| knowledge-database (beta) |
 |
Current group: alt.abortion.
Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference?
| wp123 | | Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,465 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!! | | wp123 | | Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!! | | Ray Fischer | | Ray Fischer | | Frank Dwyer |
|
|
| | From: | wp123 | | Subject: | Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 14:10:11 -0800 |
|
|
 |
http://www.hotchkiss.k12.co.us/hhs/english/webfolios/2001/wbodwell/cartoon.htm
http://www.cagle.com/news/abortion/aborgifs1/ramirez_981028we.gif
|
|
| | From: | Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,465 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!! | | Subject: | Re: Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:36:43 GMT |
|
|
| On 22 Jan 2005 14:10:11 -0800,
"Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
This newsgroup discusses the remedy of abortion. And
since ALL babies have been BORN, that has **nothing** to
do with them at all, whatsoever.
You're OFF-topic in here.
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
|
|
| | From: | wp123 | | Subject: | Re: Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 10:06:40 -0800 |
|
|
|
Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,465 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
Forever!! wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2005 14:10:11 -0800,
> "Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
>
>
> This newsgroup discusses the remedy of abortion. And
> since ALL babies have been BORN, that has **nothing** to
> do with them at all, whatsoever.
Not all babies have been born. The born-alive rule for personhood is
out of date.
see http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1997/1997scc98.html
C.The "Born Alive" Rule
104 The "born alive" rule, as its name suggests, requires a
foetus to be born alive before any legal rights of
personhood can accrue. The Court of Appeal relied on this
rule as one resolution to the present case, but no inquiry
was made into the genesis or purpose of the rule. Once the
purpose of the rule is known, it becomes more apparent that
it should not apply in this case.
105 In a persuasive article on this topic, Clarke D.
Forsythe has traced the genesis of the "born alive" rule as
evidentiary, rather than substantive; a principle
necessitated by the primitive medical knowledge and
technology of the time: "Homicide of the Unborn Child: The
Born Alive Rule and Other Legal Anachronisms" (1987), 21
Val. U. L. Rev. 563.
106 Until the early 19th century medical practitioners could
not determine with confidence before quickening (the first
physical sensation by the mother of the foetus in the womb)
whether a woman was pregnant, or further, whether the child
in utero was alive. Consequently, the common law adopted the
presumption that a child was first endowed with life at
quickening. Forsythe cites, at pp. 572-73, a passage from An
American Practitioner, London Practice of Midwifery (6th ed.
1826), at p. 77, footnote (v), which expressed the near
impossibility of determining the existence of pregnancy for
purposes of legal proof before the end of the sixth month:
.. We have taken a wide range in the examination of
.. `authorities' on the subject, and the result is that we
.. can find no one invariable sign, nor can form any
.. combination of symptoms so unequivocal, as to enable us
.. to pronounce its existence under oath, for all have
.. occasionally proved deceptive. Before deciding, our
.. examinations should be frequently repeated, and then,
.. only should a final decision be seldom hazarded `before
.. the end of the sixth month'. [Emphasis in original.]
107 Limited medical knowledge also could not determine
whether a child in utero was alive at the time it was
subjected to an injury unless the child was also born alive,
suffering from that injury. Forsythe quotes, at p. 576, from
A. S. Taylor in Medical Jurisprudence (7th ed. 1861) who put
the rationale for the "born alive" rule as follows, at p.
411:
.. It is well known that in the course of nature, many
.. children come into the world dead, and that others die
.. from various causes soon after birth. In the latter,
.. the signs of their having lived are frequently
.. indistinct. Hence, to provide against the danger of
.. erroneous accusation, the law humanely presumes that
.. every newborn child has been born dead, until the
.. contrary appears from medical or other evidence. The
.. onus of proof is thereby thrown on the prosecution; and
.. no evidence imputing murder can be received, unless it
.. be made certain by medical or other facts, that the
.. child survived its birth and was actually living when
.. the violence was offered to it.
Forsythe summarizes the medical knowledge and the legal rule
that evolved therefrom, at p. 575:
.. As a result of this primitive knowledge of human life
.. in utero, the health of the child in utero could not be
.. established unless and until the child was observed
.. outside the womb. Writers on medical jurisprudence
.. noted that, even after quickening, it was extremely
.. difficult to determine whether the child died before or
.. during labor and subsequent expulsion from the womb.
.. Moreover, it was nearly impossible to attribute the
.. injury or death of the child to one cause or another
.. and thus to distinguish between natural causes and
.. inflicted injuries. As a result, live birth was
.. required to prove that the unborn child was alive and
.. that the material acts were the proximate cause of
.. death, because it could not otherwise be established if
.. the child was alive in the womb at the time of the
.. material acts.
108 Forsythe examined the history of the "born alive" rule
from its oldest common law origins, considering among others
the writings of Bracton, Coke and Blackstone. He concluded
that the rule was always one of evidence, and not of
substance. His analysis of the ancient authorities is found
at pp. 580-92, from which the following is extracted (at p.
589):
.. . . . the practical application of the born alive rule
.. also demonstrates that the rule was an evidentiary and
.. not a substantive moral definition of a human being at
.. common law. In practice, the born alive rule was
.. applied to proscribe as homicide the killing of a child
.. even if the mortal injuries were inflicted while the
.. child was still in utero. If the rule was truly a
.. substantive definition of human being, and a fetus only
.. became a human being at birth, then injuring an unborn
.. child in utero would not be injuring a human being. In
.. that case, the death of the child out of the womb could
.. not satisfy the corpus delicti, because the criminal
.. agency of the defendant -- the moral connection between
.. the infliction of the injury and the resulting death --
.. would not exist. The child would not be a human being
.. both at the time of the injury and the time of the
.. death. IF THE BORN ALIVE RULE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE RULE,
.. THEN HOMICIDE COULD ONLY RESULT FROM INJURIES INFLICTED
.. AFTER BIRTH, BECAUSE ONLY THEN WOULD THEY BE INFLICTED
.. ON "A HUMAN BEING". The common law, however, did not
.. adopt this proposition. Rather, the common law
.. considered the injury of the child in utero to be a
.. constituent part of the homicide of the unborn child,
.. as long as it died out of the womb. The law necessarily
.. found the injury to the child in utero to be an injury
.. to a human being in order to find the subsequent death
.. after birth to be a homicide.
109 PRESENT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY RENDERS THE "BORN ALIVE" RULE
OUTDATED AND INDEFENSIBLE. We no longer need to cling to an
evidentiary presumption to the contrary when technologies
like real time ultrasound, fetal heart monitors and
fetoscopy can clearly show us that a foetus is alive and has
been or will be injured by conduct of another. We can gauge
fetal development with much more certainty than the common
law presumed. How can the sophisticated micro-surgery that
is now being performed on foetuses in utero be compatible
with the "born alive" rule?
110 However, there is the temptation to assume that the
courts of the past that treated the "born alive" rule as one
of substantive law knew as much as is known today about
fetal development. Since medical technology has improved to
the point of eliminating nearly all of the evidentiary
problems from which the "born alive" rule sprang, it no
longer makes sense to retain the rule where its application
would be perverse. The blind application of the "born alive"
rule in this context clearly runs afoul of Holmes' dictum
that:
.. It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of
.. law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry
.. IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon
.. which it was laid down have vanished long since, and
.. the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the
.. past.
.. (Oliver Wendell Holmes, "The Path of the Law" (1897),
.. 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, at p. 469.)
....
118 Precedent that states that a foetus is not a "person"
should not be followed without an inquiry into the purpose
of such a rule. In the well-known case of Edwards v.
Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, the Privy
Council overruled precedent and a unanimous Supreme Court of
Canada, [1928] S.C.R. 276, and held that women were
"persons" with respect to s. 24 of the British North America
Act, 1867. Rigidly applying precedents of questionable
applicability without inquiry will lead the law to recommit
the errors of the past.
119 Moreover, Canada is a signatory to the United Nations
Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which states
in its preamble that:
.. . . . the child, by reason of his physical and mental
.. immaturity, needs special safeguards and care,
.. including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well
.. as after BIRTH. . . .
120 The "born alive" rule should be abandoned, for the
purposes of this case, as it is medically out-of-date. It
may be that the rule has continuing utility in the context
of other cases with their own particular facts. The common
law boasts that it is adaptable. If so, there is no need to
cling for the sake of clinging to notions rooted in
rudimentary medical and scientific knowledge of the past. A
FOETUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE CLASS OF PERSONS
whose interests can be protected through the exercise of the
parens patriae jurisdiction
|
|
| | From: | Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,463 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!! | | Subject: | Re: Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:55:37 GMT |
|
|
| On 23 Jan 2005 10:06:40 -0800,
"Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
> Craig Chilton wrote:
>> "Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
>> This newsgroup discusses the remedy of abortion. And
>> since ALL babies have been BORN, that has **nothing** to
>> do with them at all, whatsoever.
> Not all babies have been born. The born-alive rule for person-
> hood is out of date.
FACTS don't go out of date. ALL *babies* have been BORN.
American one to try and twist.>
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
|
|
| | From: | Ray Fischer | | Subject: | Re: Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:26:31 GMT |
|
|
| wp123 wrote:
>
>Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,465 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
>Forever!! wrote:
>> On 22 Jan 2005 14:10:11 -0800,
>> "Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
>>
>>
>> This newsgroup discusses the remedy of abortion. And
>> since ALL babies have been BORN, that has **nothing** to
>> do with them at all, whatsoever.
>
>Not all babies have been born. The born-alive rule for personhood is
Lunatic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
|
|
| | From: | Ray Fischer | | Subject: | Re: Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:15 GMT |
|
|
| wp123 wrote:
>
>Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,465 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
>Forever!! wrote:
>> On 22 Jan 2005 14:10:11 -0800,
>> "Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
>>
>>
>> This newsgroup discusses the remedy of abortion. And
>> since ALL babies have been BORN, that has **nothing** to
>> do with them at all, whatsoever.
>
>Not all babies have been born. The born-alive rule for personhood is
>out of date.
>see http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1997/1997scc98.html
The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal
person possessing rights. This is a general proposition applicable
to all aspects of the law. Once a child is born, alive and viable,
the law may recognize that its existence began before birth for
certain limited purposes. But the only right recognized is that of
the born person. Any right or interest the fetus may have remains
inchoate and incomplete until the child's birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
|
|
| | From: | Frank Dwyer | | Subject: | Re: Shoot the Baby, Slice the Baby: Is There a Difference? | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:25:09 GMT |
|
|
| wp123 wrote:
> Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,465 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
> Forever!! wrote:
>
>>On 22 Jan 2005 14:10:11 -0800,
>>"Cracked Potter" ("wp123") wrote:
>>
>>
>> This newsgroup discusses the remedy of abortion. And
>>since ALL babies have been BORN, that has **nothing** to
>>do with them at all, whatsoever.
>
>
> Not all babies have been born. The born-alive rule for personhood is
> out of date.
> see http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1997/1997scc98.html
Canadian law?
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |