[Abortion Thread] A Matter of Choice (NEW POLL!)

[Pale Dawn]

Yes but as a legal dictionary its use of words and what it means by them matters a lot. Here the key is in fact the use of the word attempted which they actually define very carefully and attribute Intent as a requirement. This would in fact be a more difficult thing to attribute to a unborn child than aggressive action, as an action can be intentional or unintentional.

Breaking it down to the two key types of attemps

" though a party must always cross the line from mere thoughts or preparation to be found guilty of an attempted crime" Here there is a clear indication that someone must be moving beyond preparation and planning to action even if the aggressive action is incomplete.

"a person is guilty of an attempted crime if they took a “substantial step” towards the completion of that crime. The “substantial step” must strongly indicate the person’s intent to commit the crime" Here intent must be shown. As I don't think you or I attribute intents to a child against the mother it cannot apply.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attempt

Which would be a good point, accept for the fact that in a pregnancy the fetus is already using the pregnant persons body. There is no thoughts or planning, there is the fact that the fetus is using the pregnant persons body. This is an injury to the pregnant person if they do not want to the fetus to be using their body. The right to self defense does not stop because the aggressor moved from attempting to injure you to actually injuring you.

[quote=https://ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk/busting-the-durable-myth-that-u-s-self-defense-law-uniquely-fails-to-protect-human-life/]When claiming self defense a person does not need to prove the intent of the person whom they were defending themselves against, only that they believed they were facing an unlawful attack, that the use of force was necessary to stop the attack, that they were objectively reasonable in their belief, and that the attack was ongoing or imminent.

Fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission (unlawful attack), abortion removes the fetus (necessity), abortion is the only way to remove fetus (objectively reasonable), the fetus is currently using the pregnant persons body (timing).

The injury need not be intentional for you to be able to use self defense as a defense,

Cornells description of attempt clearly contradicts this.

No it doesn't. You are using discussions about prosecution for an attempted crime to discuss a case where there is no attempt. The fetus is not attempting to use the pregnant persons body, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body. This should be an obvious distinction between the cases. This approach also fails to understand that self defense does not require proof about the intent of the aggressor who is being defended against, it only requires objectively reasonable belief that defensive force was necessary to stop the injury.

So to recap, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission. That is an injury. An abortion removes the fetus. That is the defensive force. The only way to remove the fetus is an abortion. There fore an abortion is an objectively reasonable use of force to stop the injury, it is in fact the only way to stop the injury.

though it may complicate the defense. The requirement is that the person arguing self defense was using force to protect themselves from injury.

Against an attempted crime. An attempt as defined cannot be attributed to a unborn child. I am using your source here and running with you but it clearly does not mean what you are concluding.

Not against an attempted crime, against an attempted injury. The fetus has moved past the attempt to is already injuring the pregnant person though, as it is already using the pregnant persons body. Unless you are going to argue that the right to self defense stops once the aggressor is no longer attempting to injure, but is actually injuring the defendant.

Rape could be one example, though the specific I was thinking about was a blood transfusion, that is person A consents to give person B blood. They are hooked up and blood is flowing from A to B when A changes their mind. Can A withdraw consent? Even if this would lead to B's death?

Of course they can withdraw consent. People can give or withdraw consent a 1000 times a day if they want. But they would still be committing an aggressive action and knowingly killing someone. It may not be a crime but it would not be self defense.

So you agree that even if a person consents to something they may remove consent, even if that withdrawal of consent may kill another person. That this isn't a crime, even if they must take an "aggressive action" to assert their withdrawal of consent. Am I understanding your position here correctly?

I am neither ignoring nor permanently side stepping the spoilered. I am on mobile the rest of the weekend and do not feel i can address it properly until monday where I can do a line by line reasonably.

This last direct question you posed to me to can answer simply. Abortion is the legal killing of a child. So if we legalize the method of killing someone such as with the removal of a blood transfusion which if done as you laid out i do not believe it is a crime. This is my position and something I have stated planly multiple times. The only reason i do not consider abortion murder or a crime is because it is legal currently. As it is legal, it is not a crime due not to its status as self defense which i will continueto contest due to aggressive action being a prerequisite. Here the person recieving the transfusion clearly has a terminal ailment.

[Spirit of Hope]

Which would be a good point, accept for the fact that in a pregnancy the fetus is already using the pregnant persons body. There is no thoughts or planning, there is the fact that the fetus is using the pregnant persons body. This is an injury to the pregnant person if they do not want to the fetus to be using their body. The right to self defense does not stop because the aggressor moved from attempting to injure you to actually injuring you.

[quote=https://ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk/busting-the-durable-myth-that-u-s-self-defense-law-uniquely-fails-to-protect-human-life/]When claiming self defense a person does not need to prove the intent of the person whom they were defending themselves against, only that they believed they were facing an unlawful attack, that the use of force was necessary to stop the attack, that they were objectively reasonable in their belief, and that the attack was ongoing or imminent.

Fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission (unlawful attack), abortion removes the fetus (necessity), abortion is the only way to remove fetus (objectively reasonable), the fetus is currently using the pregnant persons body (timing).

Cornells description of attempt clearly contradicts this.

No it doesn't. You are using discussions about prosecution for an attempted crime to discuss a case where there is no attempt. The fetus is not attempting to use the pregnant persons body, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body. This should be an obvious distinction between the cases. This approach also fails to understand that self defense does not require proof about the intent of the aggressor who is being defended against, it only requires objectively reasonable belief that defensive force was necessary to stop the injury.

So to recap, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission. That is an injury. An abortion removes the fetus. That is the defensive force. The only way to remove the fetus is an abortion. There fore an abortion is an objectively reasonable use of force to stop the injury, it is in fact the only way to stop the injury.

Against an attempted crime. An attempt as defined cannot be attributed to a unborn child. I am using your source here and running with you but it clearly does not mean what you are concluding.

Not against an attempted crime, against an attempted injury. The fetus has moved past the attempt to is already injuring the pregnant person though, as it is already using the pregnant persons body. Unless you are going to argue that the right to self defense stops once the aggressor is no longer attempting to injure, but is actually injuring the defendant.

Of course they can withdraw consent. People can give or withdraw consent a 1000 times a day if they want. But they would still be committing an aggressive action and knowingly killing someone. It may not be a crime but it would not be self defense.

So you agree that even if a person consents to something they may remove consent, even if that withdrawal of consent may kill another person. That this isn't a crime, even if they must take an "aggressive action" to assert their withdrawal of consent. Am I understanding your position here correctly?

I am neither ignoring nor permanently side stepping the spoilered. I am on mobile the rest of the weekend and do not feel i can address it properly until monday where I can do a line by line reasonably.

Your argument is based on a definition of a word that does not apply in this case. The fetus is causing harm to the pregnant person, if you want to call that an action or not is immaterial to the fact that the harm is occurring. You additionally fail to understand the burden of proof, the person making the defensive action does not need to prove intent, only that that an objective reasonable person would believe that defensive force is necessary.

This last direct question you posed to me to can answer simply. Abortion is the legal killing of a child. So if we legalize the method of killing someone such as with the removal of a blood transfusion which if done as you laid out i do not believe it is a crime. This is my position and something I have stated planly multiple times. The only reason i do not consider abortion murder or a crime is because it is legal currently. As it is legal, it is not a crime due not to its status as self defense which i will continueto contest due to aggressive action being a prerequisite. Here the person recieving the transfusion clearly has a terminal ailment.

That actually doesn't answer my question. In the hypothetical the person may not be in a terminal condition, simply badly injured and in need of a blood transfusion to survive. What I am trying to get at here, is should the person withdrawing consent be considered a criminal? After all they are taking what you appear to define as an "aggressive action" that is killing another person who has committed no "aggressive action."

If yes that appears to be saying people can not withdraw consent part way through an action.

If no, the difference appears to be that you give children special privilege's not given to others.

[Pale Dawn]

Fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission (unlawful attack), abortion removes the fetus (necessity), abortion is the only way to remove fetus (objectively reasonable), the fetus is currently using the pregnant persons body (timing).



No it doesn't. You are using discussions about prosecution for an attempted crime to discuss a case where there is no attempt. The fetus is not attempting to use the pregnant persons body, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body. This should be an obvious distinction between the cases. This approach also fails to understand that self defense does not require proof about the intent of the aggressor who is being defended against, it only requires objectively reasonable belief that defensive force was necessary to stop the injury.

So to recap, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission. That is an injury. An abortion removes the fetus. That is the defensive force. The only way to remove the fetus is an abortion. There fore an abortion is an objectively reasonable use of force to stop the injury, it is in fact the only way to stop the injury.



Not against an attempted crime, against an attempted injury. The fetus has moved past the attempt to is already injuring the pregnant person though, as it is already using the pregnant persons body. Unless you are going to argue that the right to self defense stops once the aggressor is no longer attempting to injure, but is actually injuring the defendant.

I am neither ignoring nor permanently side stepping the spoilered. I am on mobile the rest of the weekend and do not feel i can address it properly until monday where I can do a line by line reasonably.

Your argument is based on a definition of a word that does not apply in this case. The fetus is causing harm to the pregnant person, if you want to call that an action or not is immaterial to the fact that the harm is occurring. You additionally fail to understand the burden of proof, the person making the defensive action does not need to prove intent, only that that an objective reasonable person would believe that defensive force is necessary.

This last direct question you posed to me to can answer simply. Abortion is the legal killing of a child. So if we legalize the method of killing someone such as with the removal of a blood transfusion which if done as you laid out i do not believe it is a crime. This is my position and something I have stated planly multiple times. The only reason i do not consider abortion murder or a crime is because it is legal currently. As it is legal, it is not a crime due not to its status as self defense which i will continueto contest due to aggressive action being a prerequisite. Here the person recieving the transfusion clearly has a terminal ailment.

That actually doesn't answer my question. In the hypothetical the person may not be in a terminal condition, simply badly injured and in need of a blood transfusion to survive. What I am trying to get at here, is should the person withdrawing consent be considered a criminal? After all they are taking what you appear to define as an "aggressive action" that is killing another person who has committed no "aggressive action."

If yes that appears to be saying people can not withdraw consent part way through an action.

If no, the difference appears to be that you give children special privilege's not given to others.

The person is not terminally ill, you put forth an action that places their life in your hands and then you take action to end their life?

If i have understood you correctly this time, yes that sounds like murder.

A
Edit: Additionally we do have special considerations under the law for children. It is common to give them special treatment compared to adults under the law. That is where lighter sentences come in as well as child abuse and neglect laws.

[Spirit of Hope]

Your argument is based on a definition of a word that does not apply in this case. The fetus is causing harm to the pregnant person, if you want to call that an action or not is immaterial to the fact that the harm is occurring. You additionally fail to understand the burden of proof, the person making the defensive action does not need to prove intent, only that that an objective reasonable person would believe that defensive force is necessary.



That actually doesn't answer my question. In the hypothetical the person may not be in a terminal condition, simply badly injured and in need of a blood transfusion to survive. What I am trying to get at here, is should the person withdrawing consent be considered a criminal? After all they are taking what you appear to define as an "aggressive action" that is killing another person who has committed no "aggressive action."

If yes that appears to be saying people can not withdraw consent part way through an action.

If no, the difference appears to be that you give children special privilege's not given to others.

The person is not terminally ill, you put forth an action that places their life in your hands and then you take action to end their life?

If i have understood you correctly this time, yes that sounds like murder.

So in your world one cannot withdraw consent after an action has begun?

The person is offering life saving medical aid, but has then decided they do not want to continue to offer that aid so they are withdrawing it. They are taking an "action" only in the sense that they are withdrawing consent for their body to be used and taking the appropriate actions to make sure there body is not being used against their will.

Edit: Additionally we do have special considerations under the law for children. It is common to give them special treatment compared to adults under the law. That is where lighter sentences come in as well as child abuse and neglect laws.

If you abuse or neglect an adult under your care then you are going to get in trouble with the law.

Lighter sentences for children is a more real difference, it is based off of children still developing an understanding of how to be a citizen and lack of understanding about the consequences of their actions. It does not mean that children are exempt from the standards we hold others to or that they can can act without consequence.

[Three Galaxies]

It will be a colorful dawn when Pale Dawn gets tired of this thread.

[Katganistan]

Well what else are we going to do? Force women to remain pregnant against their will?

As opposed to killing someone who has taken no aggressive action?

Yes.

Disgusting.

[Katganistan]

They just proved it... by posting "Shit, I'm more of a person than a fetus." An act a 6 week old fetus is indubitably incapable of doing.

So a persons personhood is decided by their level of language skills. Would that make a one year old less of a person than a three year old?
And the fetus stage of development continues through until birth
Where are you getting this definition anyway?

A person is defined as having been born. Pretty simple.
And before 24 weeks, a fetus is unable to feel pain or be at all sentient.


Because if that is not the case then absolutely we should raise taxes on families with fetuses, prevent families with fetuses from seeing R rated movies, charge pregnant families for ALL the people in their hotel room, force pregnant families to by airline tickets for ALL the people in their party, prevent pregnant people from going on any amusement park ride that has a height requirement, make pregnant people ride in car seats in the back of the car facing backwards, et cetera.

We've already seen that under the law, fetuses do not count as people.

[Katganistan]

Well, at least in Three Galaxies abortion is always legal, just as the God Emperor intended.

This is not an IC forum.

[The Black Forrest]

It will be a colorful dawn when Pale Dawn gets tired of this thread.

Wahhh? You don’t like tangents?

[Three Galaxies]

It will be a colorful dawn when Pale Dawn gets tired of this thread.

Wahhh? You don’t like tangents?

Your words confuse me, oh great Khan of Spam.

[Mutualist Chaos]

For when the illegitimi are carborunduming:

They asked me to tell you what it was like to be twenty and pregnant in 1950 and when you tell your boyfriend you're pregnant, he tells you about a friend of his in the army whose girl told him she was pregnant, so he got all his buddies to come and say, "We all f*cked her, so who knows who the father is?" And he laughs at the good joke....

What was it like, if you were planning to go to graduate school and get a degree and earn a living so you could support yourself and do the work you loved—what it was like to be a senior at Radcliffe and pregnant and if you bore this child, this child which the law demanded you bear and would then call "unlawful," "illegitimate," this child whose father denied it ... What was it like? [...]

It's like this: if I had dropped out of college, thrown away my education, depended on my parents ... if I had done all that, which is what the anti-abortion people want me to have done, I would have borne a child for them, ... the authorities, the theorists, the fundamentalists; I would have born a child for them, their child.

But I would not have born my own first child, or second child, or third child.

My children.

The life of that fetus would have prevented, would have aborted, three other fetuses ... the three wanted children, the three I had with my husband—whom, if I had not aborted the unwanted one, I would never have met ... I would have been an "unwed mother" of a three-year-old in California, without work, with half an education, living off her parents.... But it is the children I have to come back to, my children Elisabeth, Caroline, Theodore, my joy, my pride, my loves.

If I had not broken the law and aborted that life nobody wanted, they would have been aborted by a cruel, bigoted, and senseless law. They would never have been born. This thought I cannot bear.

What was it like, in the Dark Ages when abortion was a crime, for the girl whose dad couldn't borrow cash, as my dad could? What was it like for the girl who couldn't even tell her dad, because he would go crazy with shame and rage? Who couldn't tell her mother? Who had to go alone to that filthy room and put herself body and soul into the hands of a professional criminal? — because that is what every doctor who did an abortion was, whether he was an extortionist or an idealist.

You know what it was like for her. You know and I know; that is why we are here. We are not going back to the Dark Ages. We are not going to let anybody in this country have that kind of power over any girl or woman. There are great powers, outside the government and in it, trying to legislate the return of darkness. We are not great powers. But we are the light. Nobody can put us out. May all of you shine very bright and steady, today and always.

---

...Because if there is no Faith and there is no Law then what civilizes men?

Love. Curiosity. Pragmatism. The knowledge that we are all by ourselves on this fragile bit of blue and green surrounded by blackness, radiation, and death, with no gods or aliens to hear our cries and come save us, and so the only way we'll get through it is to help each other get through it together.

[Pale Dawn]

So a persons personhood is decided by their level of language skills. Would that make a one year old less of a person than a three year old?
And the fetus stage of development continues through until birth
Where are you getting this definition anyway?

A person is defined as having been born. Pretty simple.

A person is not defined as such.
A person is actually defined by the linguistic authority for english as the following

"person noun

​ a human as an individual"

and for clarity

"individual noun
​ a person considered separately rather than as part of a group"

Being born is not anywhere in the definition.

And before 24 weeks, a fetus is unable to feel pain or be at all sentient.

A person's worth and right to life is not defined by either their ability to perceive the world or their innocence (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience of the world, especially of evil or unpleasant things). Killing people for their innocence is utterly reprehensible.

Because if that is not the case then absolutely we should raise taxes on families with fetuses

Are you under the impression parents with kids face higher taxes? They don't. They get a tax credit and you know what having that tax credit when my wife was pregnant would have been very helpful so while your assumption is wrong I will take the conclusion that mothers who are pregnant should be viewed as being deserving of the tax credit. Great idea.

, prevent families with fetuses from seeing R rated movies,

R rated means children must be occominied by an adult, not that children aren't allowed. As the child in the mother would naturally have a parent present, this poses no problem. If you meant NC 17, sure that sounds fine.

charge pregnant families for ALL the people in their hotel room

Sure I accept that.

, force pregnant families to by airline tickets for ALL the people in their party,

Did you know you pay by seat not by person and that until a child is 2 they can ride on your lap on a plane for FREE. So you want to change the entire way airlines charge for tickets to punish people with children?

prevent pregnant people from going on any amusement park ride that has a height requirement

I am not sure what rides exactly you mean as the ones I think of that have a height requirement like Rollo coasters are already heavily discouraged for pregnant women so not really the gotcha that you are trying to fine.

make pregnant people ride in car seats in the back of the car facing backwards, et cetera.

That would be much safer for the mother as it is less likely to cause a miscarriage but probably cumbersome to implement.

We've already seen that under the law, fetuses do not count as people.

Did you read the article? This doesn't make the point you claim.

That is a lovely little example of a police officer issuing an incorrect citation. Luckily the judge set the correct precident of dismissing the ticket upon hearing the plantives case and explanation that the child counted as a passenger.
""If a fetus is considered a life before birth, then why doesn't that count as a second passenger?" Bottone told the outlet.

Under Texas's six-week abortion ban, a fetus is considered to be a person when determining whether a crime is committed.

After hearing her case, a judge dismissed her first ticket, but in the following month of July, a then-pregnant Bottone was issued a second ticket for riding in the carpool lane by herself again, according to NPR.

Crouch told NPR that Bottone's second case is still pending. "

As it is this is actually a example of the law viewing the child as a person. If every police offer defined the law you would be right but luckily they may interoperate to the best of their ability but it is for the Judge to decide as he did so correctly. That being said I believe Texas actually has it wrong and that 6 weeks is much much later than it should be.

[Pale Dawn]

I don't think I missed any points but if I did just flag them and I will go back over it.

Yes but as a legal dictionary its use of words and what it means by them matters a lot. Here the key is in fact the use of the word attempted which they actually define very carefully and attribute Intent as a requirement. This would in fact be a more difficult thing to attribute to a unborn child than aggressive action, as an action can be intentional or unintentional.
Breaking it down to the two key types of attemps
" though a party must always cross the line from mere thoughts or preparation to be found guilty of an attempted crime" Here there is a clear indication that someone must be moving beyond preparation and planning to action even if the aggressive action is incomplete.
"a person is guilty of an attempted crime if they took a “substantial step” towards the completion of that crime. The “substantial step” must strongly indicate the person’s intent to commit the crime" Here intent must be shown. As I don't think you or I attribute intents to a child against the mother it cannot apply.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attempt

Which would be a good point, accept for the fact that in a pregnancy the fetus is already using the pregnant persons body. There is no thoughts or planning, there is the fact that the fetus is using the pregnant persons body. This is an injury to the pregnant person if they do not want to the fetus to be using their body. The right to self defense does not stop because the aggressor moved from attempting to injure you to actually injuring you.
[quote=https://ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk/busting-the-durable-myth-that-u-s-self-defense-law-uniquely-fails-to-protect-human-life/]When claiming self defense a person does not need to prove the intent of the person whom they were defending themselves against, only that they believed they were facing an unlawful attack, that the use of force was necessary to stop the attack, that they were objectively reasonable in their belief, and that the attack was ongoing or imminent.

Fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission (unlawful attack), abortion removes the fetus (necessity), abortion is the only way to remove fetus (objectively reasonable), the fetus is currently using the pregnant persons body (timing).

Please go back and look what I wrote. I clearly said I did not believe that intent was a requirement nor in any of the definitions is intent mentioned. In the source you cite intent is stipulated as mattering very much. I did not pull this from a different source but the organization you picked. There is no reason to believe they do not apply intent based on what is presented. You are cherry picking definitions which is not advised in a legal dictionary. If we take their meaning than we need to assume the definition of attempt they provide is the required one. If Cornell applies a different definition of attempt than what I stated please point it out.
Killing a child because the mother doesn’t want to wait until she can put the child up for adoption is not reasonable. If you decide you cannot take care of your child and abandon them you are liable to face a number of charges as you did not wait and take the required reasonable steps to ensure the child remains safe until someone else could take charge of the child’s wellbeing.

The injury need not be intentional for you to be able to use self defense as a defense,

Cornells description of attempt clearly contradicts this.

No it doesn't. You are using discussions about prosecution for an attempted crime to discuss a case where there is no attempt.

And as there is no attempt there can not be said to be any self defense.

The fetus is not attempting to use the pregnant persons body, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body.

Existing. The child is existing. As the child is taking no action aggressive or otherwise but existing in the envirment provided the child is not attacking or hurting the mother. If there are medical conditions that arise you would not lay blame upon the child but understand it to be an ailment that arose without fault.

This should be an obvious distinction between the cases.

Than provide a different definition from Cornel for “attempt”.

This approach also fails to understand that self defense does not require proof about the intent of the aggressor who is being defended against, it only requires objectively reasonable belief that defensive force was necessary to stop the injury.

Which is why I prefer the standard linguistic definition. You picked Cornell. I am running with your source here.

So to recap, the fetus is using the pregnant persons body without permission. That is an injury. An abortion removes the fetus. That is the defensive force. The only way to remove the fetus is an abortion. There fore an abortion is an objectively reasonable use of force to stop the injury, it is in fact the only way to stop the injury.

The child exists in the environment the mother provided. Using Cornells standard of injury the child is not injuring the mother.

“There are three grounds on which personal injury claims can be brought:
1. Negligence is the most common basis for personal injury claims. The basis for liability under negligence stems from an individual’s failures to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. For example, a hunter who carelessly shoots his gun towards other people.
2. Strict Liability holds a defendant liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. For example, if an injury occurs as a result of a defect in a product, the manufacturer is responsible for that injury even though they did not act negligently or intend for their product to cause harm.
3. Intentional Wrongs result from an intentional act of the defendant. Common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
None of these apply. Each require an action

though it may complicate the defense. The requirement is that the person arguing self defense was using force to protect themselves from injury.

Against an attempted crime. An attempt as defined cannot be attributed to a unborn child. I am using your source here and running with you but it clearly does not mean what you are concluding.

Not against an attempted crime, against an attempted injury.

Not according to the above stated requirements for an injury to be cause.

The fetus has moved past the attempt to is already injuring the pregnant person though, as it is already using the pregnant persons body.

You can’t move past something you never Did.

Unless you are going to argue that the right to self defense stops once the aggressor is no longer attempting to injure, but is actually injuring the defendant.

No just going to point out your sources definition of injury matters to. As all my definitions provided require the one causing injury to be taking an aggressive action I trullly do not see how self defense can accurately be applied to someone taking the initial aggressive action as the mother is when she kills her child.

Your argument is based on a definition of a word that does not apply in this case. The fetus is causing harm to the pregnant person, if you want to call that an action or not is immaterial to the fact that the harm is occurring. You additionally fail to understand the burden of proof, the person making the defensive action does not need to prove intent, only that that an objective reasonable person would believe that defensive force is necessary.

Than apply the Cornell definition for this case. As I am provide the entirety of their definition of injury I think you are cherry picking and stretching.

The person is not terminally ill, you put forth an action that places their life in your hands and then you take action to end their life?
If i have understood you correctly this time, yes that sounds like murder.

So in your world one cannot withdraw consent after an action has begun?

The person is offering life saving medical aid, but has then decided they do not want to continue to offer that aid so they are withdrawing it. They are taking an "action" only in the sense that they are withdrawing consent for their body to be used and taking the appropriate actions to make sure there body is not being used against their will.

If you abuse or neglect an adult under your care then you are going to get in trouble with the law.

Lighter sentences for children is a more real difference, it is based off of children still developing an understanding of how to be a citizen and lack of understanding about the consequences of their actions. It does not mean that children are exempt from the standards we hold others to or that they can can act without consequence.

“Courts agree that children may sometimes be held to an adult standard of care? But when? In addition to the third restatement language, there are two popular doctrines about when a child may be held to the ordinary, adult standard of reasonable care.
1.When engaged in adult activities, or in those activities that only adults engage in.

2.Or when engaged in a dangerous activity. “

As both instances of when a child is held to the same standard as adult requires the child to be undertaking an activity I do not see it applying to existing and growing within the child’s mother to apply.

So in your world one cannot withdraw consent after an action has begun?

You can withdraw consent but that does not absolve you from responsibility. You are still culpable for their death regardless if you are guilty of a crime.

The person is offering life saving medical aid, but has then decided they do not want to continue to offer that aid so they are withdrawing it. They are taking an "action" only in the sense that they are withdrawing consent for their body to be used and taking the appropriate actions to make sure there body is not being used against their will.”

Yes, an action that directly leads to another’s death, I am not saying every instance of this would constitute a crime. But the responsibility for their death would still exist and self defense makes no sense.

[Three Galaxies]

No matter how many textwalls I see, I'm not convinced that a fetus is a person. It starts out as a random sperm in the middle of nowhere, then it's a vague cluster of cells, and even with the finest ultrasound device, it's still as unclear as a movie directed by David Lynch. I'm sure there's some kind of Lord up there, but I believe They really don't give a damn about the fate of one... creature. Go ahead and kill it.

I would be more empathetic to a car than to a fetus.

[Katganistan]

So a persons personhood is decided by their level of language skills. Would that make a one year old less of a person than a three year old?
And the fetus stage of development continues through until birth
Where are you getting this definition anyway?

A person is defined as having been born. Pretty simple.

A person is not defined as such.
A person is actually defined by the linguistic authority for english as the following

"person noun

​ a human as an individual"

and for clarity

"individual noun
​ a person considered separately rather than as part of a group"

Being born is not anywhere in the definition.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... ish/person

person
noun [ C ]
us
/ˈpɝː.sən/ uk
/ˈpɜː.sən/
plural people us/ˈpiː.pəl/ uk/ˈpiː.pəl/formal persons
person noun [C] (HUMAN)
Add to word list
A1
a man, woman, or child:
Who was the first person to swim the English Channel?
A meal at the restaurant costs about $70 for two people.
formal Four persons have been charged with the murder.
used when describing someone's character:
She's an extremely kind person.
He's nice enough as a person, but he's not the right man for this job.
informal I don't think of him as a book person (= a person who likes books).
in person
B2
If you do something or go somewhere in person, you do it or go there yourself:
If you can't be there in person, the next best thing is watching it on TV.
See more
Fewer examples

She's sure to get the job she wants - she's a very determined person.
I don't know how it's possible for a person to disappear without trace.
The jury has to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent of a crime.
I think we've chosen the right person to lead the expedition.
Who's the most famous person you've ever interviewed on TV?

SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
person noun [C] (GRAMMAR)
language specialized
used in grammar to describe the verbs and pronouns that refer to the different people in a conversation. The first person ("I" or "we") refers to the person speaking, the second person ("you") refers to the person being spoken to and the third person ("he," "she," "it," or "they") refers to another person or thing being spoken about or described:
The novel is written in the first person, so that the author and narrator seem to be the same.
"Am" is the first person singular of the verb "to be."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... lish/child

A1
a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age:
an eight-year-old child
As a child I didn't eat vegetables.
A small group of children waited outside the door.
Both her children are now married with children of their own.
Jan is married with three young children.
See also
brainchild
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
a child

childWhen I was a child, the summers seemed to go on forever.
boyThere's a new boy in my class.
girlThe girl's name is Sally.
kidI'm off to pick up the kids from school.
kiddieHe's taking all the neighborhood kiddies to the zoo.
little oneHe's got a little one at home.

See more results »
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
disapproving
an adult who behaves badly, like a badly behaved child:
He's such a child if he doesn't get his own way.
a child of something
someone who has been very influenced by a particular period or situation:
Me, I'm a child of the 60s.
See more
More examples
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
Idioms
be child's play
children should be seen and not heard
(great) with child
(Definition of child from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
child | Intermediate English
child
noun [ C ]
us
/tʃɑɪld/
plural children us/ˈtʃɪl·drən/
Add to word list
a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age:
Jan has a three-year-old child and two school-age children.
Now in their 60s, Jerome and Sally have two grown children (= adult sons or daughters).

You were saying?

[Pale Dawn]

A person is not defined as such.
A person is actually defined by the linguistic authority for english as the following

"person noun

​ a human as an individual"

and for clarity

"individual noun
​ a person considered separately rather than as part of a group"

Being born is not anywhere in the definition.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... ish/person

person
noun [ C ]
us
/ˈpɝː.sən/ uk
/ˈpɜː.sən/
plural people us/ˈpiː.pəl/ uk/ˈpiː.pəl/formal persons
person noun [C] (HUMAN)
Add to word list
A1
a man, woman, or child:
Who was the first person to swim the English Channel?
A meal at the restaurant costs about $70 for two people.
formal Four persons have been charged with the murder.
used when describing someone's character:
She's an extremely kind person.
He's nice enough as a person, but he's not the right man for this job.
informal I don't think of him as a book person (= a person who likes books).
in person
B2
If you do something or go somewhere in person, you do it or go there yourself:
If you can't be there in person, the next best thing is watching it on TV.
See more
Fewer examples

She's sure to get the job she wants - she's a very determined person.
I don't know how it's possible for a person to disappear without trace.
The jury has to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent of a crime.
I think we've chosen the right person to lead the expedition.
Who's the most famous person you've ever interviewed on TV?

SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
person noun [C] (GRAMMAR)
language specialized
used in grammar to describe the verbs and pronouns that refer to the different people in a conversation. The first person ("I" or "we") refers to the person speaking, the second person ("you") refers to the person being spoken to and the third person ("he," "she," "it," or "they") refers to another person or thing being spoken about or described:
The novel is written in the first person, so that the author and narrator seem to be the same.
"Am" is the first person singular of the verb "to be."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... lish/child

A1
a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age:
an eight-year-old child
As a child I didn't eat vegetables.
A small group of children waited outside the door.
Both her children are now married with children of their own.
Jan is married with three young children.
See also
brainchild
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
a child

childWhen I was a child, the summers seemed to go on forever.
boyThere's a new boy in my class.
girlThe girl's name is Sally.
kidI'm off to pick up the kids from school.
kiddieHe's taking all the neighborhood kiddies to the zoo.
little oneHe's got a little one at home.

See more results »
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
disapproving
an adult who behaves badly, like a badly behaved child:
He's such a child if he doesn't get his own way.
a child of something
someone who has been very influenced by a particular period or situation:
Me, I'm a child of the 60s.
See more
More examples
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
Idioms
be child's play
children should be seen and not heard
(great) with child
(Definition of child from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
child | Intermediate English
child
noun [ C ]
us
/tʃɑɪld/
plural children us/ˈtʃɪl·drən/
Add to word list
a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age:
Jan has a three-year-old child and two school-age children.
Now in their 60s, Jerome and Sally have two grown children (= adult sons or daughters).

You were saying?

Exactly what I said. The Oxford definition is the greater linguistic authority.

A person is actually defined by the linguistic authority for english as the following

"person noun

​ a human as an individual"

and for clarity

"individual noun
​ a person considered separately rather than as part of a group"
"CHILD:A young person. There is no definitive definition of a child: the term has been used for persons under the age of 14, under the age of 16, and sometimes under the age of 18"
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780192897497.001.0001/acref-9780192897497-e-583#:~:text=1.,an%20...%20...

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

https://dal.ca.libguides.com/English/reference#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20English%20Dictionary%20(OED,across%20the%20English%2Dspeaking%20world.

Killing children of any age is reprehensible.

[Three Galaxies]

Except it doesn't count as killing when the "child" hasn't been born yet.

[Ifreann]

Lol, there is no linguistic authority for English.

[Pale Dawn]

Lol, there is no linguistic authority for English.

Oh please. I clearly gave a source and a quote established the context and the way Oxford holds more authority over other dictionaries. I did not claim they regulated anything.

[Pale Dawn]

Except it doesn't count as killing when the "child" hasn't been born yet.

It does count as killing and it can count as homicide in 38 states if you kill a pregnant woman and her unborn child. You are charged with a double homicide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US,_feticide_laws.svg-Wiki does a good job in breaking it down.

[Ifreann]

Lol, there is no linguistic authority for English.

Oh please. I clearly gave a source and a quote established the context and the way Oxford holds more authority over other dictionaries. I did not claim they regulated anything.

Your source for the Oxford English Dictionary being the linguistic authority is Oxford. You're at "The Bible says the Bible is true" levels of reasoning here.

Lol. Lmao. Rofl, even.

[Three Galaxies]

Lol, there is no linguistic authority for English.

I should create one. Then I could legally classify a fetus as something other than a child.

No, not really. That would be pretty stupid.

[Pale Dawn]

Oh please. I clearly gave a source and a quote established the context and the way Oxford holds more authority over other dictionaries. I did not claim they regulated anything.

Your source for the Oxford English Dictionary being the linguistic authority is Oxford. You're at "The Bible says the Bible is true" levels of reasoning here.

Lol. Lmao. Rofl, even.

Trees <---You
Forest<----- Harvard and Princeton also see oxford as the best source. But laugh on i guess.

[Three Galaxies]

Except it doesn't count as killing when the "child" hasn't been born yet.

It does count as killing and it can count as homicide in 38 states if you kill a pregnant woman and her unborn child. You are charged with a double homicide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US,_feticide_laws.svg-Wiki does a good job in breaking it down.

"Lol", said Three Galaxies, "Lmao".

Where I live, abortion is perfectly legal and no one is planning to change that. And even if I did live in one of those 38 states, I would risk my freedom by destroying evidence, covering tracks, providing safe hiding places, anything and everything to protect women who had abortions.

[Port Carverton]

Lol, there is no linguistic authority for English.

There should be. Spain and France do it, why shouldn't Britain?