Fetal Homicide Laws are...

[Chuz Life]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

 

[Chuz Life]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

I wonder how much time you wasted trying to find one to cherry pick.

 

[Faun]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

You retard... it's a law dictionary. One of the most respected. No one said it's s law firm. No one said it should be used in lieu of attorney.

But you didn't challenge anyone to consult with a law firm to get the definition of a "natural person."

You didn't challenge anyone to contact an attorney to get the definition of a "natural person."

You made the challenge to look up "natural person" in a "law dictionary."

And that exactly what I did.

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.
​

The definition blows away the idiocies you've been posting for pages now, so you attack the site's disclaimer that it's a law dictionary, not a lawyer. How pathetic are you?

 

[Faun]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

I wonder how much time you wasted trying to find one to cherry pick.

About 30 seconds. Black's law dictionary is thee most respected law dictionary in the country, so naturally, I went there first.

U.S. Legal Dictionaries | Yale Law School Library

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

 

[bgrouse]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

I wanted to make it about the topic, but since you're a liar who is full of shit and has no substance to support his claims, you've left me no choice.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Again this retard talks about his mythical "legal definition" in the "legal dictionary."

 

[bgrouse]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

No shit! Definitions used in law are often defined in the text of the law, often in the "definitions" section. Your entire premise of finding the "legal definition" of a natural person in a "legal dictionary" is therefore totally moronic, but totally expected from you.

 

[bgrouse]

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

I wonder how much time you wasted trying to find one to cherry pick.

About 30 seconds. Black's law dictionary is thee most respected law dictionary in the country, so naturally, I went there first.

U.S. Legal Dictionaries | Yale Law School Library

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

He'll post the REAL dictionary with the REAL definition any minute now. He's just struggling from the effects of the abortion they attempted on him while he was in the womb. I guess they used some really wicked chemicals to try and abort him given the amount of trouble he has coping with a simple discussion here. I wonder if he breathes on his own.

 

[Chuz Life]

As I consulted not only Blacks legal dictionary, but several other legal dictionaries as well, I still hold that you are cherry picking. And here are just a couple reasons why.

First of all, as I recall, the hardbound version that I pulled at the library indicated nothing about being "born". It just says "a human being" and or the Body of a human being.

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

If surgically delivered babies count. . . Then what's the physiological difference a child that is surgically delivered alive and one that is intentionally killed in essentially the same process and "born" into the hands of their (abortionist / killer) ?

Both involve essentially the same surgical procedure.

Finally, if natural personhood doesn't begin until "natural birth" why hasn't our Supreme Court used that fact to overturn ANY of the MURDER convictions of those charged with and convicted for the MURDERS of children in the womb?

You can't MURDER someone or something that is NOT a person.

Can you?

I submit that given these facts, your cherry picked definition is still lacking - despite the deserved credentials of the source.

The. One thing that all of the legal definitions share is that a natural person is simply "a human being"

Period.

 

[Faun]

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

The answer to that question was linked in my post.

And still, despite your incessant whining.... looking up the definition as you challenge resulted in a "natural person" being defined as a person naturally born. Hunting through multiple dictionaries for a definition you want to find doesn't help you.

 

[bgrouse]

As I consulted not only Blacks legal dictionary, but several other legal dictionaries as well, I still hold that you are cherry picking. And here are just a couple reasons why.

Cherry-picking? How is that even possible? Before, you said there was only one legal definition.

I agree with the legal definition for what a natural person is.

Now there are multiple legal definitions? Sounds like you're full of shit as usual.

First of all, as I recall, the hardbound version that I pulled at the library indicated nothing about being "born". It just says "a human being" and or the Body of a human being.

Why is your source any better than his? Because it fits your agenda?

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

If surgically delivered babies count. . . Then what's the physiological difference a child that is surgically delivered alive and one that is intentionally killed in essentially the same process and "born" into the hands of their (abortionist / killer) ?

So as long as the fetus is destroyed inside the womb, it's not murder because it hasn't been born, either naturally or otherwise?

Both involve essentially the same surgical procedure.

Finally, if natural personhood doesn't begin until "natural birth" why hasn't our Supreme Court used that fact to overturn ANY of the MURDER convictions of those charged with and convicted for the MURDERS of children in the womb?

You can't MURDER someone or something that is NOT a person.

Can you?

The same reason guns are illegal in some states despite the second amendment: because lawmakers said so.

I submit that given these facts, your cherry picked definition is still lacking - despite the deserved credentials of the source.

The. One thing that all of the legal definitions share is that a natural person is simply "a human being"

Period.

That's even better than cherry-picking! You picked only the words in the sentence that you wanted to read!! Brilliant!!!

 

[bgrouse]

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

The answer to that question was linked in my post.

And still, despite your incessant whining.... looking up the definition as you challenge resulted in a "natural person" being defined as a person naturally born. Hunting through multiple dictionaries for a definition you want to find doesn't help you.

It's more than he knew before. Now he at least realizes that there is more than one "legal definition." He's no less capable of learning than a brain-damaged vegetable!

 

[Chuz Life]

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

The answer to that question was linked in my post.

And still, despite your incessant whining.... looking up the definition as you challenge resulted in a "natural person" being defined as a person naturally born. Hunting through multiple dictionaries for a definition you want to find doesn't help you.

It's more than he knew before. Now he at least realizes that there is more than one "legal definition." He's no less capable of learning than a brain-damaged vegetable!

It's too bad that we can't get someone from "Blacks" to discuss the definition and answer questions further. Something worth looking into.

I am will to bet money that they will agree that while the definition for what a natural person includes "naturally born" born human beings.... birth itself in not a legal requirement for them to be a "natural person"

Some I will be pursuing now. For sure.

 

[bgrouse]

Secondly, what constitutes a "natural" birth? Are people who are delivered from the womb surgically considered "naturally born?" C-section?

The answer to that question was linked in my post.

And still, despite your incessant whining.... looking up the definition as you challenge resulted in a "natural person" being defined as a person naturally born. Hunting through multiple dictionaries for a definition you want to find doesn't help you.

It's more than he knew before. Now he at least realizes that there is more than one "legal definition." He's no less capable of learning than a brain-damaged vegetable!

It's too bad that we can't get someone from "Blacks" to discuss the definition and answer questions further. Something worth looking into.

I am will to bet money that they will agree that while the definition for what a natural person includes "naturally born" born human beings.... birth itself in not a legal requirement for them to be a "natural person"

Some I will be pursuing now. For sure.

It's too bad you spent all that time whining about the "legal definition" of a natural person only to find out that it requires being born. Now, instead of admitting that you're wrong, you'll pretend they "meant" something else like the worthless coward that you are.

Here's a definition from the US Government Publishing Office:
(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.

Not good enough for you either?

 

[Chuz Life]

Did someone order two libtardz on full tilt?

They're here.

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

No shit! Definitions used in law are often defined in the text of the law, often in the "definitions" section. Your entire premise of finding the "legal definition" of a natural person in a "legal dictionary" is therefore totally moronic, but totally expected from you.

Like This?

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 {MURDER}, 1112 {MANSLAUGHTER}, and 1113 {Attempted MURDER / MANSLAUGHTER} of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

Again, I ask. . . .

How does this FEDERAL LAW NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

 

[Faun]

The pro-lifer resorts to name-calling when unable to support any of his bullshit. Usually I get much more evidence, even when arguing against a group as dumb as pro-lifers. Maybe it's the opposite and this is a smart pro-lifer. He saw where the discussion was going, determined that he was woefully unfit to participate, and resorted to name-calling early.

Your attempt to make this about me is cute.

Petty, but cute.

The legal definition for what a "natural person" is what it is and it will remain what it is, while you tilt at your windmills and try again and again to make it about "me."

You already know this, of course.... but what else is a libtard to do? You certainly can not afford to acknowledge the facts that don't support your denials of children and their rights.

can you.

Keep running away....

natural person

A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.​

Ummmm. . . .

Nice try Libtard.

From your own page.

"

No shit! Definitions used in law are often defined in the text of the law, often in the "definitions" section. Your entire premise of finding the "legal definition" of a natural person in a "legal dictionary" is therefore totally moronic, but totally expected from you.

Like This?

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 {MURDER}, 1112 {MANSLAUGHTER}, and 1113 {Attempted MURDER / MANSLAUGHTER} of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

Again, I ask. . . .

How does this FEDERAL LAW NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

Well now you're making shit up calling a child in uterine, a "natural person," given you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born.

That aside, it's been legally established a pregnancy can be terminated by the woman carrying the child in utero. That right does not extend to anyone other than the pregnant woman.

As far as killing another human being being murder, that is not always the case. Sometimes it is murder, sometimes it's not. Cases where it's not include, but not limited to, war (excluding war crimes), capital punishment, self defense, abortion (when carried out by choice of the pregnant woman).

 

[Chuz Life]

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 {MURDER}, 1112 {MANSLAUGHTER}, and 1113 {Attempted MURDER / MANSLAUGHTER} of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

Again, I ask.


How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .

How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

 

[Faun]

You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .

How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?

Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .

How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?

Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.

Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.

Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.

True or false.

 

[Faun]

You are dodging the question, so. . . Again, I ask. . . .

How does this (FEDERAL LAW) NOT recognize a "child in the womb" as "a human being" and as such, a "natural PERSON?"

The charge of MURDER by definition is the act of one PERSON criminally killing another PERSON.

You can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything else.

It's not that I'm dodging the question -- it's that I'm pointing out it's a nonsensical question comprised of bullshit you're making up. How does one answer such a bullshit question?

Again... you were shown the definition of a "natural person" is s human being who was born. For you to continue asking a question based on that false premise is ridiculous.

Ok.... let me try to make this easier for you to understand.

Murder by definition is the criminal killing of one person by another person.

True or false.

That's true.

True or false... in many, if not most, situations, abortion is not criminal?