Re: South Dakota Justifiable Homicide Bill Under Fire as Critics Say It Invites Murde
As per your standard, nothing is a Natural Person until the law says they're a Legal Person, so as per that standard no, slaves were not.
and the evidence of that fact was never in credible dispute. The Confederates insisted otherwise because they were greedy, lazy scum whose entire economy depended on making other people work for them, but their laws showed that even they acknowledged this claim to be a lie - otherwise there would have been no point in making it a crime to teach slaves to read, and certainly no point in murdering any slave who tried. A fetus, on the other hand, is not even conscious. This is a matter of medical fact borne out by common sense and basic properties of neuronal density - something with a brain the size of a peanut is not a person to any more degree than a sprig is a tree. A grown, conscious dog is more of a person than a fetus.
Wait I think I have a Standard Issue Response for this one...one sec...ahh yes here it is, #17:
*******
The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 3 reasons:
1. You will note that the legal definition of "
person" contains no reference of brain activity. The reason being that the
'brain activity' argument is a Secular Humanist perversion of "
Cogito, ergo sum", is purely theological in nature and therefore has no place in
Posative Law.
2. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "
person" under the law, and therefore
Roe-v-Wade Section 9a makes all elective abortion "
murder" under the law.
3. As
demonstrated by Obama, it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "
person".
Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous if not a violation of the 1st amendment. Pro-Choice is assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were there religious requirement of brain activity present.
*******
You are not, however, charged with murder if you kill a police dog, because - whatever the wisdom of this view - a dog is deemed to be less of a person than a human being.
You are, however, charged with "
murder" if you kill the unborn.
I don't wish to understate the difficulty of such distinctions, but there is no difficulty at all - none at all - in saying that a fetus is not a person. A mouse is more self-aware than a fetus. Tell me you even hesitate to kill a mouse, and I'll take your position more seriously.
Well sure but the whole brain activity argument is bunk anyway because "child" is a social construct, not a medical construct. Oil and water.
Corporations have no such rights, regardless of what absurd privileges the conservatives on the Supreme Court have chosen to invent for their overlords.
At least now we have clarity that you don't care what SCOTUS has to say, which pretty much blows any credibility you may have otherwise had right out.
The SD law is absurd, but I recognize its logic: Deadly force to prevent a crime against property. That cannot be used as a rationale for killing abortion doctors, because the "property" in question belongs to the women obtaining abortions.
The only people bringing up the killing of abortion doctors are pro-choice. You are the ones acting all paranoid.
But only things that actually belong to you. A part of a woman's body does not belong to other people, and certainly not the state of South Dakota.
Someone els's child, or hell even pet or car, doesn't have to be my personal property for me to protect it.
