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.
California law specifically makes a distinction between killing a human being and killing a fetus.
No it does not. The EXACT quote from the CA Penal Code § 187 defines murder as: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
Malice: A desire to harm others
That includes desiring to kill a fetus, per CA law.
Re the bolded....I think that waits to be seen. Not immediately, but if Roe is overturned and it becomes understood more globally.....we'll see.
I doubt it. The states that would most heavily restrict abortion already have the support of pro-lifers. Just like draconian gun control laws have the support of lefty Californians.
Or she slept late one day and didn't take the pill on time. That is a case of being inconsistent.
Or a doctor or dentist gave her antibiotics for an infection that she took for 10 days
Both are fully disclosed in the prescribing info one receives from their pharmacist. Again, it's a responsibility issue. When the effect of the pill is compromised as disclosed, it's one's own responsibility to use a back-up method.
It's unconstitutional in the way the law is applied. State law has to treat everyone the same. Either anyone can legally kill an unborn child for reasons other than an imminent threat to their own life (aka self-defense), or no one can. Can't have it both ways.
At this point I think I am throwing in the towel. You are too dedicated to this misreading of the Equal Protection clause for any logical reasoning to make an impact. If you don't understand that self-defense is a defense to a murder charge and abortion is a defense to a fetal homicide charge I don't know how much plainer I can explain it. Equal Protection does not prohibit the law from differentiating between different actions. You can {and have) said otherwise as many times as you like, it won't make your reading of Equal Protection accurate.
One state's laws do not apply in actions committed in another state.
This is true. But the way Texas' new law is structured liability attaches upon the transportation of a woman to obtain an abortion. When transporting a woman from Texas to another state, that transportation begins in Texas and thus there can be liability under the Texas law for abortions that occur in other states.
The one constant in these discussions is that women are ill-informed, misinformed, ignorant, or just plain stupid about getting/using birth control in spite of the relentless advertising, as well as condoms in almost every store, and they are also somewhat confused as to how babies are made.
But *somehow* they all know what an abortion is and where to go to get one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowGirl
I disagree that this is a "constant" and disagree with your implied assertion that people who support choice have that view based on thinking that women are inferior.
I agree with newtovenice's post. The one constant in these discussions coming from the pro-abortion contingent IS in fact that women are ill-informed, misinformed, ignorant, or just plain too stupid about getting/using birth control in spite of the availability of condoms and the OTC morning after pill in almost every store, and they are also somewhat confused as to how babies are made.
Absolutely, the assumption being made and the attitude expressed by the pro-abortion contingent in this thread is that women are colossally stupid.
Right. All you have to do is go to the thread about Gavin Newsome proposing a Texas style law on guns.
The responders are crazed gun enthusiasts who most dont have a clue about the Texas abortion law. And, even if they have heard of it they don't understand how it works.
I understand how it works, and this is my suggestion:
As abortion involves death, i.e., the deliberate killing of another human life, it would make more sense if California made its proposed "bounty" law apply to those who used a gun to deliberately kill another human, except in the case of justifiable self-defense. I doubt anyone would object to that.
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.
