Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Earlier you stated that once viable the baby had legal rights,but it is still not born...
Which is it?
Obviously what I think and what is the LAW are 2 different things. IN one statement I was stating what I THINK. The other is what THE LAW permits.
I believe once the baby is viable (earliest has been 22 weeks or so) it's right should trump the mothers rights, but at the moment, those 2 moments are not exactly the same since Abortions are technically legal til 24 weeks.. So therefore what I think and what is the LAW are not the same.
There are laws protecting unborn babies from murder when the MOTHER was planning on delivering the baby full term. Even if the fetus is only weeks old. Because only the MOTHER can decide if she is having a baby, or having an abortion.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[2]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
We are discussing abortion by choice. If you want to restrict the choice to 12 weeks or less.........are you willing to have the government pay for them?
I enjoy your posts!
You know, the funny thing is, those people do not really see that THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR PRENATAL CARE for the SAME women who may have an abortion. Why not pay for the abortion?????
I MUCH prefer to pay a small amount for an abortion than a lifetime amount for welfare, medical, schooling, food assistance, and whatever other resources these live births may end up using.
And to tie into the actual topic of this thread. The women who saw this doctor were past the point of "abortion on demand" - yet he still did the procedure. That doesn't say anything about abortions in general, just that this doctor is a monster who murdered perfectly viable children.
He wasn't reported to the authorities...they SAW how bad it was but let it remain in business...
The statement was: his facility did not meet NAF’s standards for quality care.
I do not know what authority they have, perhaps they dropped the ball, but you are making assumptions. The DA's office is the one that take the blame for failing these women. 20+ years of complaints, and no investigation. Shameful.
You say that like you truly believe those pregnant women were murderers, knowing full well they were getting unsafe and illegal procedures. More likely they they didn't know those things and were victims of their poverty, of a poor education and of a clinic that didn't abide by the laws of the land.
Without knowing each of their stories, I can't say for sure. I'm pretty sure a few of them could be classified as "monsters" - simply by rule of percentages. However, any woman who maliciously kills a child who is capable of living outside of her body is technically a murderer.
For instance, Tammy Skinner, whom I read about back in 2006. Upon her contractions starting, she shot herself in the stomache in order to kill the child. She then lied to officers, saying that her boyfriend/baby-daddy did it. That is a monster.
But alas, without knowing individual stories of why or how each woman ended up at the doorsteps to this "doctor", I can't and won't judge them.
Are you really being serious? OF COURSE money is a HUGE factor in whether you can AFFORD to have a child.
Conservatives CONSTANTLY complain that people who cannot afford children have them and then drain the gov't for Aid and Services.
But they also don't want women to have the option of Abortion.
You can't have it all, so which is it? Because you have a poor woman who is pregnant, either you want her to have this baby and be on welfare, or you want her to abort and not drain taxpayers??
The Cost of Raising a Child - NYTimes.com The U.S.D.A. numbers are in, and they aren’t pretty. It now costs an average middle-income American family $222,360 to raise a child from birth to 18. That’s 22 percent higher than it was in 1960, adjusted for inflation.
I haven't checked in on this thread in several days. It's gone around and around in the same circles I see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
