[quote="wealllbe20"]Okay, I get that.
What that statue is intending to do (only by the wording not looking at intent of congress) is to protect the rights of newborn babies.
But yes, if you are getting to that the acts of congress never specifically mentions you or I as "non-infants" then that makes sense.
Is that kind of what you are trying to say?
Recognize that in (a), the word "means" is not anywhere to be found. And, It does not say
The word "person" means "human being", "child", and "individual", and may include every infant member of the species **** sapien who is born alive at any stage of development.
the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant member of the species **** sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
So the way I read that sentence is
Whenever one sees the words (not the thing the words apply to)
"person", "human being", "child", and "individual", one must include every infant member of the species **** sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.Shall include
(that is exclusionary) it doesn't say "also includes" or "including" with the word shall, (which means must)in front of include, clarifies and includes rule (6) of "Rules and Principals of Statutory Interpretation", Which in turn excludes anyone that is no longer an infant.
And (b) clarifies that when those words are used, it only applies to infants that are born alive at any stage of the gestation period that shows that the infant is alive, and since they use the word infant, that according to every definition of the term infant I have seen refers to the time up until about 1 year old.
Their initial intent very well may have been to protect newborn babies, but, as can be seen through history that once politicians get one foot in the door, they don't want to relinquish that control that they have.
And are happy to allow ignorant people to believe that those words as they have been codified still(or do)(though erroneously) apply to grown up people.
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a personhttp://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93