Rapist using Kansas Abortion Law Loophole

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: muzzleflash

The custom of counting age from birth day is ancient and so therefore the precedent.

That depends on the country as has already been stated.

We are talking about the United States, and I suppose by extension UK law and customs since we based our system on theirs.

I'm sure the parents of this girl can school this rapist behind closed doors, on the facts concerning birth certificates. They may need to use a blunt object to help him understand, but I'm sure he'll see the error in his ways.

So does that mean that in these states the death rate is unexpectedly high due to miscarriages counting as accidental deaths? It would seem like they would have to be reported as such. Cause they (miscarriages) are a lot more common than people (mostly men) realize.

a reply to: Edumakated

But in a court, it matters because the law is based on definitions.


So when it comes to voting in those states, is from birth or conception age?

a reply to: JAGStorm

No way can that stand. Age is set from date of birth, not conception. Plus, if she states she didn't consent, age doesn't matter anyway.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: JAGStorm

No way can that stand. Age is set from date of birth, not conception. Plus, if she states she didn't consent, age doesn't matter anyway.

Age matters even without consent because charges are different for raping a minor versus an adult

The consent laws must be written as "X years of age" instead of "X years since date of birth". Damn semantics.

Right. Are we going to start questioning everyone driving, smoking, drinking, voting, serving in the armed forces? They are all age related restrictions.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: JAGStorm

No way can that stand. Age is set from date of birth, not conception. Plus, if she states she didn't consent, age doesn't matter anyway.

Age matters even without consent because charges are different for raping a minor versus an adult

It can matter for the severoty of the charges, but not for the case being rape. Not when she didn't consent.

originally posted by: Edumakated


Yeah, but if the law says life begins at conception, then technically everyone is 9 months older. It is a slimy move by a lawyer, but this is the difference between law and common sense.

I realize you are aware of this, but technically everyone would be "some" amount older. Many people are born early by as much as several months. Thus the reason we keep track of age by the date of birth and almost any legal document refers to DOB.

Can you imagine the mess of trying to back out ages from an unknown DOC? All the defining law really does is clarify that if there is a fetus, it is a "life".

How do lawyers like this live with themselves? SMH

originally posted by: okrian
So does that mean that in these states the death rate is unexpectedly high due to miscarriages counting as accidental deaths? It would seem like they would have to be reported as such. Cause they (miscarriages) are a lot more common than people (mostly men) realize.

Although they have essentially defined any fetus as a life, I don't believe any states track "undocumented" births or deaths. If there is no paper on a person, there is no way for a birth or death to get into the system. It isn't as if death statistics are compiled using tally marks.

While technically a death in the eyes of that law, there just isn't any way to capture a miscarriage. Though with lawyers like this, it may reduce the incentive to test for and announce pregnancies so early like people do nowadays. Imagine some disgruntled ex claiming negligent homicide and using a facebook announcement and pregnancy test as proof of life after a miscarriage.

I think the definition is accurate, but the spirit of the law needs to be upheld and sanity kept in the equation.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Yeah, but if the law says life begins at conception, then technically everyone is 9 months older. It is a slimy move by a lawyer, but this is the difference between law and common sense.

There is a vast difference between 'life' and 'being alive' and 'living'.

There is 'life' which cannot exist or be alive without the mother (incubator)

There is living (existing) only enabled by medical intervention.


^^^that^^^ is the distinction between 'life' but a far cry from actually 'living' ?