US Federal Law, The Fetus/Embryo Is A Human Being.

[Truth7t7]

Wikipedia: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says essentially what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3]Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the “collapse” clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the triggering of its “collapse” clause by section (d).

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

Text Of Law

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[DreadCthulhu]

ok?

 

[brinny]

Wikipedia: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Amen.

 

[majj27]

ok?

Also of note in the law:

The bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

So basically, it means abortion is legal. Which we already knew, but it bears repeating.

 

[Truth7t7]

Also of note in the law:

The bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

So basically, it means abortion is legal. Which we already knew, but it bears repeating.

Truth7t7: The law sets the stage for Roe V. Wade to be revisited, as seen below. One more conservative appointment to the US Supreme court, and I'm confident they will rule the "Fetus/Embryo" is a living Human afforded protection under the US constitution.

"Trigger The Collapse Clause"

Wikipedia: Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says essentially what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3]Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the “collapse” clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the triggering of its “collapse” clause by section (d).

 

[redleghunter]

Also of note in the law:

The bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

So basically, it means abortion is legal. Which we already knew, but it bears repeating.

Therefore, that law ends up making it clear it is ok to kill human beings based on the scope of the law.

Get hit by a drunk driver on your way to the abortion clinic, your unborn baby dies drunk driver is charged for fetal homicide. If you succeed in getting to the clinic, baby also dies and no one held accountable.

 

[majj27]

Therefore, that law ends up making it clear it is ok to kill human beings based on the scope of the law.

Get hit by a drunk driver on your way to the abortion clinic, your unborn baby dies drunk driver is charged for fetal homicide. If you succeed in getting to the clinic, baby also dies and no one held accountable.

I'm just saying, the law specifically was written so as to not apply to abortions or doctors/medical professionals who perform them. So if you want to use the law to say abortions are illegal, it's pretty much a no-go unless you can have the law rewritten.

 

[Truth7t7]

I'm just saying, the law specifically was written so as to not apply to abortions or doctors/medical professionals who perform them. So if you want to use the law to say abortions are illegal, it's pretty much a no-go unless you can have the law rewritten.

I'm just saying?

Truth7t7: The law sets the stage for Roe V. Wade to be revisited, as seen below. One more conservative appointment to the US Supreme court, and I'm confident they will rule the "Fetus/Embryo" is a living Human afforded protection under the US constitution.

"Trigger The Collapse Clause"

Wikipedia: Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says essentially what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3]Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the “collapse” clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the triggering of its “collapse” clause by section (d).

Text Of Law

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm just saying, the law specifically was written so as to not apply to abortions or doctors/medical professionals who perform them. So if you want to use the law to say abortions are illegal, it's pretty much a no-go unless you can have the law rewritten.

No you pointed it out clearly, no argument there. I just pointed out the moral inconsistencies. They define the unborn baby as a human being and gave exceptions to when one can kill said human being.

 

[Liza B.]

Therefore, that law ends up making it clear it is ok to kill human beings based on the scope of the law.

Get hit by a drunk driver on your way to the abortion clinic, your unborn baby dies drunk driver is charged for fetal homicide. If you succeed in getting to the clinic, baby also dies and no one held accountable.

It's absolutely insane.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to ALL PERSONS BORN and naturalized...

It could NOT be a person born that is the "unborn" (as some want to call it), now could it?

A FETUS IS PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF A PERSON BORN.
Therefore not recognized by the Constitution.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

No you pointed it out clearly, no argument there. I just pointed out the moral inconsistencies. They define the unborn baby as a human being and gave exceptions to when one can kill said human being.

The moral ambiguity (inconsistencies) go hand in hand with logical contradictions.

As Wikipedia says, "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence."
It is a "legal victim," meaning injuring it can have legal consequences.
This is the "cash value" meaning of the act - what consequences it actually has. The attempts to use the occasion to define the fetus to be a human being are quite spurious (and false).

DEFINING a fetus to be a human being is part of the act; that does NOT mean it conforms to reality, that it is any sort of real objective fact.
"... as used in this section" is really a misuse in reality, since even "unborn child" is itself a contradiction.
Text Of Law:
"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

DEFINING it that way does NOT make it so. And especially since there is never any member of any species in any womb. So all in all it is a totally moot point, since it is about nothing real.

 

[Truth7t7]

The moral ambiguity (inconsistencies) go hand in hand with logical contradictions.

As Wikipedia says, "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence."
It is a "legal victim," meaning injuring it can have legal consequences.
This is the "cash value" meaning of the act - what consequences it actually has. The attempts to use the occasion to define the fetus to be a human being are quite spurious (and false).

DEFINING a fetus to be a human being is part of the act; that does NOT mean it conforms to reality, that it is any sort of real objective fact.
"... as used in this section" is really a misuse in reality, since even "unborn child" is itself a contradiction.
Text Of Law:
"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

DEFINING it that way does NOT make it so. And especially since there is never any member of any species in any womb. So all it all it is a totally moot point, since it is about nothing real.

The law sets the stage for Roe V. Wade to be revisited, as seen below. One more conservative appointment to the US Supreme court, and I'm confident they will rule the "Fetus/Embryo" is a living Human afforded protection under the US constitution.

"Trigger The Collapse Clause"

Wikipedia: Meanwhile, the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says essentially what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3]Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the “collapse” clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end.[4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe,[5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the triggering of its “collapse” clause by section (d).

Text Of Law

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[redleghunter]

DEFINING it that way does NOT make it so. And especially since there is never any member of any species in any womb. So all it all it is a totally moot point, since it is about nothing real.

So you were never in the womb. Ok Doug were you grown in an Aldus Huxley birthing chamber?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So you were never in the womb. Ok Doug were you grown in an Aldus Huxley birthing chamber?

Sure I am claiming that I was never in "the" womb. A womb, supposedly. The one my mother had.

Just because I was gestated there, that there is now an I and I came from it, it was necessary for my actual existence, my coming into being, just because of this there was an I there then?
I.e., there was no I until I was born into existence, so in that sense "I" was never in a womb. Though at first glance it seems it must be a totally crazy Idea that I didn't come from anywhere.

"I was grown" (in a womb) is an interesting concept ...
"GROWN" may be inadequate or misleading.
(Since growing is particularly evident in the post-birth case, which we want to be sure to avoid confusing with womb contents which is what we are here talking about.)

Remember, "Just because of this there was an I there then."

In conclusion,
MOTHERS CREATE PEOPLE.

Just like anything made, a person does not exist BEFORE it (he/she) has actually been made.

A CAR WITH NO WHEELS IS NOT REALLY A CAR.
no road/ground to sit on

 

[redleghunter]

Sure I am claiming that I was never in "the" womb. A womb, supposedly. The one my mother had.

Just because I was gestated there, that there is now an I and I came from it, it was necessary for my actual existence, my coming into being, just because of this there was an I there then?
I.e., there was no I until I was born into existence, so in that sense "I" was never in a womb. Though at first glance it seems it must be a totally crazy Idea that I didn't come from anywhere.

"I was grown" (in a womb) is an interesting concept ...
"GROWN" may be inadequate or misleading.
(Since growing is particularly evident in the post-birth case, which we want to be sure to avoid confusing with womb contents which is what we are here talking about.)

Remember, "Just because of this there was an I there then."

In conclusion,
MOTHERS CREATE PEOPLE.

Just like anything made, a person does not exist BEFORE it (he/she) has actually been made.

A CAR WITH NO WHEELS IS NOT REALLY A CAR.
no road/ground to sit on

Doug ignoring basic biology is not going to make any assertions you make, make any sense.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Doug ignoring basic biology is not going to make any assertions you make, make any sense.

And precisely what biology do I ignore?

I think it is you that is ignoring basic biological reality IF you do not understand that people are gestated, biologically built to be biological bodies.

 

[redleghunter]

And precisely what biology do I ignore?

I think it is you that is ignoring basic biological reality IF you do not understand that people are gestated, biologically built to be biological bodies.

Doug I'm not going to relive the past where you were refuted multiple times. You can read it again.

The science of abortion: When does life begin?

Theological Considerations of Personhood

Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

Liberals who are pro-choice, explain why a woman's choice is more important than a fetus's life





And notice your inquiries on this thread are off topic.

 

[redleghunter]

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to ALL PERSONS BORN and naturalized...

It could NOT be a person born that is the "unborn" (as some want to call it), now could it?

A FETUS IS PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF A PERSON BORN.
Therefore not recognized by the Constitution.

The Times are changing.

HHS to Define Life as Beginning "at Conception" | National Review

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Under federal law a fetus is said to be a human being.

Which it points out is NOT ABOUT REALITY but only its own internal "musings" :

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.