Political Crossfire Forums

[TheCaliforniaLife]

The
Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 states:

Quote: SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as
including born-alive infant
``(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 its 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.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including
born-alive infant.''.


In 2004 a new act was passed, act [url=http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju71182.000/hju71182_0.HTM ]The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004[/url]. This act defines a human being:

Quote: ''(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
''(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
''(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
''(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
''(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
''(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
''(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

''(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
''(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
''(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

''(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
''(d) As used in this section, the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.


Both definitions conflict. Which one is right? The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is newer.

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

Obviously...
The unborn babies are still humans nonetheless. Pro-choicers want to distance themselves from that definition though...

[Lumina]

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: Obviously...
The unborn babies are still humans nonetheless. Pro-choicers want to distance themselves from that definition though...

Exactly. "Clump of cells" is just so much more civilized.

[gemma]

So. Let me try and simplify it as much for my own sake as anything else. You are correct, they do seem to contradict one another.

The 2002 Act states, that anything that breathes after it's outside of the woman is an infant born alive and is a person.

The 2004 Act states, that anyone purposely trying to dislodge the fetus from the womb, against a woman/doctor/executor's wishes, is attempting murder of a human being. But, that a woman and her doctor purposely doing the same, are immune from prosecution. It says "human being" and then "member of the species Homo sapiens" later on.

Strangely worded laws indeed.




<--pro-choicer who has not distanced herself from this thread

[LostSoul3412]

The key, as gemma stated, is that the 2004 provision sets the requirement that it must be against someone's will. If the mother and the physician both agree to perform the operation, abortion is still legal under this act of law.

As for the legal definition of a human being, under United States law a citizen is one whom is either born, or naturalized, within the United States. Thus meaning that in order to be a legal human being in the United States, you must be born within the United States (and thus granted immediate citizenship), or be naturalized within the United States (immigrate and become a citizen).

Unborn persons do no fit those requirements.

[mr_happy]

you can't have it both ways. A person's will does not make someone else more or less of a human being. The Nazis tried that, as they constituted a human being as what hitler/SS/Nazi party wanted it to be. The Woman's consent does not make a person a human. Using that very same argument, I could say that I do not consent to you being a human being, and therefore you are not.

This law needs to be address and modified. If women can commit first degree murder on unborn fetuses that I should be able to as well, and be held accountable only for the damage to the woman. If a woman can't have an abortion, then I should be jailed for first degree murder.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The key, as gemma stated, is that the 2004 provision sets the requirement that it must be against someone's will. If the mother and the physician both agree to perform the operation, abortion is still legal under this act of law.
I'm not talking about the legality of abortion right now. I'm just trying to distinguish which law has the accurate definition.


Quote: As for the legal definition of a human being, under United States law a citizen is one whom is either born, or naturalized, within the United States. Thus meaning that in order to be a legal human being in the United States, you must be born within the United States (and thus granted immediate citizenship), or be naturalized within the United States (immigrate and become a citizen).

Unborn persons do no fit those requirements.
Where does it state, in law, that a citizen is one whom is either born, or naturalized, within the United States?

[Gitana]

Quote: If the mother and the physician both agree to perform the operation, abortion is still legal under this act of law.

As if there were many abortions against the woman's or doctors will...? lol

Methinks this non-law was created merely to get some definition regarding the fetus on the books.

[Obilisk18]

gemma wrote: So. Let me try and simplify it as much for my own sake as anything else. You are correct, they do seem to contradict one another.

The 2002 Act states, that anything that breathes after it's outside of the woman is an infant born alive and is a person.

The 2004 Act states, that anyone purposely trying to dislodge the fetus from the womb, against a woman/doctor/executor's wishes, is attempting murder of a human being. But, that a woman and her doctor purposely doing the same, are immune from prosecution. It says "human being" and then "member of the species Homo sapiens" later on.

Strangely worded laws indeed.




<--pro-choicer who has not distanced herself from this thread

It strikes me that, and I may be wrong here, this may be the strongest vehicle for overturning Roe (although, as a national law, this would be much more broad). The problem with this law isn't merely that it conflicts with itself, but the way in which it conflicts.

It is unclear what is doing the moral work in this equation. As the law currently stands, the permissibility of the act seems to stand on the notion that the woman's consent is the relevant factor. Unfortunately, this leaves us in a rather peculiar position. There are only a few categories of law where a previously impermissible act of destruction gains legitimacy through the consent of an individual. Two, really. The first, is if the thing being violated is the individual's self. The second, is if the thing being violated is the individuals property. But both of these notions are problematic for various reasons. I think the case for the former is extremely tenuous, though some pro-choicers have attempted to make it from time to time. But, even if that justification holds, it is certainly not the position the court has taken with respect to fetal life. Indeed, it is clear from both Roe and subsequent decisions, that they have judged the fetus a distinct entity (if not a person or a citizen) that the state has an interest in protecting. The latter scenario has even greater problems, the least of which are the moral qualms many of us may have about placing fetuses in such a category. The most significant problem, and I believe this is insurmountable, is that the right to property has certain characteristics that have never, and I suspect (and hope dearly), will never apply to fetuses. For instance you are free to sell your property. You are free to slowly burn your property. You are also entitled to all the constituent parts of your property. In the case of fetuses, you're thus entitled to their organs (once they have them), skin, bones, blood etc. And most basically, you are entitled to use your property. It is difficult to imagine what the proper use of a fetus might be, but the law has never held that the property in question need have a discernible purpose for you to use it. You, are for instance, allowed to play baseball with your computer, with the monitor as the ball. None of these rights have been granted to mothers with respect to fetuses. Indeed, property that one can only destroy, and here through federally designated methods, is property only in the most peculiar sense of the word.

If neither of these scenarios hold, then it is unclear what is meating out the punishment to criminals who destroy a fetus in the commission of a crime. The only possibility we're left with, is that the fetal personhood, and thus rights, can be granted or taken away by women, as suits their wishes. There is no attempt to justify why this is the case, in either established law, or abortion related precedent. It is merely asserted, prima facie, in the very language of the rights themselves, as if entitled to them by divine providence. Granting rights on the basis of providence or superiority...wonder what that reminds me of.

Eventually, some criminal, who has assaulted a woman, is going to challenge the constitutionality of this law using this exact reasoning. And the court is going to be left with the unpleasant choice of either allowing the lives of pregnant women's offspring to be ended indiscriminately (a count of battery would be in order), or invalidating Roe v. Wade. If the court is forced to make this distinction, and does so explicitly, in favor of Roe, you can be sure there will millions of angry mothers and future mothers taking to the streets. And the slim-majority the pro-choice community currently holds, will be eradicated.

[Selfish_Meme]

One part of property law does provide for the aquisition of rights by habitation. If the fetus could be considered a squatter then the longer it inhabits a womb the more rights it has.

Squatters rights are also tied in with property management, was the security of the property maintained? Birth Control.

Property law also provides for the forceful ejection of tresspassers as you noted.

If your body is your property then they could be amusingly relevant.

[LostSoul3412]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I'm not talking about the legality of abortion right now. I'm just trying to distinguish which law has the accurate definition.

Both, and their definitions apply to those individual provisions laid out in the respective laws.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Where does it state, in law, that a citizen is one whom is either born, or naturalized, within the United States?

You should know... you started a whole thread on it.

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Obilisk18]

LostSoul3412 wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I'm not talking about the legality of abortion right now. I'm just trying to distinguish which law has the accurate definition.

Both, and their definitions apply to those individual provisions laid out in the respective laws.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Where does it state, in law, that a citizen is one whom is either born, or naturalized, within the United States?

You should know... you started a whole thread on it.

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The key clause in the 14th amendment, as it relates to this issue, isn't the one you've highlighted. The final clause "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." While the Supreme Court has declared denied fetuses personhood, they have done largely in the context of citizenship, pertaining to the clause you highlighted. The question of philosophical personhood, or personhood granting one general rights outside of governmental institutions, is still very much up for debate. Therefore the protection granted in the final clause could theoretically be extended to fetuses.

[Gitana]

Quote: And the slim-majority the pro-choice community currently holds

You appear to be in error. Only a few Americans want abortion completely eliminated:

A compilation of numerous polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

One poll tracks opinions from 1999 to 2006; prochoicers are increasing. Another tracks from 2003 to 2006, those who wish it eliminated are decreasing. On another, taken in '05 and again in '06, the question was "Overturn Roe?"

'05 - yes, overturn: 28% no: 63%
'06 - yes, overturn: 25% no: 66%

There are lots of poll results, from many different sources. One can come to a reasonable conclusion that most Americans want abortion to remain legal, with some restrictions. On the many that are polling whether to increase restrictions or not, it appears that most people want it to remain as is, or with slight increase in restrictions.

This is interesting, because it would appear than, that a politician running on a strict 'eliminate abortion' platform may actually harm his chances of election - despite the right to life movement. I suspect that the louder the anti-choice groups get, the further they push some Americans (in private) from their more extreme policy. Demonizing those that speak about the woman's rights, or her right to choice, probably accomplishes the same thing. It also appears, with minimal variations, that the majority of Americans who hold an opinion pro or con have pretty much remained firm in their opinions for decades; which would also seem to indicate that the increased PR of the prolifers in the last six years has not really affected opinions one way or the other. I think this is because largely (yes, I know there are exceptions), the prochoicers come across to many Americans as religious extremists, which the majority of Americans has a natural aversion to.

[LostSoul3412]

Obilisk18 wrote: The key clause in the 14th amendment, as it relates to this issue, isn't the one you've highlighted. The final clause "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." While the Supreme Court has declared denied fetuses personhood, they have done largely in the context of citizenship, pertaining to the clause you highlighted. The question of philosophical personhood, or personhood granting one general rights outside of governmental institutions, is still very much up for debate. Therefore the protection granted in the final clause could theoretically be extended to fetuses.

Theoretically, yes, however, theories are not laws. According to the precedent that you stated, protections from the government only apply to those who are citizens of the United States. This is what also gives us the power to deport illegal immigrants.

Because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court, and by many actions of the federal government, you are protected from other people regardless of citizenship status, however, you are protected from the government only if you are a citizen. With that, the government has every power to legalize abortions on the grounds that unborn persons are not United States citizens.

[Obilisk18]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: The key clause in the 14th amendment, as it relates to this issue, isn't the one you've highlighted. The final clause "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." While the Supreme Court has declared denied fetuses personhood, they have done largely in the context of citizenship, pertaining to the clause you highlighted. The question of philosophical personhood, or personhood granting one general rights outside of governmental institutions, is still very much up for debate. Therefore the protection granted in the final clause could theoretically be extended to fetuses.

Theoretically, yes, however, theories are not laws. According to the precedent that you stated, protections from the government only apply to those who are citizens of the United States. This is what also gives us the power to deport illegal immigrants.

Because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court, and by many actions of the federal government, you are protected from other people regardless of citizenship status, however, you are protected from the government only if you are a citizen. With that, the government has every power to legalize abortions on the grounds that unborn persons are not United States citizens.

Perhaps I bolded the wrong portion of that clause. It says specifically that all persons, citizen or no, within the jurisdiction of the United States, may not be denied equal protection under the laws. You can't hurt foreigners, for instance, who are within the borders of the United States. Whatever else fetuses might be, they are certainly within the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, if they can be judged as persons (the key question), they're entitled to protection under our laws.

[LostSoul3412]

Obilisk18 wrote: Perhaps I bolded the wrong portion of that clause. It says specifically that all persons, citizen or no, within the jurisdiction of the United States, may not be denied equal protection under the laws. You can't hurt foreigners, for instance, who are within the borders of the United States. Whatever else fetuses might be, they are certainly within the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, if they can be judged as persons (the key question), they're entitled to protection under our laws.

Only citizens are entitled to protection from the government, though. Of course you can be granted protection from other individuals even if you are not a citizen, however, if you are not a citizen, then you are not protected from the government, meaning that the government has full legal rights to take any of your rights away, including your "right to life". Thus, even if unborn persons were legally considered persons, they would not meet the requirements for citizenship, and therefore can still be subject to legalized abortion.

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The key, as gemma stated, is that the 2004 provision sets the requirement that it must be against someone's will. If the mother and the physician both agree to perform the operation, abortion is still legal under this act of law.

As for the legal definition of a human being, under United States law a citizen is one whom is either born, or naturalized, within the United States. Thus meaning that in order to be a legal human being in the United States, you must be born within the United States (and thus granted immediate citizenship), or be naturalized within the United States (immigrate and become a citizen).

Unborn persons do no fit those requirements.

Ah yes, that's what you call a double-standard. You got to have it one way or the other, you just can't decide which terms and definitions are more to your taste in the given situation. If it's against the mother's or doctor's will, it's murder, prosecutable under the law. But if mommy-dearest and the doc want it, it's just 'abortion', so they're immune to prosecution.

Talk about bending rules to suit your own purpose... :roll:

[Lumina]

Gitana wrote: Quote: And the slim-majority the pro-choice community currently holds

You appear to be in error. Only a few Americans want abortion completely eliminated:

A compilation of numerous polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

One poll tracks opinions from 1999 to 2006; prochoicers are increasing. Another tracks from 2003 to 2006, those who wish it eliminated are decreasing. On another, taken in '05 and again in '06, the question was "Overturn Roe?"

'05 - yes, overturn: 28% no: 63%
'06 - yes, overturn: 25% no: 66%

There are lots of poll results, from many different sources. One can come to a reasonable conclusion that most Americans want abortion to remain legal, with some restrictions. On the many that are polling whether to increase restrictions or not, it appears that most people want it to remain as is, or with slight increase in restrictions.

You're being disingenuous at best here, and as I recall--I could be mistaken--you participated in both of the threads on which I cited the ABC poll which affirms that 57% of Americans "oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — 'if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby.' "

The majority of abortions are performed for this one reason. So "with some restrictions" is disingenuous. Only 1 % of abortions are performed because of rape or incest, and only some abortions are performed because of risk to the mother's health or a profound birth defect. The huge restriction desired is the end of abortion on-demand/for reasons of convenience.

Here's the link for a third time: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

[LostSoul3412]

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: Ah yes, that's what you call a double-standard. You got to have it one way or the other, you just can't decide which terms and definitions are more to your taste in the given situation. If it's against the mother's or doctor's will, it's murder, prosecutable under the law. But if mommy-dearest and the doc want it, it's just 'abortion', so they're immune to prosecution.

Talk about bending rules to suit your own purpose... :roll:

...?

My purpose is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. And, with legislation, different laws have different definitions, as presented in the case here. However, each law uses their own respective definitions. That's nothing new, and that's present under any law. So if the individual violates the provisions of the first law, then they are subject to the definitions of the former. If they violate the second provisions, then they are subject to the second definitions. There is no universal definitions of "human being" in law, as each law uses their own definitions.

As for the argument against the second law, yes, that is essentially what it's stating. Basically, this is to protect doctors from being forced to conduct abortions, however they are required by law to redirect their patients to another doctor who will.

[Hypocritical_Hypocrisy]

Ah you misunderstood me, but that's probably my fault as I was being ambiguous...
I was speaking of the pro-choice people who passed the law. The double-standard.