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.
Are yo aware that many fetal homicide laws were enacted following Roe v Wade precisely in order to set up the argument you are now making?
Do such fetal homicide laws still exist? Yes, indeed, they do. Has SCOTUS struck them down? No, they have not. Therein lies the conflict. You can't have it both ways. Fetal homicide can't be illegal if abortions are legal based on privacy as SCOTUS has ruled. Filing fetal homicide charges makes a woman's pregnancy a matter of public record thereby violating her right to privacy on which Roe is based.
I'm all in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. No justification for allowing the murder of innocent unborn children. AND don't tell me unborn children are not people. I seem to remember that Scott Peterson, was convicted of killing two people, his wife and his unborn child.
The hell it doesn't. Who has any right to know a woman is pregnant? Filing homicide charges is a violation of the woman's privacy. It makes the pregnancy a matter of public record.
The fact that NO ONE has a right to privacy about a crime committed against them once it has been reported and/or prosecuted does not dilute or override a woman's right to privacy concerning her healthcare decisions.
The fact that NO ONE has a right to privacy about a crime committed against them once it has been reported and/or prosecuted does not dilute or override a woman's right to privacy concerning her healthcare decisions.
Actually, it does. The AG can prosecute fetal homicide charges without the pregnant woman's consent, thereby violating her right to privacy. Roe is based solely on right to privacy.
That has nothing to do with violating a woman's right to privacy concerning her healthcare decisions.
You're wrong. It's about the right to privacy regarding a medical condition/status. Women lose that right when a fetal homicide case is prosecuted. Therefore, since the right is demonstrably invalid, the Roe ruling is faulty and should be revisited.
Same way SCOTUS-condoned legal abortion is based on privacy.
I still don't get you. I can't think of much that more exemplifies privacy than your decision as to whether to keep on living your life in the face of, for instance, terminal cancer.
I still don't get you. I can't think of much that more exemplifies privacy than your decision as to whether to keep on living your life in the face of, for instance, terminal cancer.
I agree, so why is assisted suicide illegal but killing one's fetus isn't? Both should be protected by the Roe stare decisis of privacy, yet they aren't.
Furthermore, prosecution for fetal homicide lets the cat out of the bag and violates the pregnant mother's privacy by documenting the pregnancy in public records. Why is that allowed?
You're wrong. It's about the right to privacy regarding a medical condition/status. Women lose that right when a fetal homicide case is prosecuted. Therefore, since the right is demonstrably invalid, the Roe ruling is faulty and should be revisited.
Shrug. Fetal homicide is often an accompaniment to femicide. In which case, it has nothing to do with Roe v Wade, but with homicide law.
It's prosecuting a pregnant woman for fetal homicide that should be revisited in light of Roe v Wade. Since those laws often post-date Roe v Wade.
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.