First of all, you are correct that the law never defines "chicken" as not a human being. However, chickens are never commonly considered to be human beings. So this is another strawman argument. You are making an irrelevant point simply to tear it down.
Not at all---it is you that is making an irrelevant point. Fetuses have never been considered human beings anymore than chickens. No society--no civilization---no country---no government--no church--no religion---has ever considered a fetus to be a human being in the history of the planet. None of the above have ever afforded human being status. Where you get the idea that fetuses have been referred to as human being, is unknown.
Secondly, and more substantively, IC 35-42-1-0.5 exempts abortion from the substance of the provisions under murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter; and the substance of the law defines who gets punished. In the case of the abortion clause, it exempts abortions from punishment under IC 35-42-1-1 (murder), 35-42-1-3 (voluntary manslaughter), and 35-42-1-4 (involuntary manslaughter). To say that Indiana's code "places a fetus outside the status of 'human being'" is putting your own political viewpoint onto the substance of the law.
Not at all---it is only logical---if they define murder as the killing of a human being, yet don't consider killing a fetus as murder, they don't consider a fetus to be a human being. How can you look at it any other way.
Here's the ultimate reality: if the law did not recognize fetuses as human beings, then there would be no need for an abortion clause.
There would be no need except for the confusion of people like yourself.
However, because fetuses are human beings and because human beings are being murdered according to the legal definition of the law, exemption from punishment must be made in order for abortion to be legal.
You jump to the conclusion that a fetus is a human being, with no basis in fact, and ignore all of the history of mankinds treatment and consideration of fetuses as not being human beings.
Here it's important to read the whole of the law. IC 16-34-1-1 explicitly states, "Childbirth is preferred, encouraged, and supported over abortion." Ergo, there is a presupposition within the law that pregnancy leads to CHILDbirth, not chickenbirth.
Just as an egg will lead to being a chicken, but that an egg is not a chicken. Do you think an egg is a chicken?
Here's my point in all of this: Don't bring in "legal" terminology unless you actually know what you're talking about. Don't promote argument purely from the legal realm if you have no clue what the legal realm actually says.
I know exactly what I am talking about. It is you that shows ignorance of the law. If the law considered a fetus to be a human being, then the law would enforce all the laws human beings enjoy as members of society, and citizens of the United States. Fetuses are citizens of no country--heave never been considered to be citizens of any country since the beginning of time.
Furthermore, it is acceptable to argue from emotion. Emotions really are okay. But don't condemn emotional arguments and then resort to them yourself.
I have not argued from any emotional standpoint--I simply stated the facts of the situation. Any emotion comes from your interpretation. The law could easily confer human being status on fetuses, but it doesn't. No fetus will be counted in this years' census. That's because they aren't citizens. That's because the law does not consider a fetus to be a human being. A potential human being is not more a human being than a potential chicken is a chicken--no matter how you look at it---it is an egg--not a chicken.
#134 | Posted by osbo25 at 2010-03-22 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:
