Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 32 week baby in the womb is no different than if it were to be delivered 5 seconds later.
If you're saying the baby in the womb at 32 weeks isn't a human, you're saying the 32 week preemies in the NICU aren't human. Well, unless you believe magic fairy dust is sprinkled on them at the NICU door.
Keep denying science.
Tiresome. FYI, when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, they didn't call a lot of expert witnesses in terms of medical doctors nor biologists nor even ethicists (priests, ministers, rabbis, philosophers, theologians, & etc.) They ruled on the operation of legal logic - which isn't concerned about the definition of human, it's about who is a legal person.
A legal person is a restricted sense of the word - it's about who participates in the society. A fetus has no standing there - it's only born/delivered fetuses who are up & about in the World who count - & even then, it's on sufferance, in the belief that the child will grow up & become a citizen of the society.
So to change the law, there are several paths available. Belaboring a narrow POV on the disparities between the common understanding of person & the legal understanding of person isn't going to get anywhere.
No one who has carried a baby through to the third trimester is taking the decision to abort lightly. Why isn't this just an issue between the woman, her family / loved ones and her doctor. Why does this need to be regulated.
If you re pro-choice - that is a fine individual decision. The government should not intervene in my personal decisions.
For so long I have wanted a horse ..... a horse to live in my backyard. So it should be up to me and my family. Well the town doesn't agree, and has to impose their beliefs upon me.
Tiresome. FYI, when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, they didn't call a lot of expert witnesses in terms of medical doctors nor biologists nor even ethicists (priests, ministers, rabbis, philosophers, theologians, & etc.) They ruled on the operation of legal logic - which isn't concerned about the definition of human, it's about who is a legal person.
A legal person is a restricted sense of the word - it's about who participates in the society. A fetus has no standing there - it's only born/delivered fetuses who are up & about in the World who count - & even then, it's on sufferance, in the belief that the child will grow up & become a citizen of the society.
So to change the law, there are several paths available. Belaboring a narrow POV on the disparities between the common understanding of person & the legal understanding of person isn't going to get anywhere.
Can a person be convicted of manslaughter for the death of an unborn child?
having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
When you precede "potential" before life, you are establishing that the object in question is having or showing the capacity to become of develop into "a life", ie a :Potential life.
Yet we have already established by your own comments that a fetus IS a life.
So how can that fetus be a "potential life" if you have already admitted it is a life?
I apologize, I merely speak the English language and only understand the words by their proper meaning and use within the correctly established context they are applied.
so... as we have established by your comments, the fetus is a life, so therefore it can not be a "potential life" as it is already a life.
Maybe you could clear this up for me? Sorry.. but words have meaning and I kind of pay attention to them?
potential life as worded in the supreme court ruling. I use it both legally and otherwise. yes a pregnancy is developing a life, it is living, in the process of development. it is however only "potential" life until it is born. not all life come to fruition. a woman has the right to govern her own reproduction as she sees fit.
potential life as worded in the supreme court ruling. I use it both legally and otherwise. yes a pregnancy is developing a life, it is living, in the process of development. it is however only "potential" life until it is born. not all life come to fruition. a woman has the right to govern her own reproduction as she sees fit.
That is a meaningless word. A life is a life, regardless. It is not potential as it is a life, only an idiot (if the SC used it in such a manner, it merely establishes their incompetence at understanding the language, which explains a lot on their rulings).
So, you and apparently by your own claim, the SC think life is only meaningful as you have termed outside of a womb.
Well, law has in the past viewed women and slaves as "lesser" and not worthy of that of men. Who are we to argue with the law right? I mean, the law is ALWAYS right... right?
That is a meaningless word. A life is a life, regardless. It is not potential as it is a life, only an idiot (if the SC used it in such a manner, it merely establishes their incompetence at understanding the language, which explains a lot on their rulings).
So, you and apparently by your own claim, the SC think life is only meaningful as you have termed outside of a womb.
Well, law has in the past viewed women and slaves as "lesser" and not worthy of that of men. Who are we to argue with the law right? I mean, the law is ALWAYS right... right?
/facepalm
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
Tiresome. FYI, when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, they didn't call a lot of expert witnesses in terms of medical doctors nor biologists nor even ethicists (priests, ministers, rabbis, philosophers, theologians, & etc.) They ruled on the operation of legal logic - which isn't concerned about the definition of human, it's about who is a legal person.
A legal person is a restricted sense of the word - it's about who participates in the society. A fetus has no standing there - it's only born/delivered fetuses who are up & about in the World who count - & even then, it's on sufferance, in the belief that the child will grow up & become a citizen of the society.
So to change the law, there are several paths available. Belaboring a narrow POV on the disparities between the common understanding of person & the legal understanding of person isn't going to get anywhere.
NX gen are you thinking a fetus is more important than a living independent fully functioning human?
if so see southwest's post.
you can't ignore the fact it is law. you don't have to agree. find something immoral don't do it.
Yes, but can you sue over such after knowing and being informed of such? Answer...no. Why? Because the responsibility of the use of such a product was informed before the person used it and they acknowledged the risks when they used the product.
Yes, but this is also warned as a possible problem before hand. Again, if one becomes addicted, after knowing such, can they sue for it? Answer.. Why? Because the responsibility of the use of such a product was informed before the person used it and they acknowledged the risks when they used the product.
Yes, but how many cases can you cite where someone won a case of placing the cause of such on the food manufacturer? Why? Because anyone who isn't a complete idiot understands the basic concept of caloric intake and how over eating can cause you to increase in weight. laws aren't designed for the unfathomably stupid, they are designed for normal people who can understand basic concepts.
to which all are informed of the risks beforehand.
I give up...
This is just plain stupid.
You win!
/facepalm
Yes cigarette companies have been sued over lung cancer.
Yes drug companies and doctors have been sued over addictions.
Yes fast food, McDonald, have been sued for obesity.
But its not about law suits. Do we expect these people to just continue to live with their cancer, addictions and obesity without treatment or ridding themselves of their affliction. The reason being they caused their affliction therefore are obligated to continue it because they were aware smoking can lead to lung cancer, narcotics can lead to addiction, junk food can lead to obesity and sex can lead to pregnancy.
By this logic, a person on life support is no longer a human with rights.
keep spinning, your assumptions fail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Down to the basics
