Against abortion and against person-hood?

[CabinetMaker]

It depends on the age of the kids in the nude pictures. If they are small children, then yes, but if they are of the same age, then no.

The law draws no such distinction. These were all high school age kids mutually trading pics.

There is a universal law. It is not in any books and it is self enforcing. It is called the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Ktoyou]

The law draws no such distinction. These were all high school age kids mutually trading pics.

Yes it does. Child law, law governing minors is very complex.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes it does. Child law, law governing minors is very complex.

In Colorado, a few years ago, a 17 year old girl sent a nude to her boyfriend. They broke up and the boy sent the picture to his friends. When the cops found out, she was charged with producing child porn and the boy was charged with distributing child porn. The charges against the girl were eventually dropped as it was decided that it was not illegal for her to take nude pictures of herself. The boy was charged as an adult and is now a registered sex offender for life. FOR LIFE. As such, a great many doors for his future are permanently closed.

So no, the law does not draw subtle distinctions. The law is applied at the DA's discretion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In Colorado, a few years ago, a 17 year old girl sent a nude to her boyfriend. They broke up and the boy sent the picture to his friends. When the cops found out, she was charged with producing child porn and the boy was charged with distributing child porn. The charges against the girl were eventually dropped as it was decided that it was not illegal for her to take nude pictures of herself. The boy was charged as an adult and is now a registered sex offender for life. FOR LIFE. As such, a great many doors for his future are permanently closed.

So no, the law does not draw subtle distinctions. The law is applied at the DA's discretion.

Your example proves that sex offender registration is more unrighteous than the crimes it was designed to punish.

But, this thread is about Personhood laws, which is designed to give recognition to the rights that the unborn children have, including due process.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your example proves that sex offender registration is more unrighteous than the crimes it was designed to punish.

But, this thread is about Personhood laws, which is designed to give recognition to the rights that the unborn children have, including due process.

I addressed those as well. The side bar regarding sex offender registration came out of my comments wherein I pointed out that person-hood laws will be subject to the same law of unintended consequences. Writing such a law is no trivial exercise.

 

[genuineoriginal]

person-hood laws will be subject to the same law of unintended consequences. Writing such a law is no trivial exercise.

That is merely an excuse.
Right now the pro-aborts are claiming that an unborn human child is like a cancer that needs to be cut out.

The Personhood laws would simply declare that the unborn human child is a person, not a cancer.

 

[brewmama]

In Colorado, a few years ago, a 17 year old girl sent a nude to her boyfriend. They broke up and the boy sent the picture to his friends. When the cops found out, she was charged with producing child porn and the boy was charged with distributing child porn. The charges against the girl were eventually dropped as it was decided that it was not illegal for her to take nude pictures of herself. The boy was charged as an adult and is now a registered sex offender for life. FOR LIFE. As such, a great many doors for his future are permanently closed.

So no, the law does not draw subtle distinctions. The law is applied at the DA's discretion.

Also in Colorado, a woman cut a baby out of a woman in Longmont. The mother survived, the baby died. The woman could NOT be charged with murder because the baby was NOT a person. That is just plain wrong.

 

[Tambora]

I suspect the answer you'd get from some would deal with the extraordinary exception of the unborn endangering the mother's life. Contrary to Nick's example, the parallel you'd likely receive would be along the lines of self-defense, where a child is in the process of cocking a gun that he or she has to your temple, without realizing the nature of her or his actions and whether you are obligated to allow your own death or should be allowed the right to defend yourself.

The instance where the unborn poses a direct threat to the actual life of the mother is a rare thing, but personhood would make that exception problematic. Anyway, that's my guess. My own position and argument demands personhood, as right is neither created nor endowed by the state, but is instead recognized and protected. At present that protection is grotesquely imperfect.

Interesting perspective.

I think even the "personhood" argument can be taken too far.

If it is the unborn child that is causing an attack on the mother's body that could cause her death, then could the child be accused of unintentional manslaughter by law (seeing how that child is a legal "person" and subject to the law)?

:think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

That is merely an excuse.
Right now the pro-aborts are claiming that an unborn human child is like a cancer that needs to be cut out.

The Personhood laws would simply declare that the unborn human child is a person, not a cancer.

And so begins the law of unintended consequences. What happens if the woman suffers a spontaneous abortion? (That is also known as a miscarriage) What happens when a woman is doing something that for some reason causes her to miscarry? She wanted the baby, but somehow caused a miscarriage, what happens to her? What happens when, in those rare circumstances, there is a medical condition that is threatening the life of the mother or fetus or both?

Simply stating that a zygote/fetus/embryo is a human will cause as many if not more problems than is solves.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Also in Colorado, a woman cut a baby out of a woman in Longmont. The mother survived, the baby died. The woman could NOT be charged with murder because the baby was NOT a person. That is just plain wrong.

Yep, that sucks. I am not saying that there should not be person-hood laws, I am saying that we must be VERY careful when we right them so that they are just for everybody.

 

[exminister]

better said elsewhere

 

[genuineoriginal]

And so begins the law of unintended consequences. What happens if the woman suffers a spontaneous abortion? (That is also known as a miscarriage) What happens when a woman is doing something that for some reason causes her to miscarry? She wanted the baby, but somehow caused a miscarriage, what happens to her? What happens when, in those rare circumstances, there is a medical condition that is threatening the life of the mother or fetus or both?

Simply stating that a zygote/fetus/embryo is a human will cause as many if not more problems than is solves.

You are making a spurious argument.
There are already laws being implemented to address your concerns.

_____
Should Pregnant Women be Subject to Criminal Prosecution for
Activities that are Harmful to Their Fetuses?

Recent activities in a number of states have renewed the debate on whether women who abuse drugs or alcohol during their pregnancies should be subject to criminal sanctions. In South Carolina, the state supreme court ruled that Cornelia Whitner could be held criminally liable for using cocaine and thereby endangering her fetus. The court indicated that its holding applied to legal as well as illegal substances. In Wisconsin, criminal charges were brought against Deborah Zimmerman for her abuse of a legal substance (i.e., alcohol) during her pregnancy. Ms. Zimmerman is facing charges of attempted first degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless conduct. Prosecutors also have tried, without success, to bring criminal actions against substance-abusing pregnant women in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Ohio.

Legislators have also entered the fray. On June 13, 1997, the governor of Tennessee signed House Bill 1413, making it a Class A misdemeanor for child abuse where: (1) a woman consumes alcohol or illegal drugs during pregnancy with knowledge or the reason to know that such consumption may result in harm to her child; and (2) the child is born addicted to alcohol or drugs. Similarly, Hawaii is considering House Bill 3351 which makes the consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs during pregnancy, once the woman knows of the pregnancy, a Class C felony for endangering the welfare of a minor. . .
_____​

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are making a spurious argument.
There are already laws being implemented to address your concerns.

_____
Should Pregnant Women be Subject to Criminal Prosecution for
Activities that are Harmful to Their Fetuses?

Recent activities in a number of states have renewed the debate on whether women who abuse drugs or alcohol during their pregnancies should be subject to criminal sanctions. In South Carolina, the state supreme court ruled that Cornelia Whitner could be held criminally liable for using cocaine and thereby endangering her fetus. The court indicated that its holding applied to legal as well as illegal substances. In Wisconsin, criminal charges were brought against Deborah Zimmerman for her abuse of a legal substance (i.e., alcohol) during her pregnancy. Ms. Zimmerman is facing charges of attempted first degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless conduct. Prosecutors also have tried, without success, to bring criminal actions against substance-abusing pregnant women in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Ohio.

Legislators have also entered the fray. On June 13, 1997, the governor of Tennessee signed House Bill 1413, making it a Class A misdemeanor for child abuse where: (1) a woman consumes alcohol or illegal drugs during pregnancy with knowledge or the reason to know that such consumption may result in harm to her child; and (2) the child is born addicted to alcohol or drugs. Similarly, Hawaii is considering House Bill 3351 which makes the consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs during pregnancy, once the woman knows of the pregnancy, a Class C felony for endangering the welfare of a minor. . .
_____​

That addresses intentional harm. What about unintentional harm? Slipping on the ice and landing o her tummy resulting in injury to the fetus? My sister in-law was proscribed alcohol to help her deal with preclampsia. No all alcohol consumed during pregnancy is harmful, a little causes no harm to the fetus and may help the mother carry to term? None the less, some of that alcohol does get to the fetus, has she broken the law for allowing a minor to consume alcohol? Its not spurious, its real. When these laws are passed then prosecutors are free to apply them at theor discretion. You cannot control that unless you are very, VERY careful in crafting the law.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That addresses intentional harm. What about unintentional harm? Slipping on the ice and landing o her tummy resulting in injury to the fetus? My sister in-law was proscribed alcohol to help her deal with preclampsia. No all alcohol consumed during pregnancy is harmful, a little causes no harm to the fetus and may help the mother carry to term? None the less, some of that alcohol does get to the fetus, has she broken the law for allowing a minor to consume alcohol? Its not spurious, its real. When these laws are passed then prosecutors are free to apply them at theor discretion. You cannot control that unless you are very, VERY careful in crafting the law.

Pythagorean theorem: 24 words
The Lord's Prayer: 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: 67 words
The Ten Commandments: 179 words
The Gettysburg Address: 286 words
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words
The U.S. Patriot Act: 57,896 words

Being VERY careful in crafting the law is a great way of making it unjust.

Just make the simple definition that a human is a person from the moment of conception, nothing else is needed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Pythagorean theorem: 24 words
The Lord's Prayer: 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: 67 words
The Ten Commandments: 179 words
The Gettysburg Address: 286 words
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words
The U.S. Patriot Act: 57,896 words

Being VERY careful in crafting the law is a great way of making it unjust.

Just make the simple definition that a human is a person from the moment of conception, nothing else is needed.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. How many books of law have been written based on the bill of rights. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Do you have any idea what happens if you actually pull your gun?

Even within the Ten Commandments there is some discussion as to whether it reads thou shalt not murder or thou shalt not kill. All murder is killing but is all killing murder? Some Christians draw no distinction while others do.

The simpler it is the easier it is to abuse. The more detailed it is, the harder it is to apply.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nothing can be farther from the truth. How many books of law have been written based on the bill of rights. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Do you have any idea what happens if you actually pull your gun?

Even within the Ten Commandments there is some discussion as to whether it reads thou shalt not murder or thou shalt not kill. All murder is killing but is all killing murder? Some Christians draw no distinction while others do.

Will believing that the commandment is "Do not kill" cause an injustice?

The simpler it is the easier it is to abuse. The more detailed it is, the harder it is to apply.

:rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm:

You haven't learned much about the law, have you?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Range safety has nothing to do with what happens if you pull that gun outside the range. You may face felony menacing charges. You may face murder charges. Even if you don't face criminal charges you may find yourself in a civil wrongful death suit that you may well lose. You will have to defend it at the very least.

Will believing that the commandment is "Do not kill" cause an injustice?

An intruder breaks into your house and you believe that the commandment is do not kill. The intruder assaults your daughter. Was there an injustice?

:rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm::rotfl::darwinsm:

You haven't learned much about the law, have you?

I read the paper a lot and see the news stories of how laws that were intended to protect somebody end up being used to prosecute them instead. There is the law that is on the books and then there is how that law is applied by the DA. I know enough about the law to a) steer clear of the legal system ot the very best of my abilities and b) to know that it is frequently not used justly.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Range safety has nothing to do with what happens if you pull that gun outside the range. You may face felony menacing charges. You may face murder charges. Even if you don't face criminal charges you may find yourself in a civil wrongful death suit that you may well lose. You will have to defend it at the very least.

You have just proven that making many complicated and detailed laws results in injustice.

An intruder breaks into your house and you believe that the commandment is do not kill. The intruder assaults your daughter. Was there an injustice?

A conscious objector must always face the possibility of harm coming to himself or others because he refuses to protect them.
But, we are talking about the injustices that happen in the courtroom because of twisting complicated and detailed laws.

I read the paper a lot and see the news stories of how laws that were intended to protect somebody end up being used to prosecute them instead. There is the law that is on the books and then there is how that law is applied by the DA. I know enough about the law to a) steer clear of the legal system ot the very best of my abilities and b) to know that it is frequently not used justly.

You have once again proven that making many complicated and detailed laws results in injustice.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You have just proven that making many complicated and detailed laws results in injustice.


A conscious objector must always face the possibility of harm coming to himself or others because he refuses to protect them.
But, we are talking about the injustices that happen in the courtroom because of twisting complicated and detailed laws.

We were talking about injustice. Justice is not limited to a courtroom. Laws exist in part to encourage just behavior.

You have once again proven that making many complicated and detailed laws results in injustice.

You have proven once again that you fail to grasp the point that the law as written and the law as applied can be two very different things.

 

[genuineoriginal]

We were talking about injustice.

Yes, the injustice that comes when complicated and detailed laws are not applied according to the intent of the writers of those laws.

Justice is not limited to a courtroom.

We are talking about laws, specifically your desire to have a complicated and detailed law that will be misused in a courtroom.

Laws exist in part to encourage just behavior.

Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

You have proven once again that you fail to grasp the point that the law as written and the law as applied can be two very different things.

You seem to have missed the fact that I have been proving that the misapplication of the law happens more often when complicated and detailed laws are written.