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.
Why should they? Both fetal homicide and abortion are the intentional killing of a human by another human. As it stands, since women can legally kill their fetuses, it's unconstitutional for anyone else to be prosecuted for doing the same. Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill a fetus, or no one can. Can't have it both ways.
That's not how the equal protection clause works.
The Equal Protection Clause mandates that individuals in similar situations must be treated equally under the law. Abortion and a mother being assaulted, and that assault inducing an unwanted abortion, are not similar situations.
In abortion, there is a planned death of the organism engaged in by the mother in a manner that might very well assist the organism.
In forced abortion through assault or other mean's, the mother's plans are messed up, harming both the mother and quite possibly the would-be child through it missing out on a life planned in advance for it.
There has always been rape and murder and always will be. Them being illegal, won't change that.
Is this the logic game we're playing now?
But if we ban rape and murder it won't result in "unsafe" murders still happening. It would just result in less rape and murder than if they were legal.
Why should they? Both fetal homicide and abortion are the intentional killing of a human by another human. As it stands, since women can legally kill their fetuses, it's unconstitutional for anyone else to be prosecuted for doing the same. Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill a fetus, or no one can. Can't have it both ways.
You can absolutely have it both ways, because a fetus is not a human person. Not existentially. Not legally. Homicide does not apply to cell masses that are not and have never been sentient, conscious, cognizant, aware, self-aware, viable, or biologically autonomous.
The only thing wrong with early term abortion is it’s expensive and like any surgical procedure, has some risk associated with it. The morning after pill is a far better option.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 05-23-2021 at 06:47 AM..
I'm talking about making them unnecessary. There are reasons most women don't face the abortion question.
There is no possible way to make abortions unnecessary. Even if we were all asexuals who never engaged in intercourse, except specifically to produce a child there would still be people who got pregnant then developed incurable diseases, or genetic disorders or major birth defects or other issues.
There absolutely is a moral quandary. You saying there isn't, doesn't make it so. Referring to the child that has a beating heart and it's own DNA, as nothing more than an abscessed tooth, makes it seem like you're trying to convince yourself, more than anyone else. Perhaps, were you a death escort? Also, you never answered my question: What is wrong about being anti-abortion?
There is no child. The 12-16 week old fetal cell cluster has never developed to the point of being an entity that is capable of being conscious, aware, self-aware, sentient, feeling, or experiencing. And as such, it can be removed for any or no reason at the pleasure of the woman. Beating hearts are irrelevant. A heart is a fluid pump, nothing more. DNA is an organic acid, nothing more. Can you stop parroting the mystic arguments that are devoid of logic, reason, and reality?
You're wrong. 16 week fetuses make horrible facial expressions, and actively move AWAY from a needle poking them.
You're just wrong on this one, and probably could benefit from researching before you post your incorrect guesses on public forums.
Pain awareness is ABSOLUTELY present before 29 weeks.
My babies, at 16 weeks, would jump when they heard a sharp noise, like a loud dog barking, and one instance moved around continuously in distress when the fire alarm went off in a building. The fire alarm thing was about 18 weeks.
Awareness and reactions are different things.
Studies suggest that the neural pathways associated with pain
perception are not fully developed until well into the third
trimester.3–5 There is increasing evidence that the fetus never
experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept in a
continuous state of sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation by the
presence of its chemical environment.6
This state can suppress
higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external
stimuli. Although abortion rights opponents claim that studies
finding increased stress hormones in the fetus in response to
noxious stimuli mean that the fetus feels pain, this is untrue.
Those same hormones may also be triggered by stress during
non-painful situations, and one recent study found no increase
in stress hormones in the fetus after exposure to noxious stimuli.7
Such studies, therefore, do not support the existence of fetal pain https://www.ibisreproductivehealth.o...pain_Apr18.pdf
Fetal homicide has already been codified as the murder of a human by another human. That already legally classifies a fetus as a defenseless human.
The law throughout the vast majority of western civilization allows for legal removal of early term fetal cell masses. It does not recognize the fetal cell mass as a human person deserving of any independent protection. Which is rational and correct.
Some jurisdictions have passed laws that are essentially irrational, but are meant to add to the punitive load heaped on brigands, criminals, and beasts who commit violent crime on pregnant women. While laws of this type that make the early fetus a separate human being are illogical and not based in reality, I am fine with some extra punishment being visited upon a monster that would violently attack a pregnant woman.
To you, maybe. To me, the potential for a human being, weeks away from independent life, counts for more than a tooth.
And I'm not talking about 12 - 16 weeks old fetuses. I'm talking about later abortions. There should be NO abortions allowed for fetuses past 24 weeks (that's six months gestation - and viable) except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.
I'll just refer again to my previous statements about genetic disorders and birth defects. 24 weeks should be the minimum abortion is nationally legalized, at least for birth defects and genetic disorders, in any semi-reasonable society. With ultrasounds happening at 19-20 weeks, that would at least provide 4 weeks to allow for abortions.
However...that won't always be enough time and some birth defects are discovered later.
I'm pointing that out, because we had an actual bill get pretty far through the government that would have made it nationally illegal to get an abortion after 20 weeks, if the fetus is missing most of their important bodyparts and organs...probably because people didn't think enough about what they were proposing and were driven by their emotions.
Furthermore, not all birth defects can be detected at 20 weeks.
Congenital defects, both major and minor, occur in around three percent of all births. Of these, roughly three out of four will be detected by ultrasound. The accuracy of these tests, however, is closely related to the stage and type of pregnancy involved.
For obvious reasons, second-trimester ultrasounds tend to be more accurate in detecting fetal abnormalities than those done during the first trimester. With that being said, first-trimester ultrasounds can often provide the most information about the likely course of a pregnancy. https://www.verywellfamily.com/diagn...efects-2371407
On the flip side, ultrasounds are not infallible when it comes to making a positive diagnosis of a birth defect. In some cases, the imaging results may be misread (misclassified) or turn out to be nothing at all.
One French study conducted in 2014 reported that 8.8% of congenital defects picked up by an ultrasound were wholly incorrect (false positive) and that 9.2% were misclassified. This rate was mirrored in other studies and accounts for why ultrasounds are never used alone when making a diagnosis. https://www.verywellfamily.com/diagn...efects-2371407
Your legal scholarship and analysis leaves something to be desired.
The holding in Roe v Wade -- and "holding" is the operand -- can be dumbed down to State's cannot regulate the 1st Trimester because there is no State interest; the States can consider conditions related to a woman's health in the 2nd Trimester; and the States ban abortions in the 3rd Trimester.
The Supreme Court may modify their holding, but they will not overturn it.
Why? Maybe you should read later decisions where the Court defined "life" and "death."
A "beating heart" is not relevant to the Court's definitions of life and death.
Those definitions are based on brain activity outside the brain stem (which controls the body's autonomous functions.)
That's why you can pull plug on the brain dead, because they are living, but they are not alive.
To be alive is to interact with your environment, while to be living simply means to exist; to be.
A rock exists, but it is not alive, because it doesn't interact with its environment.
So, the Court will not modify it's holdings regarding the 1st or 3rd Trimesters.
Why? Because to do so would overturn -- even if sub silento -- its many other holdings in the many cases that came after Roe v Wade.
The Court does not examine a case in the context of a vacuum, rather it examines them in the context of its other related holdings.
Yes, it is. You can't treat people differently under the law. If women are protected from prosecution for murdering a fetus, everyone else must be protected from prosecution for doing the same, as well.
Quote:
The Equal Protection Clause mandates that individuals in similar situations must be treated equally under the law.
It does not say that. Perhaps you should read it:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If women are protected from prosecution when they commit fetal homicide, everyone must be protected from prosecution, as well.
And based on your own perspective, if a deadbeat dad kills his fetus, he, too, may be "helping" the fetus by preventing it from being born into poverty and living a lifetime of hardship and struggle. According to your own moral compass, the father should not be prosecuted for doing so.
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.
