Hillary: An Unborn Child Hours Before Delivery Has No Constitutional Rights

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-30-2016, 01:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it depends on the definition you use:

 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/baby

I thought you weren't a stickler for words and here you are being a stickler for words. Again.

What is the definition of a fetus? Or what is the difference between a fetus and a baby?  Feel free to give us the "scientific" definition "clearly."

[*bfine32*]

(07-30-2016, 01:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I thought you weren't a stickler for words and here you are being a stickler for words. Again.

What is the definition of a fetus? Or what is the difference between a fetus and a baby?  Feel free to give us the "scientific" definition "clearly."

Oh, you asked a question about a word and I provided an answer with a reference. Yet somehow I'm a stickler for words. 

Of course this is grounds for more questions from you. You asked a question and an answer was provided; perhaps you can provide the answer of when does "it" become a baby.

[JustWinBaby]

Well, 38 state have feticide laws. Unless, of course, you're the mother or her abortion doctor.

But I don't know what the penalties are. Maybe it's just property damage.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-30-2016, 01:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, you asked a question about a word and I provided an answer with a reference. Yet somehow I'm a stickler for words. 

If you ignore the #1 definition from your source in favor of the #5 definition, you might be a "stickler."

Quote:Of course this is grounds for more questions from you. You asked a question and an answer was provided; perhaps you can provide the answer of when does "it" become a baby.

LMMFAO. I already provided that answer. In fact, that answer is what prompted to to provide the fifth definition of baby while simultaneously ignoring the most common definition. Jesus H. Christ.

Again, what is the definition of fetus? Or what is the difference between a fetus and a baby?

(11-12-2015, 12:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Couldn't help but notice you didn't answer the question.

I will give you a hint; crack open an embryology textbook for the first time.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-30-2016, 03:06 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, 38 state have feticide laws. Unless, of course, you're the mother or her abortion doctor.

But I don't know what the penalties are.  Maybe it's just property damage.

Can you explain the bolded part?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-30-2016, 03:22 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Can you explain the bolded part?

I mean women and their doctors don't get charged with infanticide for abortions. Was it really that confusing?

[CKwi88]

This is just another rehashed version of the "when does _____ begin?" Instead of the customary life question this is about personhood (is that a word?)

Since the fetus has yet to be born into the world and there is no birth certificate registered, I would imagine that they do not have constitutional rights. If a 39 week fetus is given rights, it starts up the line of questioning if a 38 week old fetus has rights, all the way to the original "does life began at conception?"

I think that the rights being granted at birth is the best attempt by the law to turn what is the grayest of gray areas into something with more defined boundaries.

As for the murdering of a pregnant woman, one would have to analyze the laws in each state as to how it is approached. I personally would object to it being charged as two separate homicides, but I think many states apply aggravating circumstances and/or sentencing enhancements when applicable. That's on a state by state basis.

[BFritz21]

(07-30-2016, 12:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A baby who can breath on its own does have rights. 

(07-30-2016, 12:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yes. When does it become a baby?  After it is born. 

What's the difference if it can live on its own?  Just because it is technically still in the womb, nothing about the baby or its abilities to live on its own changes in the hours before it is born.  

[Benton]

(07-30-2016, 09:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: What's the difference if it can live on its own?  Just because it is technically still in the womb, nothing about the baby or its abilities to live on its own changes in the hours before it is born.  

exactly. Nothing has changed. It still hasn't been born.

[BFritz21]

(07-30-2016, 10:02 AM)Benton Wrote: exactly. Nothing has changed. It still hasn't been born.

But it's a living person that is just still in the mother.

It doesn't need to be in the mother anymore, so how does it not have the right to live?  

[GMDino]

Jumping Jebus on a pogo stick.

The court said there are different idea of when life begins.

The church says at the moment of conception.

One of those two cannot determine the constitutionality of our laws.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/supreme-courts-response-to-the-question-when-does-life-begin.cfm

Quote:Roe v. Wade 1973


Opinion of the Court written by Supreme Court Justice Blackmun

 

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."[p160] . . . 



"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth."[n56] . . . 

"Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.[n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.[n60] The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway through out the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic Dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [p161] the moment of conception.[n61] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs."[n62] . . . 

[*bfine32*]

(07-30-2016, 03:18 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you ignore the #1 definition from your source in favor of the #5 definition, you might be a "stickler."


LMMFAO. I already provided that answer. In fact, that answer is what prompted to to provide the fifth definition of baby while simultaneously ignoring the most common definition. Jesus H. Christ.

Again, what is the definition of fetus? Or what is the difference between a fetus and a baby?


I will give you a hint; crack open an embryology textbook for the first time.

I ignored no definition. I simply said depends on which one use. Definition #5 is no more wrong that definition #1. Folks all the time refer to a fetus as a baby. 

I appreciate you constant quest to have folks define words and only accepting the one you want, while considering others to be "sticklers" for words.

But to answer your "non-stickler" questions:

A fetus is unborn offspring

The definition of baby has already been provided

[Benton]

(07-30-2016, 10:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: But it's a living person that is just still in the mother.

It doesn't need to be in the mother anymore, so how does it not have the right to live?  

to the first, no, in a legal definition, it isn't a person yet. I'm not debating the right or wrong of it, I'm just pointing out the legality of it. And that's if it's not born yet, it's not a person yet.

the second part, that's the difficult part of a legal definition. No two cases are the same. One baby taken at six weeks to go might be fine, another might not make the premature birth. That makes it difficult to set a date when you confer rights ("hey, she's 22 weeks along, the fetus now qualifies for social security!"). And laws, for the most part, are about uniformity in the way things are done.

[BmorePat87]

So knowing the law disqualifies you for being POTUS? I guess that's why the OP is a Trump supporter.

[BFritz21]

(07-30-2016, 11:33 AM)Benton Wrote: to the first, no, in a legal definition, it isn't a person yet. I'm not debating the right or wrong of it, I'm just pointing out the legality of it. And that's if it's not born yet, it's not a person yet.

Which is an outdated and wrong legal definition.

That's my point and how can Hillary dispute that and then, if the law is corrected, say "oh, it's a person now"?

(07-30-2016, 11:33 AM)Benton Wrote: the second part, that's the difficult part of a legal definition. No two cases are the same. One baby taken at six weeks to go might be fine, another might not make the premature birth. That makes it difficult to set a date when you confer rights ("hey, she's 22 weeks along, the fetus now qualifies for social security!"). And laws, for the most part, are about uniformity in the way things are done.

And the law is made to protect "ALL" people and beings, so you can't say it's ok to kill some babies because because some can't live on their own when some can.

[BFritz21]

(07-30-2016, 12:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So knowing the law disqualifies you for being POTUS? I guess that's why the OP is a Trump supporter.

Just because something is a law, it doesn't make it moral or right.

[*bfine32*]

(07-30-2016, 04:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Just because something is a law, it doesn't make it moral or right.

I'm no Hillary fan and find the act of aborting a healthy child simply for convenience to be morally repugnant and an act that future generations will condemn us for, just as we currently do slavery. WTS, I have no issue with what she said, she clearly said "under our current law". Who knows, if elected she might champion a more morally sound approach, but that is her chose and one she has to answer for.    

WTS, i thought Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases pointed to "viability" as when the baby has a right to life. 

[fredtoast]

(07-29-2016, 11:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not about laws, it's about common sense.  

Hillary was talking about the law.  Not common sense.

and she was correct.

[fredtoast]

(07-30-2016, 04:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Just because something is a law, it doesn't make it moral or right.

And Hillary never spoke to what was moral or right.

So what is your point?

[Belsnickel]

(07-30-2016, 04:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Just because something is a law, it doesn't make it moral or right.

Correct. But let's be clear here, because this is something I have been harping on for years. It is not within the power of the POTUS to change that law. Either a constitutional amendment or a new SCOTUS decision reversing prior case law would be needed to change that.