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.
I read an interesting comment the other day: the person, a medical doctor (on twitter), pointed out that at six weeks in the womb there may indeed be a heartbeat, but no brain activity.
Said doctor said that if the law becomes that one may not cause the death of an individual (including, per these new laws, the unborn), that has a detectable heart beat, then the law may, unintentionally, prohibit 'unhooking the machine' for adults that, have a detectable heartbeat, but no brain activity.
We had to do such for my brother-in-law ten years ago. He was on a ventilator (he could not breath on his own; a fetus does not breath on its own), he had a heartbeat, but no discernible brain activity. His wife, my sister, finally made the difficult decision to disconnect him from the ventilator, causing his death within two hours.
Again, it is possible that some of these new laws may have unintended consequences. I found it an interesting thought.
Since organs for transplant are taken from brain dead persons with a heartbeat, this could also end the transplant program. Hence all those with cystic fibrosis will have no hope of a life saving transplant. Dick Cheney would be dead already. Many will actually die as a result.
I think of Jahi. Her mother refused to believe she was dead because her heart was beating. Jahi could have saved many other lives though donation of her organs. Instead, she was kept on delayed decomposition measures such as a ventilator, artificial nutrition, and extensive medications. She decomposed regardless of her beating heart and was eventually laid to rest. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/healt...ath/index.html
I think these laws will backfire. These states will lose a lot of women of childbearing years who may have relocated to them to work or attend college.
I also think women who do remain in those states will start filing suits for other perks to their unborn children being declared people at 6 weeks. Life insurance, child support, early FMLA, not being imprisoned while pregnant because the fetus did not commit a crime... there's a laundry list of rights women can start demanding for the unborn they're forced to carry by laws like these.
It's not going to end well.
I don't see how this point would even be particularly relevant considering they have plenty of prison programs now where women are actually allowed to keep their babies with them in prisons, these babies did not commit any crimes, as far as I know anyway.
"Prison nurseries give incarcerated mothers a chance to raise their babies — behind bars"
And, Georgia wants to punish people who leave the state and get an abortion, so please point to where that is allowed by law. You cannot punish people who smoke pot in Colorado or people who drink under 18 in Europe. You can only go by what is allowed in a given state. Once people leave that state, they can do whatever is allowed in whatever state or country they visit.
Better load the U-haul and never go back If you don't want to be indicted as an accomplice in Murder.
Row v. Wade just proved that the federal government had no say. Federal it cannot be made illegal throughout the land. It is a 10th amendment issue, left to the states or the people directly.
I think these laws will backfire. These states will lose a lot of women of childbearing years who may have relocated to them to work or attend college.
I also think women who do remain in those states will start filing suits for other perks to their unborn children being declared people at 6 weeks. Life insurance, child support, early FMLA, not being imprisoned while pregnant because the fetus did not commit a crime... there's a laundry list of rights women can start demanding for the unborn they're forced to carry by laws like these.
It's not going to end well.
Also:
-would a pregnant woman claim an exemption/credit on their tax returns for a "child" that was alive and then died through miscarriage?
-should a miscarried fetus be issued a death certificate and be interred?
-would a pregnant woman claim an exemption/credit on their tax returns for a "child" that was alive and then died through miscarriage?
-should a miscarried fetus be issued a death certificate and be interred?
Is that like the old lady that out lives both her husbands and buried them both in the back yard, so the social security and retirement checks would still be coming in?
Her fist husband had been dead 12 years and the latest 2.
The abortion laws are being done to force it to the Supreme Court while Republicans have control. The truth is, I don't care if abortion is illegal in Mississippi. Just don't make me pay for the result. They should not be able to federalize the costs when their schools and hospitals are filled poverty stricken, likely drug addicted babies and mothers. If that's what they want, they can pay for it. The ones with money will simply go to another state where it's legal.
Abortion laws never stop (or even slow down) the amount of abortions being had. White, wealthy women will get DX with endometriosis and fibroids to ensure that their D&C is covered by insurance, and poor women will go underground and either take unregulated medications bought on the internet from a foreign country, will seek out unlicensed butchers to do the same procedure WWW (White wealthy women) get in the hospitals or will perform acts of self harm in hopes of inducing a miscarriage. There is NO GOOD that will come from this law, even in the self righteous name of "saving the babies".
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.