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.
Obviously, the good people of Iowa are hoping that 1) the case is accepted for review by the US Supreme Court (not a sure thing at all), and 2) if accepted, that the Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, hence concluding that there is no implied right to privacy (the basis for Roe).
I would also submit that while there are Supreme Court justices that may disagree with the underlying rationale of Roe, that does not necessarily mean that said Justices would be willing to overturn the decision. Those that attain the Highest Court in the Land develop a new perspective regarding the continuity of law. Most justices do not think that prior decisions by the Court should be overturned simply due to a change in personnel.
Yes, it does happen, but it is rare. Recall that Brown v. the Kansas Board of Education overturned a case from the 1890s (Plessy v. Ferguson, if I recall the spelling correctly), but it took 60 years for the court to do so (and even then, one Justice dissented, while another sat it out).
As it turns out - self-professed Christian women obtain abortions.
Quote:
70 percent of the women they surveyed considered themselves Christians.
Over 50 percent of the surveyed women who attend church regularly have kept their abortions secret from their church community.
40 percent of women surveyed feel that churches are not equipped to help them make decisions about unwanted pregnancies.
Within these surprising findings lies an unsettling symptom of anti-abortion culture, which often shames women who terminate pregnancies. According to the research, roughly a third of women (regardless of their religious beliefs) cite the father of the unborn baby as the most influential person in their decision to have an abortion.
They already recognize a fetus as a separate legal life, whenever a pregnant woman is killed, they always charge 2 counts of murder, if the fetus was not really considered a life, they could not impose the 2nd murder charge.
They already recognize a fetus as a separate legal life, whenever a pregnant woman is killed, they always charge 2 counts of murder, if the fetus was not really considered a life, they could not impose the 2nd murder charge.
No, they always don't. It's state by state and viability plays a role.
If a fetus is not a human life, fetal homicide laws should be abolished. It makes no sense that a mother can murder a fetus but no one else can. Equal Protections Clause.
Agreed. If were to drink and drive and accidentally kill a pregnant women, I would be responsible for two deaths (no matter what stage in her pregnancy). How is this so if a fetus isn't a human life? As far as I know, our "child in utero" law...claims it is.
They already recognize a fetus as a separate legal life, whenever a pregnant woman is killed, they always charge 2 counts of murder, if the fetus was not really considered a life, they could not impose the 2nd murder charge.
Correct. And fetal homicide isn't only charged if both die. If the woman lives but the fetus is killed, the crime of fetal homicide, murder, is still charged. That disparity needs to be removed. It violates the Equal Protections Clause. If a mother can kill a fetus, so can anyone else.
Will these children, who will be born with severe life threatening and life limiting disabilities, also be required to have all life support measures done after birth? Did those backwoods legislatures even consider that? Would a "Do Not Resuscitate" order after birth be in conflict with the fetal heartbeat bill? If life support measures are required after birth, who pays?
Quote:
Making the decision to put Zach on a No Code was difficult, but I was grateful to have that choice. As the mother of a child like Zachariah, I know that there is something called quality of life. And Zach, who was profoundly brain-damaged, who spent his days in wheelchairs and beds, with feeding tubes that made him gag and a body cruelly curved by scoliosis – well, he did not have it. As painful as it was to sign a form issuing a No Code for your child, more painful still would have been to go on with procedures that would have prolonged his life.
Will these children, who will be born with severe life threatening and life limiting disabilities, also be required to have all life support measures done after birth? Did those backwoods legislatures even consider that? Would a "Do Not Resuscitate" order after birth be in conflict with the fetal heartbeat bill? If life support measures are required after birth, who pays?
You presume all abortions are performed due to severely health-compromised fetuses. What's the actual percentage of severely ill fetuses out of all abortions performed? What percentage of abortions are merely just for the sake of the woman's convenience compared to the abortion of severely ill fetuses?
You presume all abortions are performed due to severely health-compromised fetuses. What's the actual percentage of severely ill fetuses out of all abortions performed? What percentage of abortions are merely just for the sake of the woman's convenience compared to the abortion of severely ill fetuses?
As we all know the cost of medical care for life support measures is astronomical. I ask again, will all born babies be required to have all life support measures done and if so, who pays?
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.
