What is the meaning of life for the atheist
in [Physics]
|
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 16:25 On 5 Aug, 21:08, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 12:45 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > The question > is when does a fetus become a human being. > ANSWER THAT or shut up. At the moment it is born, according to the law and the Constitution says that all person's born in the US are citizens of the US. It makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. he US. It > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. Incorrect. Several states have laws on fetal homicide, some of which define it as murder, some others as manslaughter; I haven't looked in detail, but at least one explicitly contains an exemption for legal abortion. See http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386 (link posted previously in this thread)
From: Jimbo on 5 Aug 2010 16:30 On Aug 5, 4:25 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Aug, 21:08, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 12:45 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > > The question > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > ANSWER THAT or shut up. > > At the moment it is born, according to the law and the Constitution > says that all person's born in the US are citizens of the US. It > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. he US. It > > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. > > Incorrect. Several states have laws on fetal homicide, Abortion is not considered homicide. It is only defined as murder in relation to a physical attack on the mother, and for no other purpose. These laws are meant to grant more rights to the mother in terms of spousal abuse (which the vast majority of these cases stem from) and other attack, not the fetus. They all contain exemptions for legal abortion, they would have to otherwise they would be unenforceable per the courts. These laws do not confer any specific rights to the fetus.
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 17:56 On 5 Aug, 21:30, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:25 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5 Aug, 21:08, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 12:45 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > > > The question > > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > > ANSWER THAT or shut up. > > > At the moment it is born, according to the law and the Constitution > > says that all person's born in the US are citizens of the US. It > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. he US. It > > > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. > > > Incorrect. Several states have laws on fetal homicide, > > Abortion is not considered homicide. It is only defined as murder in > relation to a physical attack on the mother, and for no other > purpose. These laws are meant to grant more rights to the mother in > terms of spousal abuse (which the vast majority of these cases stem > from) and other attack, not the fetus. They all contain exemptions > for legal abortion, they would have to otherwise they would be > unenforceable per the courts. These laws do not confer any specific > rights to the fetus. I'm not a lawyer and don't have time to read the corresponding state laws in detail or conduct a case law review, however, I would not like to defend your position in some states, eg Michigan - my initial reading is that unless it a 'legal' abortion, it may be prosecutable as homicide under some circumstances. Furthermore, several other states' definitions of fetal homicide would seem to cover the case where somebody deliberately harms the fetus with no intent to harm the mother (eg, spiking a drink). The whole area seems to be a mess, with apparently contradictory laws and punishments depending upon whether the person carrying out the abortion is a medical practitioner or not. Of note, however, is that several states define a fetus as a human being that has a separate identity from its mother, eg in Oklahoma: Section 24-691 of Title 21 A. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another. B. As used in this section, "human being" includes an unborn child, as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Section 1-730 of Title 63 4. "Unborn child" means the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception, through pregnancy, and until live birth including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus;
From: Otto Bahn on 5 Aug 2010 18:06 "Apostate" <Apostate(a)yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote >>> > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about spirituality. >>> >>> > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the death of an >>> > > > > > > > innocent) >>> > > > > > > > by >>> > > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the species. >>> >>> > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, that's what forcing a >>> > > > > > > woman to >>> > > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. >>> >>> > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. >>> >>> > > > > Not even remotely the point. >>> >>> > > > I think you'll find it's closely related >>> >>> > > Not even in the slightest. >>> >>> > Sigh. All this time and you didn't look in the Obvious Bag. >>> >>> > it is exactly the point. >>> >>> > If you aren't pregnant, you don't need to consider having an >>> > abortion, now do you? >>> >>> < >>> <But the fact remains that unwanted pregnancies do happen, they have >>> <always happened, and they will continue to happen, so how is that >>> <relevant to the discussion about the right to chose to abort? Such >>> <pregnancies can be reduced by proper education, birth control/condoms, >>> <etc......but they are never going away. >>> >>> The question is whether or not what you are killing (aka "aborting") >>> is a human being. 36 weeks don't cut it. Where's your line? >>< >><What would be your line for dominion over what goes on in your body, >><and by what right does the government have to control whether or not a >><woman has to give birth? I don't really see that power within the >><Constitution. >> >>Um, the Constitution recognized Common Law lock, stock, and >>barrel. Murder is illegal even if there are no statutes saying so. >> >>If the feds and every state eliminated all laws against murder, then >>murder is still illegal under Common Law. > > Nope. > Under common law, what the king might do to a subject is illegal. > There are no common law felonies or misdemeanors, and > certainly no crime-by-crime sanctions in common law. Gosh, you had better inform the Duke Police department about this. They make Common Law burglary and trespassing arrests all the time. > To have a distinct prescribed set of sanctions for specific crimes > requires statutes. > >>Killing a human being is the worst thing you can do. The question >>is when does a fetus become a human being. >> >>ANSWER THAT or shut up. > > The law in each jurisdiction answers that. > Whether it's *RIGHT* or not isn't a question of law. > You're allowed to dislike the law for its failure to uphold religious > notions of right and wrong, but notice that those are regarded as > subjective (by all not so arrogant as to believe that their own > opinions are objectively true and binding on nature.) Yeah well some were talking about what a woman should beable to do with her own body. I'm arguing she should not be allowed to commit murder and the basis for that should be whether it's a human being yet or not, not her own issues -- those only come into play when it is not considered a human being. --oTTo--
From: Otto Bahn on 5 Aug 2010 18:16
"Jimbo" <ckdbigtoe(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about spirituality. > > > > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the death of an > > > > > > > > > innocent) > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the species. > > > > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, that's what forcing a > > > > > > > > woman to > > > > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > > > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. > > > > > > > Not even remotely the point. > > > > > > I think you'll find it's closely related > > > > > Not even in the slightest. > > > > Sigh. All this time and you didn't look in the Obvious Bag. > > > > it is exactly the point. > > > > If you aren't pregnant, you don't need to consider having an > > > abortion, now do you? > > > < > > <But the fact remains that unwanted pregnancies do happen, they have > > <always happened, and they will continue to happen, so how is that > > <relevant to the discussion about the right to chose to abort? Such > > <pregnancies can be reduced by proper education, birth control/condoms, > > <etc......but they are never going away. > > > The question is whether or not what you are killing (aka "aborting") > > is a human being. 36 weeks don't cut it. Where's your line? > > < > <What would be your line for dominion over what goes on in your body, > <and by what right does the government have to control whether or not a > <woman has to give birth? I don't really see that power within the > <Constitution. > > Um, the Constitution recognized Common Law lock, stock, and > barrel. Murder is illegal even if there are no statutes saying so. > < <Actually, the Constitution did away with Common Law at the federal <level, purposefully, by the Founding Fathers, and severely curtails <common law at the state level. The reason for this was that Brittish <used common law as one would use a club to control the colonies. <Basically, all action could be construed by the Brittish authority as <criminal by the siting of one or more common law. There are no common <law felonies nor mistemeanors and certainly no common law powers <assigned to the fed outside of the Constitution. Even at the state <level, most common laws have been replaced. Common law marriage, for <example, has been largely done away with except in one or two states. States have codified much of what Common Law covers, but crimes are still tried under Common Law procedure and plenty of crimes still are coverend by Common Law. Lawsuits generall run under Common Law. State law trumps Common Law, but does not "make it go away". If you repealed the statutes making murder a crime, it would still be criminal under Common Law. > If the feds and every state eliminated all laws against murder, then > murder is still illegal under Common Law. < <However, abortion is not murder under any state or federal law. I'm arguing late term abortions should be, obvious example for mother's health which I mentioned early on being an exception. --oTTo-- |