In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 21 2015 04:55 Plansix wrote: All right folks, this is the Truther, not the Nazi apologist. And American's already own this country, you included. Sorry to disappoint.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
This simple fact hasn’t bothered the party up till this point, why start now? Just keep working on driving away every single minority group until their party is filled with exactly the type of people you would expect.
But the people running this stuff were the folks really thought Mitt was going to win and were shocked when he didn’t. I remover watching those news broadcasts. The reality distortion field was strong.
Well, the party isn't a monolith that moves and thinks in uniform - many, many Republicans are horrified at what's happening to the party. The Republican party has become rotten - my hope is that this cycle can finally collapse it and initiate the reforms that party needs. But then, people have been saying stuff like that since 2008, and it's gotten worse, not better.
While I'm more Democratic-leaning anyways, not having 2 viable political parties nationally is not a good thing for the US. Democrats have major messups and bad policies, and there's needs to be a counterweight to stress test ideas and policy.
Agreed. My grandfather and father were both party members and can't stand it now a days. Its sad. But when I talk about it not bothering the party, I mean the leadership and the folks pushing it in the direction it is headed.
It bothers them, but there is that grassroots, anti-establishment anger that the party leadership has been reluctant to challenge. They wanted to capitalize on the energy, but the fire will consume them in the end.
[Goodness, that sounded like a sermon from a fire-and-brimstone preacher haha]
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
This simple fact hasn’t bothered the party up till this point, why start now? Just keep working on driving away every single minority group until their party is filled with exactly the type of people you would expect.
But the people running this stuff were the folks really thought Mitt was going to win and were shocked when he didn’t. I remover watching those news broadcasts. The reality distortion field was strong.
Well, the party isn't a monolith that moves and thinks in uniform - many, many Republicans are horrified at what's happening to the party. The Republican party has become rotten - my hope is that this cycle can finally collapse it and initiate the reforms that party needs. But then, people have been saying stuff like that since 2008, and it's gotten worse, not better.
While I'm more Democratic-leaning anyways, not having 2 viable political parties nationally is not a good thing for the US. Democrats have major messups and bad policies, and there's needs to be a counterweight to stress test ideas and policy.
My alternate opinion: it might be better if the Republican party just collapsed (doubtful, there's so much money and influence propping it up) and it became the Democratic party v. a bunch of other things. The the Democrats would have their own chance to prove if they're any good, or collapse and reform like the Republicans. I know the Democratic party has its own share of problems which are sufficiently hidden because the Republican dysfunction is so much more visible.
Well, the Democrats kind of had that in 2008 when Obama just became president, when they held the White House and congressional super majority.
Now I think that Obama has been a pretty good President overall - but I wouldn't want any president to be able to push their agenda that easily. I didn't mind it that much in 2009 and 2010 because I generally agreed with Obama's ideas (still think that Obamacare is a necessary evil though), but it definitely sucked in 2002-2004 when Bush had the Republican Congress.
5:57 Here you go liberals, take pride in your work and what you stand for, murdering unborn babies in the name of "women's rights." In this video, Planned Parenthood apparently cut through the face of an aborted live baby to extract its brain for medical research.
It's pretty obvious Donald Trump is unstoppable at this point, Americans are taking back their country.
Here goes, let me argue this.
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. That said, I believe fetuses DO have rights, just as labrats have rights. And just as to be allowed to experiment on lab rats, there are a whole load of rules and regulations that you have to adhere to, there should be a similar set of rules and regulations that you have to adhere to if you want to experiment on live fetuses. Presumably these rules and regulations are in place. If they aren't then that is clearly a large oversight, and you should write your congressman requesting such rules.
2. Similar to experimentation with live fetuses, there are presumably rules in place for the correct procedure of aborting a baby, in order to minimize both the mother and the fetus' suffering (note that I am not saying a fetus cannot suffer, although that debate can be had). If abortion clinics do not follow such procedures in order to make money, such clinics should be shut down.
3. The interviewee was not a Planned Parenthood employee, but someone working at "StemExpress, LLC". While this company might get money from PP to perform abortions (important note: the video doesn't say this at all), they are a completely separate entity and you conflating the two is suggestive. If this StemExpress company is shady (and I don't know the first thing about them; a suggestive propaganda video is not particularly informative), then you can blame PP for not vetting the clinics properly, but they are still not guilty of infanticide (moreover, see point 1: this is not infanticide), which you are claiming.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
You linked your own (unsourced) post as evidence? I remember reading it before and it was unpersuasive then.
The deal has no stipulations about funding of terror groups and militia missions which should be the #1 priority because a nuke without those is a non-issue.
Edit: Even their own propaganda website says nothing of the sort.
How do you think Israel would react if an Iranian nuke appears imminent?
Massive aerial bombardment which, while destroying the immediate facilities, has no real lasting effect. Something about that was posted earlier in this thread. But hey good thing this treaty gives the world a better view at Iran so we can actually see if they are closing in rather then blindly stabbing in the dark like is happening currently.
On August 21 2015 04:52 Eskendereya wrote: It's pretty obvious Donald Trump is unstoppable at this point, Americans are taking back their country.
I'll ignore the abortion debate as I've commented on that before and instead just focus on this line for a second.
You do know that Americans are still 100% in control of this country, right? Our president is an American citizen. Born in Hawaii and except for ages 6-10, educated in America. The people who voted him into office were all legal citizens of the United States. Without doing the research, I'm pretty sure that every member of congress and the supreme court are citizens of the United States as well.
Pretending that liberals aren't American is downright silly. America was founded on very progressive ideas for the time. Some of the ideas that many hold dear as the pillars of conservatism were once liberal ideas. Ideas have changed and the way we look at certain ideas have changed and will continue to change. While some people fight to retain or go back to the way things were, others will always push for the way things could/should be. Neither side is more American than the other and almost all Americans at least believe in some conservative ideas and some liberal ideas.
Trump's unpopularity rating will probably sink him eventually. However, even if he (or any Republican you deem "American") wins, it would only shift control of America from one hand to the other. If you hold a diamond in your left hand and then grab it with your right hand, did you take back that diamond or did you already have it to begin with?
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
Its not. There isn't one a specific legal cut off. There is just a mish mash of laws that govern when child abuse happens.
On August 21 2015 04:52 Eskendereya wrote: It's pretty obvious Donald Trump is unstoppable at this point, Americans are taking back their country.
I'll ignore the abortion debate as I've commented on that before and instead just focus on this line for a second.
You do know that Americans are still 100% in control of this country, right? Our president is an American citizen. Born in Hawaii and except for ages 6-10, educated in America. The people who voted him into office were all legal citizens of the United States. Without doing the research, I'm pretty sure that every member of congress and the supreme court are citizens of the United States as well.
Pretending that liberals aren't American is downright silly. America was founded on very progressive ideas for the time. Some of the ideas that many hold dear as the pillars of conservatism were once liberal ideas. Ideas have changed and the way we look at certain ideas have changed and will continue to change. While some people fight to retain or go back to the way things were, others will always push for the way things could/should be. Neither side is more American than the other and almost all Americans at least believe in some conservative ideas and some liberal ideas.
Trump's unpopularity rating will probably sink him eventually. However, even if he (or any Republican you deem "American") wins, it would only shift control of America from one hand to the other. If you hold a diamond in your left hand and then grab it with your right hand, did you take back that diamond or did you already have it to begin with?
You ate the bait, mate!
Yea, can't see Trump winning the nomination, much less the Presidency, unless the average American voter is much much dumber than I thought. In that case, they would deserve a Trump administration.
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
there's also the partial-birth abortion ban act which
prohibits an abortion if "either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."[37]
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
Well, according to that law, abortion would be murder. So presumably there are some other laws that contradict it, and the courts sort it out?
you missed this part
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
the second thing thins about states notes that it's only for the purpose of homicide and fratricide cases. obviously a state can't pass something that overrides roe v. wade. I assume their considered persons in these cases because it's simpler than creating a whole new set of laws regarding how fetuses affect criminal charges.
I made the same mistake the first time I read it.
also this part
if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes.
it only applies to a list of 60 violent crimes so its not sweeping or anything like that. its just that if you commit one of said crimes the fetus now counts as a person for the sake of legal charges filed against you.
I'm not a lawyer or anything so I don't know exactly how it specifically works though
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
Well, according to that law, abortion would be murder. So presumably there are some other laws that contradict it, and the courts sort it out?
Yes, the Supreme courts ruling in Roe v Wade. Abortions are legal and not murder. Babies are people after they are born.
Biologically, what is the difference before the unborn exits the vagina, and post-exit? What makes the unborn not a person 24 hours before exit, and then suddenly a person only when they exit the vagina? Murder has legal definitions, but it is also a philosophical precept. There are a great many people who disagree with you on that particular view.
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
Well, according to that law, abortion would be murder. So presumably there are some other laws that contradict it, and the courts sort it out?
Yes, the Supreme courts ruling in Roe v Wade. Abortions are legal and not murder. Babies are people after they are born.
Biologically, what is the difference before the unborn exits the vagina, and post-exit? What makes the unborn not a person 24 hours before exit, and then suddenly a person only when they exit the vagina? Murder has legal definitions, but it is also a philosophical precept. There are a great many people who disagree with you on that particular view.
I think Plansix means from a legal terminology perspective which I think is accurate.
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
I made the same mistake the first time I read it. plus it only applies to a list of 60 violent crimes so its not sweeping or anything like that.
Then I fail to see the point of the law except as symbolic. The fetus was already protected from any non-consensual medling by laws protecting the mother. If it is limited to "in utero children" then it also doesn't deal with what happens with fetuses after they leave the uterus (or for the case of in vitrio conception, before they enter the uterus).
So that law doesn't seem to cover the case where a fetus is aborted consensually. What is that fetus' legal status? Clearly the whole point of aborting the pregnancy is because the mother wants the fetus to die. So if it is still alive upon exiting the womb, is the clinic justified in selling it for parts? Imho Eskendyra actually has a point there (although it wasn't the point he was trying to make).
EDIT: regarding the law, I guess this means that stabbing a pregnant woman in the belly (who survives, but loses the chield) can now be tried as murder rather than just attempted murder (or assault and grievous bodily harm... whatever the prosecutor decides)?
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
Well, according to that law, abortion would be murder. So presumably there are some other laws that contradict it, and the courts sort it out?
you missed this part
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
I made the same mistake the first time I read it. plus it only applies to a list of 60 violent crimes so its not sweeping or anything like that.
Then I fail to see the point of the law except as symbolic. The fetus was already protected from any non-consensual medling by laws protecting the mother. If it is limited to "in utero children" then it also doesn't deal with what happens with fetuses after they leave the uterus (or for the case of in vitrio conception, before they enter the uterus).
So that law doesn't seem to cover the case where a fetus is aborted consensually. What is that fetus' legal status? Clearly the whole point of aborting the pregnancy is because the mother wants the fetus to die. So if it is still alive upon exiting the womb, is the clinic justified in selling it for parts? Imho Eskendyra actually has a point there (although it wasn't the point he was trying to make).
I have no idea. I was just trying to seperate legal personhood from philisophical personhood because their different concepts and didn't want people accidentally confuse them. personhood from a philisophical perspective doesn't really have much to do with the law (at least not directyl.) as its more interested in defining what a person is. I'm not a lawyer.
concerning your edit I interpret it as that case being tried as one count of attempted murder and one account of murder. but that's just from a layman's interpretation of the law
Three federal laws are most frequently mentioned in arguments over whether illegality has occurred.
One bans for-profit sales of fetal tissue, but allows the provider to recover the procedure’s costs.
Nucatola and Gatter discuss potential prices for providing tissue. Nucatola mentions a range between $30 and $100 per procedure; Gatter discusses $75 but doesn’t rule out $100. Both say Planned Parenthood wants to cover costs and not profit.
Another law bars providers from changing “the timing, method or procedures” of abortions to recover fetal tissue for research.
Gatter mentions a “less crunchy” technique that can increase the chances of recovering intact organs and says she would not mind asking a Planned Parenthood surgeon to consider that. “They’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved,” she says.
Nucatola says when a provider is attempting to recover an organ, “you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers” so “you’re not going to crush that part.” She also says, “You should always do the procedure the same, and that’s what the providers try to do.”
A third law bans a procedure that opponents call “partial-birth abortion,” in which a living fetus is partly extracted from the mother as it is aborted. Nucatola mentions that to avoid violating that ban, some doctors use the drug digoxin, which can be toxic to a fetus in sufficient amounts.
California’s attorney general, a Democrat who plans to run for the Senate in 2016, is investigating at the request of four Democratic members of Congress.
DISAGREEMENT OVER WHETHER LAWS WERE BROKEN
Planned Parenthood says the videos show no illegal or improper actions, and that the group does not profit by providing tissue to researchers. Anti-abortion forces seem divided: Some say the doctors’ words show law breaking, others don’t go that far.
“There’s smoke there,” says Right to Life’s Johnson, who wants the videos examined by “people with investigative authority.”
“The Weekly,” a publication by the anti-abortion Southern Baptist Convention, wrote recently that Planned Parenthood’s practices seem “sadly and shockingly legal,” and called for new laws.
sorry if I'm quoting walls of text. I'm in no way a lawyer and I don't want to give you the wrong answer about something.
1. You calling it an "aborted live baby" doesn't make it so. It is still a 20-week fetus (presumably, the video didn't say), not a baby. Now you can call that semantics, but you have to place your cut-off point somewhere, and this is simply too early. .
The legal cutoff point is being outside the mother... if it has a heart beating outside the mother it's legally a person.
Why on earth would you call it a person just because it has a beating heart? It doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have a properly formed nervous system. Why is having a beating heart the deciding factor?
he's talking the legal defiinition of a person whereas you are using the term in the philisophical sense.
not sure completely what the legal status is but I'm using this on wikipedia. so aparently a fetus is a person but it only matters in criminal cases
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law.[38] The law effectively extends personhood status[39] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[40] if they are targeted, injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes. The law also prohibits the prosecutions of "any person for conduct relating" to a legally consented to abortion.
Today, 38 U.S. States legally recognize a human fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for the purpose of homicide or feticide laws.[41] Giving a fetus the status of person could lead to many more legal issues and complications than most people realize. "Further, a prenatal personhood measure might subject a woman who suffers a pregnancy-related complication or a miscarriage to criminal investigations and possibly jail time for homicide, manslaughter or reckless endangerment. And because so many laws use the terms "persons" or "people," a prenatal personhood measure could affect large numbers of a state's laws, changing the application of thousands of laws and resulting in unforeseeable, unintended, and absurd consequences." [42]
Well, according to that law, abortion would be murder. So presumably there are some other laws that contradict it, and the courts sort it out?
Yes, the Supreme courts ruling in Roe v Wade. Abortions are legal and not murder. Babies are people after they are born.
Biologically, what is the difference before the unborn exits the vagina, and post-exit? What makes the unborn not a person 24 hours before exit, and then suddenly a person only when they exit the vagina? Murder has legal definitions, but it is also a philosophical precept. There are a great many people who disagree with you on that particular view.
I think Plansix means from a legal terminology perspective which I think is accurate.
Yes. I'm not really concerned with the other part of that debate. The mother never loses the right to control her body to the state and the baby isn't a full person until they are born.
EPT
