Implied does not mean "Clearly categorizing" Should person at conception become a reality, it will certainly hit IVF, stem-cell research and bioengineering very hard.
Brain waves are only one way of measuring brain activity. In the case of deep coma vs brain death for example: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-death3.htm
I'm not getting the argument. The case was effectively overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment and additional federal cases so what's the relevancy of it to the abortion argument?
Even a person in a coma or deep vegetated state has a higher level of brain activity than a fetus prior to 26 weeks. It is also more consistent. - - - Updated - - - There is no argument, it just another association fallacy that pro-lifers are so fond of.
Do you find it interesting how conservatives love to say how they're not scientists so they can't say man made global warming is real, but so many of them seem to have medical expertise when it comes to abortion......
I really have no idea if the person I am discussing this with is a conservative or not, I will say that they are one of the most polite and relevant posters I have seen here with not a single attempt to project the "killer" tag ... however, for most of the other pro-lifers here I would say your conclusion is 100% accurate.
Of course not, however, to claim to not be able to have a discussion on the climate because one isn't a "scientist" but can definitely have a discussion on the human body when one is not a "medical doctor", is disingenuous.
Like the Idaho state lawmaker who recently asked if women could swallow tiny cameras to record what was happening in the uterus.
Yes, that one was a dozy......it is quite amazing how one subject is off limits because of knowledge, but on this topic anyone can be a subject matter expert in their mind.
I am no doctor, but I have spent a very long time researching abortion and the related issues .. Am I an expert, not by any means, I simply don't allow my emotions to get in the way of reality. you'd be surprised the number of emotional comments I get when I say that even if a fetus were to be recognised as a person under the law it would strengthen abortion rights not weaken them and even mean the state paying for it, that one really sends pro-lifers into a mental meltdown. It is sad to see so many of them don't understand their own consent and self-defence laws.
There actually is a conversation within the medical community about "brain birth". There is no consensus on when that occurs in fetal development, but the medical ethics conversation has already begun. When the medical establishment does establish this point if fetal development, and they will, the law will be impacted. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what that will look like. Some place it as early as 40 days, others as late as 8 months. Where they will draw the line and how they will back it up scientifically will be decided within the next 20 years at the outside. I think it's important enough to start thinking about how to shape public policy before that line is drawn. I for one don't want to be blindsided by an announcement from the medical community stating that "brain birth" occurs at a specific time without having thought through how to respond to that.
While you might be correct on this, it still will not have the effect many pro-lifers think it will for it is not only what the medical people say (and prove) that decides legal policy, and the way that consent & self-defence laws are constructed at the moment would render ANY scientific findings moot.
That is why I have no issue with the 20 week limit in Texas, the brain has often developed at that point where a Person could be present, not crazy about the rest of their abortion laws but that is another discussion. I will be glad to see if they can come up with a rule of thumb and a test to determine brain activity levels.
False. A Homo sapiens in utero is deemed to be the property of its mother, to be killed on her whim, just as a slave.
Rubbish, please do try to show legally where "A Homo sapiens in utero is deemed to be the property of its mother, to be killed on her whim, just as a slave"
It does not legally say that, but that's what the courts seem to think. In fact, in many places in the U.S. the laws actually plainly say abortion is illegal, but of course it is up to the courts to "interpret" those laws and apply them.
So the reality is then that the statement made by the other poster is in fact wrong, and if as you state the courts seem to think that then you should have no problem with producing a case where the courts used it as a reason for their findings .. please do post it. State laws do, which do not over rule Federal law, so there is no interpretation what so ever as those state laws have no legal standing.
Please repost the link to the consent argument. Consent and self-defense law does not currently address pregnancy although it could be interpreted in the future to do so. There would be a long and drawn out process involved to expand consent and self-defense law to cover pregnancy cases. I really think that there would be considerable resistance to legally finding the embryo to be an aggressor, which would be necessary for a self-defense argument. The laws might be in place but the social resistance would be tremendous.
http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html & http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/390819-choice-consent-cont.html The current laws already see pregnancy as an injury in cases of rape, incest and "wrongful pregnancy" even if there is no violence involved, there would be little requirement to expand those laws to cover 'other' pregnancies. Consent is quite a simple process as far as the law is concerned; Consent is legally defined as Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur... There must be a choice between resistance and acquiescence... - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent The courts recognise two types of aggression, voluntary and involuntary - voluntary is when the person is aggressive by their own free will, involuntary is when a person is aggressive through no fault of their own ie a person who is deemed mentally incompetent would be deemed involuntary aggressive, that however does not mean they are free to be aggressive towards others, nor does it mean a person cannot defend themselves up to, and including, deadly force if required. Laws are not subject to mob rule, they are based on the constitution or interpretations of it. The de facto right of self-defence by an individual has already been concluded by the Supreme Court to be found under the 2nd Amendment, in order to change that ruling would require the over turning of that finding and as such ALL people would lose the right to self-defence, the equal protection clause means that the state (government) cannot allow a group of people to do something without allowing the same to all other people.
"an injury" ? I'm not sure about that. Definitely a violation though. But to say that the pregnancy continues to violate the woman long after the fact... Being pregnant is not rape. pro-choicers see every unwanted pregnancy as a "wrongful" one.
Thank you we will undoubtedly get back to this later. In these cases the pregnancy results from either a criminal act or negligence. The fetus is not committing a criminal act nor is it negligent under current law. It lacks mens rea for negligence. It is incapable of a criminal act. In order for an act to be considered criminal it must involve a bodily movement with the following notable exceptions - (1) involuntary, (2) reflective or convulsive (e.g. epileptic seizure), or (3) performed while unconscious or asleep (sleep-walking). Google [DOC]CRIMINAL LAW - Stanford Law School Implanting in the uterine wall would fall under number 3 - performed while unconscious or asleep (sleep-walking). All current self-defense law applies to defense against criminal action or the risk of criminal action. Without establishing the fetus has committed or is likely to commit a criminal action, new law would need to be established allowing self-defense against non-criminal action, or criminal action would need to be redefined. Please show a case where an individual found to be incompetent was also shown to be acting involuntarily. In cases where an individual is found to be incompetent, they are found to lack mens rea to form intent. Intent is a separate element to a crime, it is not related to whether the act was voluntary.
It takes more then a brain to make a human being, and even at 5 weeks gestation the unborn has a brain that is forming. Our brains are not fully formed until around age 25. Science has never backed that it takes a functioning brain to make us human beings/persons. SCOTUS has deemed that the unborn is never a person, has nothing to do with science, or brain activity. SCOTUS uses viability as a benchmark for banning abortion. That has to do with brain activity and other factors. Laws are what deem us people, the brain and other factors make us viable. I don't believe one has to be viable to be considered a human, if that was the case dead people would not be people. A person and a human being are the same scientifically. Life is anything living. - - - Updated - - - prove pro-life never think about the rights, or wishes outside of killing an unborn human of the pregnant woman.
