Trump v Vance

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

 

Not every jurisdiction is New York.

And my hypothetical wasn’t related to abortion prosecutions. More like domestic abuse or vehicular manslaughter, etc.

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by snafu

[SectionC3]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Not every jurisdiction is New York.

 

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

[snafu]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

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

 

^^^^^ see my edited post, above.

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^ see my edited post, above.

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. 

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

 

All of which buttresses my point that the Supreme Court has conferred a Constitutionally protected right on fetuses,and therefore the law treats unborn fetuses as people — before they are born alive. This right extends to acts against fetuses, which wouldn’t be punishable if fetuses were not considered people. Therefore, you CAN compare the annual rate of late term abortions vs. gun homicides in the United States and safely say that one and the other are approximately ecactly the same (at least in 2017).  Your initial premise is false.

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

All of which buttresses my point that the Supreme Court has conferred a Constitutionally protected right on fetuses,and therefore the law treats unborn fetuses as people — before they are born alive. This right extends to acts against fetuses, which wouldn’t be punishable if fetuses were not considered people. Therefore, you CAN compare the annual rate of late term abortions vs. gun homicides in the United States and safely say that one and the other are approximately ecactly the same (at least in 2017).  Your initial premise is false.

 

 

 

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.   

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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.   

 

Your premise was that “the law” defines a “person” to be “born alive”. It’s wrong, and frankly you were stating it in a fairly smarmy way.

Based upon Roe vs. Wade, a fetus does indeed have a Constitutional right to be born.  After the second trimester, a duty is placed upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born. Rights are not conferred upon house plants, but on people. I don’t know why I need to repeat myself, am I not being clear?  You’ve brought in NY Penal Law 125.  It has nothing to do with your initial premise. The law does indeed recognize that one does not have to be born alive to have the rights of, and be treated as, a person.  You’re simply not correct.  It’s okay.

 

 

[SectionC3]

7 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Your premise was that “the law” defines a “person” to be “born alive”. It’s wrong, and frankly you were stating it in a fairly smarmy way.

Based upon Roe vs. Wade, a fetus does indeed have a Constitutional right to be born.  After the second trimester, a duty is placed upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born. Rights are not conferred upon house plants, but on people. I don’t know why I need to repeat myself, am I not being clear?  You’ve brought in NY Penal Law 125.  It has nothing to do with your initial premise. The law does indeed recognize that one does not have to be born alive to have the rights of, and be treated as, a person.  You’re simply not correct.  It’s okay.

 

 

 

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.

[Tiberius]

8 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Your premise was that “the law” defines a “person” to be “born alive”. It’s wrong, and frankly you were stating it in a fairly smarmy way.

Based upon Roe vs. Wade, a fetus does indeed have a Constitutional right to be born.  After the second trimester, a duty is placed upon people not to offend the right of a fetus to be born. Rights are not conferred upon house plants, but on people. I don’t know why I need to repeat myself, am I not being clear?  You’ve brought in NY Penal Law 125.  It has nothing to do with your initial premise. The law does indeed recognize that one does not have to be born alive to have the rights of, and be treated as, a person.  You’re simply not correct.  It’s okay.

 

 

So taking a morning after pill would be murder in your view? 

 

 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So taking a morning after pill would be murder in your view? 

 

 

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

Arrest them all! Women, doctors, heck, arrest the fetus too. 

 

They just want to harass harass women and make their lives difficult. 

[snafu]

55 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So taking a morning after pill would be murder in your view? 

 

 

 

^^^^^ can’t read.

 

 

52 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

 

^^^^^ doesn’t understand. I never said anything about early-term pregnancies.

I’m not going to continue to repeat myself other than to say you’re wrong and it’s okay.

Carry on with your conversation with Tiberius. 

 

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^ can’t read.

 

 

 

^^^^^ doesn’t understand. I never said anything about early-term pregnancies.

I’m not going to continue to repeat myself other than to say you’re wrong and it’s okay.

Carry on with your conversation with Tiberius. 

 

 

If a fetus is a person, then consuming beer on behalf of that minor person would constitute endangering the welfare of a child.  

 

"A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when . . . [h]e or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than [17] years old . . . ."

 

EDIT: 

 

This is admittedly a bit dicey with respect to an unknown pregnancy.  Knowingly can be interpreted as pertaining to the consumption of the beer, but it's arguable.  There would be no argument with respect to alcohol consumption if the pregnant consumer was aware of the pregnancy.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by SectionC3

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

^^^^^ can’t read.

 

 

 

^^^^^ doesn’t understand. I never said anything about early-term pregnancies.

I’m not going to continue to repeat myself other than to say you’re wrong and it’s okay.

Carry on with your conversation with Tiberius. 

 

 

Also, I just received a census form.  Should my wife take a pregnancy test before I return the form?  What if she's pregnant?  Do we add an extra child to the form?  Do I "deduct" that unborn "child" on my federal income tax return?  Any advice in this respect would be appreciated, counselor. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

What about having a beer before the pregnancy is known?  Endangering the welfare of a child?  Talk about governmental excess. 

The GOP is running out of issues to fire up the "moral" base, so they squeeze this issue for as much as they can, yet most of the world is coming to accept abortion as a woman's right. Even Ireland allows it now. 

[Tiberius]

So yesterday, while Trump's lawyers were arguing he was too busy to address a subpoena which might take two or three hours of his time, Trump was sitting around doing his idiotic tweeting all day. What a joke this administration is. 

[Nanker]

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Nanker

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So yesterday, while Trump's lawyers were arguing he was too busy to address a subpoena which might take two or three hours of his time, Trump was sitting around doing his idiotic tweeting all day. What a joke this administration is. 

 

Would have been a great point at oral argument.  Particularly with argument being broadcast.  Great, great point. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Would have been a great point at oral argument.  Particularly with argument being broadcast.  Great, great point. 

I can't take credit, Racheal Maddow was all over it, lol. 

 

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show She had a great section on this, with quotes and all from the court 

[Tiberius]

Here is c-spans full coverage of the hearing, really interesting https://www.c-span.org/video/?471676-1/supreme-court-oral-argument-trump-v-vance