New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Page 20 of 21 [ 327 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,188
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 Jul 2021, 8:37 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Head-on means addressing the question of does one have the right to intentionally terminate a pregnancy.


Right. Though of course I would argue that question cannot be properly tackled without a decision on the exact nature of the unborn.


I'd suggest the fact that they're not legal persons might already address that question.

Ultimately though, while I'd believe that the answer no to the underlined would be a massive violation of the rights of some people, it does address the question directly. Likewise, you'd insist that yes would be a massive violation of the rights of the unborn, but it would also be a direct answer.

We're not going to explicitly comment on abortion but you have the right to privacy while seeking medical treatment is not what I would consider a direct answer because it allows for arguments over whether or not abortion is a medical procedure to continue to be made.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

07 Jul 2021, 9:44 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
I'd suggest the fact that they're not legal persons might already address that question.


In the U.S. at least you are not a legal person until you are 18 and capable of forming legal contracts as I recall. I would suggest that does not address the question in a satisfactory manner... unless you have some strange ideas about what can be done to the under 18s :P


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Dvdz
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

07 Jul 2021, 11:25 pm

Mikah wrote:
In the U.S. at least you are not a legal person until you are 18 and capable of forming legal contracts as I recall. I would suggest that does not address the question in a satisfactory manner... unless you have some strange ideas about what can be done to the under 18s :P


Where are you getting your information from?

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

08 Jul 2021, 9:43 am

Dvdz wrote:
Where are you getting your information from?


Nowhere in particular, it was years ago that I read about it. "Legal person" is a very confusing idea in many jurisdictions and I am teasing funeralxempire. In the U.S. and other places, if it is not referring to a non-human entity (like a corporation), individual humans are "legal persons" when they are capable of entering legal contracts or suing for their breach - which means not being a minor at the very least.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Dvdz
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

08 Jul 2021, 8:38 pm

Mikah wrote:
Nowhere in particular, it was years ago that I read about it. "Legal person" is a very confusing idea in many jurisdictions and I am teasing funeralxempire. In the U.S. and other places, if it is not referring to a non-human entity (like a corporation), individual humans are "legal persons" when they are capable of entering legal contracts or suing for their breach - which means not being a minor at the very least.


I quoted the US Code which applies on a federal level (to any Act of Congress, ruling, regulation, etc...), which states that a 'person' "includes every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

So your definition of "legal person" needing the capacity to enter into legal contracts is literally incorrect.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

08 Jul 2021, 8:48 pm

Dvdz wrote:
I quoted the US Code which applies on a federal level (to any Act of Congress, ruling, regulation, etc...), which states that a 'person' "includes every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

So your definition of "legal person" needing the capacity to enter into legal contracts is literally incorrect.


"Person" in that context is not the same as a "legal person", which is a distinct idea.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Dvdz
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 138

08 Jul 2021, 10:33 pm

Mikah wrote:
Dvdz wrote:
I quoted the US Code which applies on a federal level (to any Act of Congress, ruling, regulation, etc...), which states that a 'person' "includes every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

So your definition of "legal person" needing the capacity to enter into legal contracts is literally incorrect.


"Person" in that context is not the same as a "legal person", which is a distinct idea.


After reading more about it, it seems we are both wrong.

Legal personhood depends on the context. For example, in the context of contract law, children and the mentally-incapacitated are not legal persons.

But in the context of homicide, children are definitely legal persons. And some states in the U.S even extend the concept of legal personhood to fetuses for homicide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide ... ted_States)



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

09 Jul 2021, 6:28 am

Dvdz wrote:
After reading more about it, it seems we are both wrong.

Legal personhood depends on the context. For example, in the context of contract law, children and the mentally-incapacitated are not legal persons.

But in the context of homicide, children are definitely legal persons. And some states in the U.S even extend the concept of legal personhood to fetuses for homicide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide ... ted_States)


I don't think I am wrong. In the context of homicide they are not legal persons because they still can't sign contracts or sue.

They are "legally speaking, persons".
They are not, however, "legal persons".
Even more confusing, "legal personhood" could correctly refer to either state.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Jul 2021, 11:10 pm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.5newso ... 680bc5c682


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Jul 2021, 11:14 pm

to the antiabortionist antichoice crowd, that sign is like waving a red flag at a bull, or lighting up in a mosque.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Jul 2021, 11:22 pm

/|That is not a very nice Jesus statue.
Read about the man that had it built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_L._K._Smith


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Jul 2021, 11:30 pm

Misslizard wrote:
/|That is not a very nice Jesus statue.
Read about the man that had it built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_L._K._Smith

he was a tool of the 1% while pretending to be for the working [white] man. typical two-timing pol of the region and era, a faux-populist.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Jul 2021, 11:40 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
/|That is not a very nice Jesus statue.
Read about the man that had it built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_L._K._Smith

he was a tool of the 1% while pretending to be for the working [white] man. typical two-timing pol of the region and era, a faux-populist.

They never tell the tourists the real story about it.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

10 Jul 2021, 1:15 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Here's a fun idea: I'll take your wallet and then kick it...

If that was directed at me, you'll need to re-phrase it so that it's not a straw man. I've only made a few positive claims on this thread:

1: Nearly every person who works is required to pay into the safety net.

2: Your tax contributions fund a lot of programs that aren't altruistic or economically-equalizing.

3: They also fund a lot of programs that don't do what they were advertised to do, or simply don't work.

4: The only legal way to separate yourself from that system is to physically leave it.

5: That's difficult to do because there's no unclaimed land, and even international waters are covered by national claims that keep expanding.

All of those statements are true, and you've had more than enough time to argue otherwise if you disagree.

Instead all you've been able to put forward is a dishonest comparison between something that causes harm and something that doesn't.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

10 Jul 2021, 2:01 pm

Just like your insistence on comparing money to flesh. Money isn't your body, therefore, taking it isn't violating your body.

You can be against taxation, but it has nothing to do with abortion. It's like moronic MRAs who try to compare being mugged to being raped. Nice try, but no cigar.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,188
Location: Right over your left shoulder

10 Jul 2021, 2:11 pm

Mikah wrote:
Dvdz wrote:
After reading more about it, it seems we are both wrong.

Legal personhood depends on the context. For example, in the context of contract law, children and the mentally-incapacitated are not legal persons.

But in the context of homicide, children are definitely legal persons. And some states in the U.S even extend the concept of legal personhood to fetuses for homicide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide ... ted_States)


I don't think I am wrong. In the context of homicide they are not legal persons because they still can't sign contracts or sue.

They are "legally speaking, persons".
They are not, however, "legal persons".
Even more confusing, "legal personhood" could correctly refer to either state.


I was pretty consistent about using it in the underlined sense. We all know the unborn can't enter into contracts.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う