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.
Living being or human being...or do you just glide form one to the other while hoping no one notices? And while you're at it, you might want to go back and reread those laws to see how many use the word "murder" and how many refer to "fetal homicide" instead. See how many of these laws contain the word "viability" or other word or words used to mean the same thing. Then see how many such laws actually turn out to be extensions of a woman's long-established property interest in a fetus. Anytime you find a reference to a woman's expressed, implied, or demonstrated interest in continuing to carry the fetus, you're in a new ballpark, and it isn't the one you think you're in.
Many use the word "Murder"
And, the charge can be brought once the child is (depending upon the state) 6 to 12 weeks in gestation
And at least in Arizona, a charge of Murder was brought even when the Mother sought not to charge. The Defendant was convicted BTW and was sentenced to, I believe it was 10 years in the Arizona State Prison.
Is "many" equal to 25? As in the half the states, as originally claimed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
And, the charge can be brought once the child is (depending upon the state) 6 to 12 weeks in gestation
In a few states (including your own, btw), a charge may be brought at any stage of development at all, leaving the state in a prosecutorial position in the event of the death of a woman who at autopsy is found to have been pregnant. Here, severe sentence may be imposed for causing the death of a fertilzied egg, an act regularly occurring within the state's IVF clinics as part of standard medical procedure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
And at least in Arizona, a charge of Murder was brought even when the Mother sought not to charge. The Defendant was convicted BTW and was sentenced to, I believe it was 10 years in the Arizona State Prison.
The law is applied by the state, not by the victim, and this answer doesn't go anywhere near the original question. But never mind. We can test this ballpark of yours merely by asking whether the act which resulted in conviction in the case you cite above could have been prosecuted at all had it been committed by the "unborn child's mother"? For purposes of this question, I believe we can assume that this oxymoronic term refers to the pregnant woman. A law that recognized a fetus as a human being would of course protect it from the acts of such a mother. A law that protected a woman's property interests might well excuse such a mother's own actions. Can you tell us which it is in Arizona?
This is the ultimate hot topic thread... Why do Democrats support the killing of fetuses (living, breathing human beings) and yet they always raise hell about executing the most bloodthirsty murderers???
Someone please explain this paradox before the crazies come swooping down and hijack this thread...
I have questions about why Republicans want to save the babies,then not support legislation that can better their mothers situations so they can care for them. Why do some Republicans who claim to be Christian think it's ok to go to war with a country who hasn't done us any harm and murder innocent men,woman,and children?
However, not everyone sees children as a gift. There are numerous couples who vow to be childfree for as long as they live, and who swear that they will never, ever allow someone with their DNA into this world, there are some who just simply cannot handle children, and even more who actually have a phobia of going through childbirth.
Until we create something similar to an artificial womb, there will always be a need for abortion. Call it what you will, but it will always be there.
I know I don't want kids. Neither did my mother. She should have had an abortion.
It is a travesty for a woman to give birth to a child that she doesn't want. It will never be cared for in the way it deserves.
I have questions about why Republicans want to save the babies,then not support legislation that can better their mothers situations so they can care for them. Why do some Republicans who claim to be Christian think it's ok to go to war with a country who hasn't done us any harm and murder innocent men,woman,and children?
I have a related question. If we expect these SINGLE mothers to carry these children to term, can they ALL go on welfare--and not be REQUIRED to work, since the kids they bore are the MOST important job they will have in their lives?
Women should stay home with the kids, while the man works. Nothing wrong with "tradition".
I know I don't want kids. Neither did my mother. She should have had an abortion.
It is a travesty for a woman to give birth to a child that she doesn't want. It will never be cared for in the way it deserves.
So you regret having been born then??
No, it's a travesty that a woman who doesn't want a child to throw it away rather than give it to one of the 2 million couples on a waiting list to adopt. No one has to be a mother if they don't wish. They can either do something permanent to prevent pregnancy or if by chance they become pregnant, they can give it up for adoption.
I have a related question. If we expect these SINGLE mothers to carry these children to term, can they ALL go on welfare--and not be REQUIRED to work, since the kids they bore are the MOST important job they will have in their lives?
Women should stay home with the kids, while the man works. Nothing wrong with "tradition".
There is nothing wrong with tradition,however the men do not always do their part therefore it is up to the mothers.
I do not think unwed mothers should NOT be required to work or further their education so they can take care of the children, I am just always amazed that the majority of Republican leaders will always vote NO for funds to help.
So you regret having been born then??
No, it's a travesty that a woman who doesn't want a child to throw it away rather than give it to one of the 2 million couples on a waiting list to adopt. No one has to be a mother if they don't wish. They can either do something permanent to prevent pregnancy or if by chance they become pregnant, they can give it up for adoption.
Adoption doesn't solve unwanted pregnancy, nor does it solve the problems with those who have actual phobias of childbirth or those who do not want to pass along their genes period. Not to mention, if one does not want to have the child, then why put them through the process of giving birth and adoption? It's not a travesty, it's just life.
And, there's no shortage of children waiting to be adopted.
If abortion is a "Right" for women because it's their body then why can't a terminally ill patient have the right to choose what they want to do with their body? Just curious, why is it ok in the beginning of life but not at the end of life to to have the "Right" to make such a choice?
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.
