NFBW Ref: 230425^a > The born alive rule was originally a principle at
common law in England that was carried to the United States and other former colonies of the British Empire. First formulated by
William Staunford, it was later set down by
Edward Coke in his
Institutes of the Laws of England. It follows the language used for cases of
murder in English law, identifying three salient characteristics: a reasonable creature, in rerum natura (in natural being), and in the
King's peace.
[2] Coke says: "If a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe, or if a man beat her, whereby the child dyeth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is great
misprision, and no murder; but if he childe be born alive and dyeth of the potion, battery, or other cause, this is murder; for in law it is accounted a reasonable creature, in rerum natura, when it is born alive.
[3][4]
en.m.wikipedia.org
The term "reasonable creature" echoes the language of an influential strand Catholic doctrine on the nature of the soul and the
beginning of human personhood which generally adopted
Aristotle in holding that it is the "rational soul" that infuses the fetus with "human beingness". There was disagreement as to whether this occurred at the moment of conception, or at the moment of
quickening, as Aristotle had held.
[5]As for rerum natura,
William Staunfordhad explained "the thing killed must be in part of the world of physical beings
(in rerum natura). This has been interpreted as meaning
completely expelled from the womb.[6] Finally, the "thing killed" must be in the King's peace, i.e. in a situation where the protection of the King's peace applied. An outlaw, for instance, was not in the King's peace, and not subject to protection of the law.
The designation "misprision, and no murder", can be traced to the
Leges Henrici Primi of 1115, which designated abortion "quasi homicide".[
citation needed] Here, we find the penalties for abortion were varying lengths of penance, indicating it was dealt with by
ecclesiastical courts, while homicide, being a breach of the King's peace, was dealt with in secular courts. Penalties for abortion varied depending on whether the fetus was formed or unformed, that is before or after
quickening, and were only imposed on women who had aborted the product of "fornication" (illicit sex), a distinction previously made by the
Venerable Bede.
[
Apr 25, 2023 ¥
Frankeneinstein ¥
#8,458 {to: 08,451 nfbw} “…. I understand the pro-life folks not being able to just stand by and watch what they believe to be
infanticide..”
Apr 25, 2023 NFBW
#8,460 {to: 08458 fvstn} Why are MAGA’s mostly white Christians ….
entitled to force their …. definition of infanticide on the whole country?
Apr 25, 2023 ¥frnknvstns¥
#8,462
{to: 08,460 nfbw} “They are just playing by the rules laid out by white liberals, rules they had forced upon them”
Apr 25, 2023 NFBW {to: 08,462 fvstn} White liberals cannot pass laws or rules the MAGA white anti-choice Christians must follow..
I was referring to the legal definition of infanticide which is based on common law.. “the thing killed must be in part of the world of physical beings
(in rerum natura).see ref 230425^a
I hear the whimpers of MAGA being victims of anything liberal/commie/*******”woke” whatever but they are not entitled to make their own laws and accuse pregnant women of murder for political sensationalism.
It’s not honest to accuse liberals of being for infanticide just because they don’t agree with white Christian’s and the vast MAGA disgruntled white males when the common law of before “quickening” is essentially legal killing of a fetus on the decision of it’s mother.
Are we a country of law or country of what MAGA wants?