Laws declaring the unborn as humans

In case anyone is unaware, many states do indeed define the unborn as people, as evidenced by the way the describe the unborn using "person", "human being" or "homo sapiens" .

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

The following are all direct quotes:

Alabama: defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability

Alaska: defines an unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development.

Arizona: The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.

Indiana: states that killing a fetus at any stage of development is murder unless the woman terminates her own pregnancy

California: defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus

Florida: the state defines unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Georgia: defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.

Idaho: The law defines "embryo" or "fetus" as any human in utero.

Kansas: defines "unborn child" as a living individual organism of the species Homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth. The law specifies that "person" and "human being" shall also mean an unborn child
Arkansas: defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child at any stage of development.

Kentucky: Rev. Stat. § 507A.010 et seq. (2004) define "unborn child" as a member of the species Homo sapiens in utero from conception onward

Louisiana: defines "person" as a human being from the moment of fertilization

Massachusetts: a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term "person" in the vehicular homicide statute.

Ohio: The law applies to a person, which includes an "unborn member of the species Homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."

South Carolina: The law defines "unborn child" as a child in utero, and "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any state of development, who is carried in the womb.

South Dakota: defines homicide as murder in the first degree to include the death of a person or any other human being, including an unborn child.

Tennessee "individuals" and "another person" to include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero

Texas: The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

Utah: a person commits criminal homicide if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.

The reason I'm posting this is because arguing over whether or not the unborn is a person or human is waste of time. As you can see from the link, many states already consider the unborn to be people/human beings.

But ultimately, that doesn't matter. Let's say scientists one day declare "humans" as beginning from conception: should abortion be banned in the case? No. The issue is the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body. The consequences of a denying women this, regardless of whether the life in her is technically human or not, will only lead to bigger problems for society; this includes the mother, the mother's family, the unwanted children, the the public at large which has to deal with the repercussions of unwanted children, which could include an increase in crime, poverty, etc.

@vivify said
The reason I'm posting this is because arguing over whether or not the unborn is a person or human is waste of time. As you can see from the link, many states already consider the unborn to be people/human beings.

But ultimately, that doesn't matter. Let's say scientists one day declare "humans" as beginning from conception: should abortion be banned in the case? No. ...[text shortened]... with the repercussions of unwanted children, which could include an increase in crime, poverty, etc.

@no1marauder said
No. they don't nor can they under settled Constitutional law:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,

[157]

for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Foo ...[text shortened]... tes not a single one has claimed that a fetus is a person and thus has rights equal to human beings.

@no1marauder said
No. they don't nor can they under settled Constitutional law:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,

[157]

for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Foo ...[text shortened]... tes not a single one has claimed that a fetus is a person and thus has rights equal to human beings.

Luckily the abortion issue larger than the US and its trailer park communities.

@vivify said
In case anyone is unaware, many states do indeed define the unborn as people, as evidenced by the way the describe the unborn using "person", "human being" or "homo sapiens" .

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

The following are all direct quotes:

Alabama: defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an ...[text shortened]... causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.

@no1marauder

Constitutional law? I did not know that judges were allowed by the Constitution to create laws.

@eladar said
@no1marauder

Constitutional law? I did not know that judges were allowed by the Constitution to create laws.

@suzianne said
This isn't the "Wrong end of the stick" thread.

@vivify said
You're changing goalposts. As you can see from the OP, many states, like Louisiana among others, explicitly declare a person to include the unborn. Your inclusion of the term "equal rights" is a red herring. Despite those same states still persevering the right to an abortion, those states still explicitly state the unborn are persons, and have rights that are only given to human beings.

@eladar said
@no1marauder

Constitutional law? I did not know that judges were allowed by the Constitution to create laws.

@no1marauder said
They aren't given any specific rights "that are only given to human beings":

§ 353-a. Aggravated cruelty to animals

1. A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty.

https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ny-cruelty-consolidated-cruelty-statutes#s353a

@no1marauder said
"Law" encompasses more than statutes created by Legislatures.

@vivify said
You're changing goalposts. As you can see from the OP, many states, like Louisiana among others, explicitly declare a person to include the unborn. Your inclusion of the term "equal rights" is a red herring. Despite those same states still persevering the right to an abortion, those states still explicitly state the unborn are persons, and have rights that are only given to human beings.