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

[KokomoJojo]

My position is that the legal definition for what a natural person is - is common ground for all sides of the abortion debate.

I disagree, as far as I know the state does recognize a natural person as a biological man/woman but at the same time does not recognize a fetus as a 'person' because it is not born yet. That said the legal definition for a 'natural person' can be used for the legal side but certainly not all sides of the abortion debate in which philisophical and theological are other sides of that debate.

 

[The Professor]

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

However, since this thread is obviously about the definition of a person as it pertains to abortion and the legal status of a fetus, the following law is defititive:

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

(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.

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

Clearly, an unborn child is not considered a person under the law as far as rights are concerned. Some states define a person to include an unborn child, but only for the purpose of enforcing fetal homicide laws. The fetal homicide laws of the State of Arkansas define "person," to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation. However these fetal homicide laws do not apply to abortions. Here are the fetal homicide laws in all 50 states:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[KokomoJojo]

Clearly, an unborn child is not considered a person under the law as far as rights are concerned. Some states define a person to include an unborn child, but only for the purpose of enforcing fetal homicide laws. The fetal homicide laws of the State of Arkansas define "person," to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation. However these fetal homicide laws do not apply to abortions. Here are the fetal homicide laws in all 50 states:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Proving of course that all our illustrious leego system 'reely' does with their narrow and broad wordsmithing is nothing more than throwing darts at the wall and where ever it hits thats todays law of the land, and of course like so many other matters well within the boundaries of personal religious purview for everyone 'person' involved where they have no jurisdiction what so ever to 'legitimately' adjudicate and certainly not legislate enmasse.

 

[Bush92]

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.

After first trimester it depends on state as per Roe. In Nazi Germany it depended on your race. But hey...abortion, genocide, what's the difference?

 

[Bush92]

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.

Dr. Mengele used to rip unborn humans from the womb. Just like NOW likes to have done.
Auschwitz Survivors Recall Horror Of Nazi Experiments

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Dr. Mengele used to rip unborn humans from the womb. Just like NOW likes to have done.
Auschwitz Survivors Recall Horror Of Nazi Experiments

Yeh sure and everyone was pissed because it caused a world wide a hot sauce shortage because they were so delicious deep fried with cheeze.

dont even go there, of which there is no hard material evidence and much of alleged evidence they did claim has been proven to be lies as far back as nuremburg, which today is nothing more than perpetrated as disinformation or ignorance. start your own a thread if you want to talk about the nazis.

 

[pwjohn]

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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

 

[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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

Does anyone really need to be a legal expert to find, quote and link to a definition found in an online "legal" dictionary?

Since when?

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

Does anyone really need to be a legal expert to find, quote and link to a definition found in an online "legal" dictionary?

Since when?

so thats already been done, a few times, so now what, thread over right.

 

[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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

Does anyone really need to be a legal expert to find, quote and link to a definition found in an online "legal" dictionary?

Since when?

so thats already been done, a few times, so now what, thread over right.

Well, yes. . . A definition was posted and yes legal definitions ARE common ground to everyone involved in a LEGAL discussion, unless and until that legal definition is changed. However, I have yet to see any abortion proponents accept that reality.

How about you be the first?

 

[pwjohn]

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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

Does anyone really need to be a legal expert to find, quote and link to a definition found in an online "legal" dictionary?

Since when?

Well, at a time when a minority of this country has somehow managed to hornswoggled their way into a majority force in the government, and with the goal of denying women many of their hard earned gains in recent years, that leaves women's rights at great risk.

A perfect example of that was on full display just recently during a senate investigation where repub men were actually shushing a woman on their committee while she was questioning a witness. They do not see her as an equal. So clearly women's rights are at great risk during this time of turmoil brought about by that minority of people recently taking ownership of our government.

 

[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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

Does anyone really need to be a legal expert to find, quote and link to a definition found in an online "legal" dictionary?

Since when?

Well, at a time when a minority of this country has somehow managed to hornswoggled their way into a majority force in the government, and with the goal of denying women many of their hard earned gains in recent years, that leaves women's rights at great risk.

A perfect example of that was on full display just recently during a senate investigation where repub men were actually shushing a woman on their committee while she was questioning a witness. They do not see her as an equal. So clearly women's rights are at great risk during this time of turmoil brought about by that minority of people recently taking ownership of our government.

If you are claiming the legal dictionaries have it wrong. . .

Prove it.

Make your case.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Are you a legal expert? And how many legal experts do you think might chime in on your thread?

Does anyone really need to be a legal expert to find, quote and link to a definition found in an online "legal" dictionary?

Since when?

so thats already been done, a few times, so now what, thread over right.

Well, yes. . . A definition was posted and yes legal definitions ARE common ground to everyone involved in a LEGAL discussion, unless and until that legal definition is changed. However, I have yet to see any abortion proponents accept that reality.

How about you be the first?

maybe what side would I be arguing.