the fetus is practicing using its breathing muscles to breath (even though it's just fluid going in and out), the surfactant acts like a lube that keeps these "bubbles" from sticking together. You pull a fetus out of the womb early, it will try to breath, but the lungs will not be developed enough to breath and properly exchange air without the "bubbles" sticking together, and causing the lungs to collapse.

And legally, the fetus is still protected under law as life in the case of mudering a pregnant women, which is a double homicide. Or when say a mother is stabbed and survives but the fetus dies, that's still a homicide. Doesn't matter if the women was on her way to aborting it just before, still legally considered human life, still considered a homicide.

Here's a better question. If there was a case like terry chiavo, we'll call it sherry tiavo. If The husband wanted to pull the feeding tube from sherry, but a doctor said wait wait wait, I can predict with great accuracy there is an 86% chance sherry will make a full recovery in around 7 months, and be a fully functioning human being again...Would it be ok for the husband to still pull the feeding tube?

I'm not certain that's a good question for me....
I was against Schiavo's husband pulling the plug...she was alive to me, killing her through any means, was simply wrong...and thru dehydration seemed unusually cruel as well!

I agree, if it was a ventilator, there would be a case for that...but the guy waited 2 or 3 full years before claiming she told him in a conversation she didn't ever want to live as a vegetable...which just happens to be around the time he was trying to remarry (if I remember correctly).

But will go with any "coma" or "brain dead" patient say on a a ventilator. And the doctor gave a really good prognosis for recovery, would it be ok in that situation to "pull the plug"?

 

[Care4all]

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.



1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• 
  
  
  • US Code

prev | next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

And also a fetus still breaths.

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

It is not presently the legal definition of a person, which is a human being. This specific bill is stating that it's wrong to kill a "fetus", if it is still breathing outside of the womb. The fetus still breaths in the womb, uses its lungs and circulatory system to transfer gasses, which is the definition of respiration (one of the pillars that defines life), a transfer of gasses, but the gasses it receives obviously come from the mother, instead of "air" outside of the womb. Lungs however, due to their neccisary fragile structure, take longer to fully develop, since we're talking about a thousands of "bubbles" of very thin layer that's able to allow gasses to pass through both into the blood, and back out of the blood. Which is why the amniotic fluid is filled with surfactant, so when the fetus is practicing using its breathing muscles to breath (even though it's just fluid going in and out), the surfactant acts like a lube that keeps these "bubbles" from sticking together. You pull a fetus out of the womb early, it will try to breath, but the lungs will not be developed enough to breath and properly exchange air without the "bubbles" sticking together, and causing the lungs to collapse.

And legally, the fetus is still protected under law as life in the case of mudering a pregnant women, which is a double homicide. Or when say a mother is stabbed and survives but the fetus dies, that's still a homicide. Doesn't matter if the women was on her way to aborting it just before, still legally considered human life, still considered a homicide.

Here's a better question. If there was a case like terry chiavo, we'll call it sherry tiavo. If The husband wanted to pull the feeding tube from sherry, but a doctor said wait wait wait, I can predict with great accuracy there is an 86% chance sherry will make a full recovery in around 7 months, and be a fully functioning human being again...Would it be ok for the husband to still pull the feeding tube?

I'm not certain that's a good question for me....
I was against Schiavo's husband pulling the plug...she was alive to me, killing her through any means, was simply wrong...and thru dehydration seemed unusually cruel as well!

I agree, if it was a ventilator, there would be a case for that...but the guy waited 2 or 3 full years before claiming she told him in a conversation she didn't ever want to live as a vegetable...which just happens to be around the time he was trying to remarry (if I remember correctly).

But will go with any "coma" or "brain dead" patient say on a a ventilator. And the doctor gave a really good prognosis for recovery, would it be ok in that situation to "pull the plug"?

No it would not be okay, not to me....even if on a ventilator and there were no chance outside of a miracle... of full or partial recovery down the road....with one exception, the patient themselves, had a written directive stating clearly that they did not want the ventilator/respirator connected if they ever became deathly ill....

 

[Care4all]

legally, a ''person'' is someone who is born human...I believe?

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

they do, and I posted it above, but here is the part that does mention breathing being a part of person-hood status...


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Again this is referring to a case of botched abortion. If that's the definition you want to go with, then pretty much any abortion past a month, month and a half would be illegal...which I'm fine with (I'm sure you're not). But that's what going on when you're NOT trying to kill the fetus, pulsing umbilical, beating heart, and breathing muscles working.

Yes, it is law to protect the baby of a botched late term abortion...but the line drawn, if the child is breathing, has a heartbeat, and/or voluntary movement etc.... is the LEGAL stance taken on whether the baby is alive or not, no? And if a miscarriage, it would still apply, no?

 

[Chuz Life]

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

they do, and I posted it above, but here is the part that does mention breathing being a part of person-hood status...


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Again this is referring to a case of botched abortion. If that's the definition you want to go with, then pretty much any abortion past a month, month and a half would be illegal...which I'm fine with (I'm sure you're not). But that's what going on when you're NOT trying to kill the fetus, pulsing umbilical, beating heart, and breathing muscles working.

Yes, it is law to protect the baby of a botched late term abortion...but the line drawn, if the child is breathing, has a heartbeat, and/or voluntary movement etc.... is the LEGAL stance taken on whether the baby is alive or not, no? And if a miscarriage, it would still apply, no?

Please remember that we are looking for common ground on this subject, in this thread.

You seem so fixated on the language of the "born alive infant protection act" that you seem like you are oblivious to any legal language or legal definitions that indicate "personhood" is not limited only those who are "born" or can take a breath of air.

For example, How do you reconcile the definitions and language of the "unborn victims of violence act" with your views on the language (and your conclusions) about the "born alive" act?

 

[Toronado3800]

You know, I lost interest in this thread when you started insisting that people provide you with a definition, and when they did, you said it wasn't good enough and didn't meet your requirements.

If you don't want a discussion, then why open a thread?

Opinions are not common ground.

Legal definitions ARE common ground.

Did you provide a LEGAL definition or a personal opinion?

Buddy, I provided you the complex effective legal definition a long time ago and talked about the inconsistencies.

The rest of the conversation seems rather like discussing what "cheating" is with a bad girlfriend.

 

[Chuz Life]

You know, I lost interest in this thread when you started insisting that people provide you with a definition, and when they did, you said it wasn't good enough and didn't meet your requirements.

If you don't want a discussion, then why open a thread?

Opinions are not common ground.

Legal definitions ARE common ground.

Did you provide a LEGAL definition or a personal opinion?

Buddy, I provided you the complex effective legal definition a long time ago and talked about the inconsistencies.

The rest of the conversation seems rather like discussing what "cheating" is with a bad girlfriend.

You provided an opinion. Not a LEGAL source.

 

[sakinago]

And also a fetus still breaths.

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

It is not presently the legal definition of a person, which is a human being. This specific bill is stating that it's wrong to kill a "fetus", if it is still breathing outside of the womb. The fetus still breaths in the womb, uses its lungs and circulatory system to transfer gasses, which is the definition of respiration (one of the pillars that defines life), a transfer of gasses, but the gasses it receives obviously come from the mother, instead of "air" outside of the womb. Lungs however, due to their neccisary fragile structure, take longer to fully develop, since we're talking about a thousands of "bubbles" of very thin layer that's able to allow gasses to pass through both into the blood, and back out of the blood. Which is why the amniotic fluid is filled with surfactant, so when the fetus is practicing using its breathing muscles to breath (even though it's just fluid going in and out), the surfactant acts like a lube that keeps these "bubbles" from sticking together. You pull a fetus out of the womb early, it will try to breath, but the lungs will not be developed enough to breath and properly exchange air without the "bubbles" sticking together, and causing the lungs to collapse.

And legally, the fetus is still protected under law as life in the case of mudering a pregnant women, which is a double homicide. Or when say a mother is stabbed and survives but the fetus dies, that's still a homicide. Doesn't matter if the women was on her way to aborting it just before, still legally considered human life, still considered a homicide.

Here's a better question. If there was a case like terry chiavo, we'll call it sherry tiavo. If The husband wanted to pull the feeding tube from sherry, but a doctor said wait wait wait, I can predict with great accuracy there is an 86% chance sherry will make a full recovery in around 7 months, and be a fully functioning human being again...Would it be ok for the husband to still pull the feeding tube?

I'm not certain that's a good question for me....
I was against Schiavo's husband pulling the plug...she was alive to me, killing her through any means, was simply wrong...and thru dehydration seemed unusually cruel as well!

I agree, if it was a ventilator, there would be a case for that...but the guy waited 2 or 3 full years before claiming she told him in a conversation she didn't ever want to live as a vegetable...which just happens to be around the time he was trying to remarry (if I remember correctly).

But will go with any "coma" or "brain dead" patient say on a a ventilator. And the doctor gave a really good prognosis for recovery, would it be ok in that situation to "pull the plug"?

No it would not be okay, not to me....even if on a ventilator and there were no chance outside of a miracle... of full or partial recovery down the road....with one exception, the patient themselves, had a written directive stating clearly that they did not want the ventilator/respirator connected if they ever became deathly ill....

So let's apply that to abortion, why is it wrong in that case to pull the plug on a promising prognosis, and ok to pull the plug on a promising "prognosis" for a fetus?

 

[Chuz Life]

I believe the law defines ''breath'' as breathing air, outside of the womb...on their own or with the help of machines?

we are only talking 'the law'' with the definition of a natural person'', not science...

as example a baby inside the womb is not a legal child or person, that its parents can take a tax write off for or count as a personal exemption as a child in their family, until they are born, or took their first breath outside of the womb...

or a baby in the womb is not issued a legal birth certificate when they are conceived or being formed in the womb...but only when they are birthed.

With God, he said he 'formed Adam' first, which could be a relative comparison to a baby being formed in the womb...but then God said after he was 'formed' He, ''breathed life unto him'', when Adam or any baby in the making, took his or/her first breath, after they were birthed/born they had ''life'' or perhaps... person-hood.

I am not arguing at all that a baby in the womb is not scientifically an individual human being...

just that they are not considered a born person in the legal sense, with all legal rights as all other birthed humans, until they exit the womb.

I'm also not arguing whether this is a right or wrong legal definition of a person, just that it presently is the legal definition of a 'person'.

It is not presently the legal definition of a person, which is a human being. This specific bill is stating that it's wrong to kill a "fetus", if it is still breathing outside of the womb. The fetus still breaths in the womb, uses its lungs and circulatory system to transfer gasses, which is the definition of respiration (one of the pillars that defines life), a transfer of gasses, but the gasses it receives obviously come from the mother, instead of "air" outside of the womb. Lungs however, due to their neccisary fragile structure, take longer to fully develop, since we're talking about a thousands of "bubbles" of very thin layer that's able to allow gasses to pass through both into the blood, and back out of the blood. Which is why the amniotic fluid is filled with surfactant, so when the fetus is practicing using its breathing muscles to breath (even though it's just fluid going in and out), the surfactant acts like a lube that keeps these "bubbles" from sticking together. You pull a fetus out of the womb early, it will try to breath, but the lungs will not be developed enough to breath and properly exchange air without the "bubbles" sticking together, and causing the lungs to collapse.

And legally, the fetus is still protected under law as life in the case of mudering a pregnant women, which is a double homicide. Or when say a mother is stabbed and survives but the fetus dies, that's still a homicide. Doesn't matter if the women was on her way to aborting it just before, still legally considered human life, still considered a homicide.

Here's a better question. If there was a case like terry chiavo, we'll call it sherry tiavo. If The husband wanted to pull the feeding tube from sherry, but a doctor said wait wait wait, I can predict with great accuracy there is an 86% chance sherry will make a full recovery in around 7 months, and be a fully functioning human being again...Would it be ok for the husband to still pull the feeding tube?

I'm not certain that's a good question for me....
I was against Schiavo's husband pulling the plug...she was alive to me, killing her through any means, was simply wrong...and thru dehydration seemed unusually cruel as well!

I agree, if it was a ventilator, there would be a case for that...but the guy waited 2 or 3 full years before claiming she told him in a conversation she didn't ever want to live as a vegetable...which just happens to be around the time he was trying to remarry (if I remember correctly).

But will go with any "coma" or "brain dead" patient say on a a ventilator. And the doctor gave a really good prognosis for recovery, would it be ok in that situation to "pull the plug"?

No it would not be okay, not to me....even if on a ventilator and there were no chance outside of a miracle... of full or partial recovery down the road....with one exception, the patient themselves, had a written directive stating clearly that they did not want the ventilator/respirator connected if they ever became deathly ill....

So let's apply that to abortion, why is it wrong in that case to pull the plug on a promising prognosis, and ok to pull the plug on a promising "prognosis" for a fetus?

This is a good question but I worry about straying too far from the o.o with it.

Is there a way to ask the same, without getting too far away from trying to identify our common ground?

 

[sakinago]

It's simply human being

I believe legally, a natural person is a breathing human being.

Two questions come right to mind.

1. If the ability to breathe air is required for personhood, what then is the legal basis for a MURDER charge under any one of our many fetal homicide laws?

2. Why don't the legal dictionaries SAY anything about the ability to breathe air as a requirement for personhood?

they do, and I posted it above, but here is the part that does mention breathing being a part of person-hood status...


1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant


(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Again this is referring to a case of botched abortion. If that's the definition you want to go with, then pretty much any abortion past a month, month and a half would be illegal...which I'm fine with (I'm sure you're not). But that's what going on when you're NOT trying to kill the fetus, pulsing umbilical, beating heart, and breathing muscles working.

Yes, it is law to protect the baby of a botched late term abortion...but the line drawn, if the child is breathing, has a heartbeat, and/or voluntary movement etc.... is the LEGAL stance taken on whether the baby is alive or not, no? And if a miscarriage, it would still apply, no?

Miscarriage is not done on purpose, it happens naturally. Just like most cases of cancer, they happen naturally, and there's not really any fault, just a cell that mutates and doesn't stop replicating.

Now when you're in the act of purposely trying to terminate the fetus, it was breathing, moving, pulsing umbilical cord etc before the act of trying to terminate it in the first place...and it is still doing so after the unsuccessful attempt at termination, now the only thing that has changed is the location of the fetus...and it all of a sudden becomes wrong to continue?

 

[Toronado3800]

You know, I lost interest in this thread when you started insisting that people provide you with a definition, and when they did, you said it wasn't good enough and didn't meet your requirements.

If you don't want a discussion, then why open a thread?

Opinions are not common ground.

Legal definitions ARE common ground.

Did you provide a LEGAL definition or a personal opinion?

Buddy, I provided you the complex effective legal definition a long time ago and talked about the inconsistencies.

The rest of the conversation seems rather like discussing what "cheating" is with a bad girlfriend.

You provided an opinion. Not a LEGAL source.

I felt it would either be condescending towards you for me to provide a legal source "proving" if you murder a pregnant woman in many states you are also charged with killing the fetus and a legal source saying abortion is legal or it would be.....odd.....for someone to demand legal links.

Debating what this or that dictionary or lawyer says just seems like word games compared to what law enforcement actually does.

 

[Chuz Life]

You know, I lost interest in this thread when you started insisting that people provide you with a definition, and when they did, you said it wasn't good enough and didn't meet your requirements.

If you don't want a discussion, then why open a thread?

Opinions are not common ground.

Legal definitions ARE common ground.

Did you provide a LEGAL definition or a personal opinion?

Buddy, I provided you the complex effective legal definition a long time ago and talked about the inconsistencies.

The rest of the conversation seems rather like discussing what "cheating" is with a bad girlfriend.

You provided an opinion. Not a LEGAL source.

I felt it would either be condescending towards you for me to provide a legal source "proving" if you murder a pregnant woman in many states you are also charged with killing the fetus and a legal source saying abortion is legal or it would be.....odd.....for someone to demand legal links.

Debating what this or that dictionary or lawyer says just seems like word games compared to what law enforcement actually does.

Why are you having such a hard time admitting that legal definitions are common ground to all sides of a debate on ANY issue... let alone abortion?