A "legal victim" NOT a legal person. The fetus is human (ADJECTIVE) ...it is NOT A human being (NOUN) as in "person". ...not until birth. The UVVA also has a clause stating it in no way affects abortion laws....too bad!
That means, for example, that if you hijack a small plane with a pregnant woman onboard, and the plane accidentally crashes as a result of the crime and the woman survives but suffers a miscarriage due to the crash, you can be charged with a homicide. Oh, and under the law it doesn't matter if that woman had an abortion scheduled the next day! Homicide is homicide.
Of course it doesn't matter if the woman is going to have an abortion the next day or any day...WTF would it?
And the vast majority of these acts exclude abortion And the reason why? Because these acts have been abused to sentence women having miscarriages to jail
Just found a VERY interesting take on the isssue of Foetal personhood http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/08/11/abortion-and-the-fetal-personhood-fallacy/
You missed the point again. My response was to someone that said there was no legal precedent for calling an unborn baby a human being. There most definitely is.
Obviously the person was wrong. The UVVA is precedent - Dumb precedent which turns our justice system into a contradictory clown show but, precedent never the less. This illustrates the danger of laws based on religious extremism - rather than logic, reason and the founding principles. The poster should have claimed that there is no scientific consensus or expert consensus for the claim that - at least in the early stages of pregnancy - a human being exists. This would have been technically correct.
"""And nowhere in American law do we require some people to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of other persons. """ We do not even require parents to donate their organs or their bone marrow to save the lives of their children.""" That is EXACTLY what I've been saying and NO ANTI-CHOICER has EVER REFUTED IT OR PROVEN IT WRONG. They just pull the covers over their heads and hope it will go away... They deny that what they want is MORE/SPECIAL/HIGHER rights than anyone else, the right t use another's body to sustain their life without consent. BUT THAT is exactly what they want...
This is so ridiculous. The innocent child in utero was placed there through her actions! Now she can wantonly slaughter the child just cause she wants to?
Wow..you really personify a ZEF . It is not a child anymore than an acorn is an oak tree , or cake batter is a cake. She accidentally got pregnant, and has the option to abort way before it will be a child .
This is why a specific cutoff line needs to be determined, rather than trying to go with an all-or-none approach. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...te-how-should-the-law-handle-abortion.539893/ -Meta
FoxHastings said: ↑ """And nowhere in American law do we require some people to give of their bodies to sustain the lives of other persons. """ We do not even require parents to donate their organs or their bone marrow to save the lives of their children.""" That is EXACTLY what I've been saying and NO ANTI-CHOICER has EVER REFUTED IT OR PROVEN IT WRONG. They just pull the covers over their heads and hope it will go away... They deny that what they want is MORE/SPECIAL/HIGHER rights than anyone else, the right t use another's body to sustain their life without consent. BUT THAT is exactly what they want... Women do not place children in their uteruses...get thee a book on biology. She can abort the fetus for any reason she wants to... Despite your low opinion of women they do not 'wantonly" get abortions. Why couldn't you address what was in the post of mine you quoted???
Repeating,(and repeating and repeating) There IS a cut off. It HAS been determined. AGAIN, abortions over 23 weeks ( viability) are illegal.
And yet, folks argue back and forth as if there isn't one, or as if there shouldn't be one. I however say that where that cutoff line is, is much more important than whether or not one refers to an unborn entity as a "Zef", "Fetus", or "Child in Utero". -Meta
FoxHastings said: ↑ Repeating,(and repeating and repeating) There IS a cut off. It HAS been determined. AGAIN, abortions over 23 weeks ( viability) are illegal. Then maybe they shouldn't be discussing things they have no knowledge of ...just a thought....maybe they should learn something about the subject???? , There doesn't HAVE to be one....it was just a compromise with those who didn't want abortion at all....seems THEY can't compromise at all. If there was nothing making abortion limited to pre-viability do you REALLY think women would go through the "joys" of pregnancy for 8-9 months for the "fun" of getting an abortion? NO, mentally sound women do NOT do that. It is all those....but it is NOT a "person" with rights... I have told many Anti-Choicers that they may call it anything they want, baby, child, teenager, bun, watermelon, princess, but it's still a fetus. They like to give it inaccurate names to get people to think that from conception it looks like the Gerber baby...that's so much more dramatic than using facts/science.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Repeating,(and repeating and repeating) There IS a cut off. It HAS been determined. AGAIN, abortions over 23 weeks ( viability) are illegal. Then maybe they shouldn't be discussing things they have no knowledge of ...just a thought....maybe they should learn something about the subject???? , There doesn't HAVE to be one....it was just a compromise with those who didn't want abortion at all....seems THEY can't compromise at all. If there was nothing making abortion limited to pre-viability do you REALLY think women would go through the "joys" of pregnancy for 8-9 months for the "fun" of getting an abortion? NO, mentally sound women do NOT do that. It is all those....but it is NOT a "person" with rights... I have told many Anti-Choicers that they may call it anything they want, baby, child, teenager, bun, watermelon, princess, but it's still a fetus. They like to give it inaccurate names to get people to think that from conception it looks like the Gerber baby...that's so much more dramatic than using facts/science. Because birth is the threshold for personhood. It is NOT "erroneous". NO WHERE in the post of mine you quoted, nor ANYWHERE ELSE, did I say otherwise. I see you still have a LOT of trouble addressing what my posts really say....…..it can be difficult when one has no facts...
Actually , and try to stay with me here, you claim personhood is the threshold of a human being getting protection under the law, then you state a human being isn’t a person until birth, then your whole babble falls apart because fetuses are protected under the law prior to birth even by your own admission! ☹️ You obviously are in WAY over your head! BOOM! Smackdown!!!!
Oh, I see the problem. You think the word "rights" is exactly the same as the word "protection" even though they are spelled differently and have different meanings. The fetus has PROTECTION after 23 weeks. It doesn't have RIGHTS until birth. Now find a dictionary and look up those two words. They are spelled differently because they have two different meanings.
