SectionC3

They're emulating the president.

You argument is one that might be rooted in Irish law, but it has no foundation in American law. 1. Penal Law article 125 absolutely relates to the central premise. It defines a person as "a human who has been born and is alive." 2. Roe does not place "a duty . . . upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born" after the second trimester. In point of fact Roe considers the ability of states to regulate abortion. As a pregnancy progresses, the extent of regulation grows, and the third trimester is a period in which the state may increase regulation to safeguard its interest in "protecting fetal life after viability." That's not a right to be born, it's a right on the part of the state to regulate. And even if it is a right to be born, there is no conferral of personhood upon the fetus. Why? Move to point 3. 3. Some light reading from Roe, which specifically rejected the "personhood" contention you seek to inject into American law. "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

Getting tricked by the libs with such things as facts, science, and inconvenient truth would be worse for my health. Gotta keep the TV on as a matter of protection.

You’re all twisted up here. You’re injecting a constitutional discussion into a quote about criminal statutes. And, frankly, your statutory interpretation is absurd. At issue here is the NYS penal law, which defines person as one who has been born and is alive. Your point probably is that to characterize an abortional act as a homicide is to suggest personhood on the part of the fetus. Reasonable, to be sure, but the full text of the title to NY PL 125 doesn’t support the theory (homicide, abortion, and other crimes [paraphrase]) and the definition of person established in that article flat out defeats it.

Says the guy who supports a president leery of a “perjury trap.” He wasn’t so tough at the presser yesterday. He acted like a snowflake when he slinked away from the podium. Sad!

This is why in my house we only watch OAN. It’s not just only news channel. It’s the only channel. Period. I even leave it on when I sleep so that the libs can’t sneak anything into my brain when my guard is down.

you said homicide. Abortional act is the homicide crime that relates to the unwanted termination of a fetus. Murder, man, etc. wouldn’t stand bc the fetus has to be born alive to be a person, and the latter classes of charges pertain to the death of a person, not of a fetus. You’re correct that death of mom and fetus could result in two homicide charges, but the classes of charges are different and the charges with respect to baby do not assume or confer personhood. I believe the vehicular man issue was resolved against your position in NYS on two relatively recent occasions.

Sure. But the vast majority of jurisdictions approach the law this way.

And the fact that someone could be charged with two counts of homicide in your hypothetical is meaningless. Mom and fetus are not treated the same under the law; NY penal law article 125 illustrates the point well. Murder or man charges re: the baby wouldn’t stand. An abortion act charge might, but that charge doesn’t contemplate the death of a person — it relates only to a miscarriage. Your reading comprehension is lacking.. Nobody said anything about reporting to congress. It was within congressional province to act on the findings inasmuch as congress effectively is the arbiter with respect to a sitting president.

You said it best: a third trimester FETUS. Not person. FETUS. edit: its been a long time since I took con law, but recollection of roe is that the regulation of third trimester abortion flows not from a right conferred upon a fetus, but from the state interest in protecting the POTENTIAL for human life that accrues when the fetus becomes viable. In the near term, to marshal evidence to enable the making of findings. Which is exactly what he did. It was up to Congress to act on the evidence. Which it did. Grand jury presentation could come after trump leaves office.

We’re not in court. And you’re the only one who has ever mentioned your “member” in this respect. So maybe you’ve given us a bit of Freudian circumstantial evidence here.

Nope. Nope. They both kill. The gun violence reference made its first appearance in connection to a point with respect to a homicide. Funny I feel the same way about trumpers.

Born alive rule, bro. Read it. A fetus does not become a person until the fetus is born alive. Copying the libs to own the libs. Be better!

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls And there we go. Gun violence has killed people. Abortion does not kill a person. Case closed. *** And, by way of example in New York State: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.05,d

We can agree that there are a significant number of homicides arising from gun violence in this country, correct? To the extent we agree on that point, the data that you seek is irrelevant. Abortions do not kill people. Gun violence kills people. Case closed.

See above. You assume that abortion terminates a “person.” Under the eyes of the law, it does not. The fact remains that guns kill more people than do abortions.

Define “person.” I’ll make it easy for you. In approximately zero of the 623,471 cases you mentioned was a “person” killed. You might believe that a fetus is a person. And you’re entitled to that view. (For what it’s worth, it’s one that I happen to share.) But the law doesn’t see it that way, and we are a nation of laws. The fetus becomes a “person” the moment the fetus is born alive. Ergo, guns kill more “people” than do abortions. Case closed.

Nope.

This is why we have a Washed up Psycho list.

Still can’t refute my point. I’ll be here all day if you get around to it.

Fake news. I speak the truth. And you know it, which is why you have resorted to name calling. Not classy on your end.

Do you know the issue in the “Trump” case that is to be (or by now maybe has been) argued today?

You might want to take it up with state legislatures, which define “person” for the purpose of assessing criminal liability. I can. Snowflake just fits the best here.

Hoax. You’re just a bit touchy, or maybe a bit “snowflake-y,” because you’re wrong. Guns kill more people than do abortions. Chew on that fact all day long. You are a bit hoaxy again today, aren’t you? What’s the legal definition of a person? Hint: it’s someone who is born alive. Ergo, guns kill more people than do abortions. All the more reason Trump’s monkeying with the justice system is disgraceful, by the way.

Not in the eyes of the law they aren’t. And if they are, then we have a real problem with policing expectant mothers, right? You’re cool with charging expectant moms with endangering the welfare of a child if they have a glass of wine? Or with investigating an expectant mom who miscarries early for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide? Have at it, but don’t complain to me about a police state.