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.
Choices have consequences. The unborn baby has just as much right to life as you or I do. Who speaks for unborn babies who can't speak for themselves? How is killing a newborn baby outside of the womb considered murder but the taking of that same life within the womb considered legal when it's the same life being snuffed out for the sake of pure selfishness ?
People get all upset when school shootings happen, but those same people don't even bat an eyelash while thousands of babies are being murdered every year through abortion. Life is life and either we choose to protect all of life or none of it at all...there is no middle here.
Do you want accidents (other than auto accidents, obviously) that result in a woman having a miscarriage all investigated ?
I don't think this semantic issue makes any difference one way or the other. Most people understand what is meant by the shorthand "ban on abortions." But if "virtual ban" makes more sense to you, then fine.
However, as I asked in my previous post, how can a state allow abortions in some cases and not others without violating the Equal Protection clause, under you interpretation of it?
Again, by asking this question I do not mean to state I believe that is what the Equal Protection clause means I don't, but this is the interpretation that has been asserted often in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Same way they can legislate justifiable homicide in the case of self-defense when one's own life is at risk. We just saw such a case resolved in Kenosha. That falls in line with states restricting abortion but allowing it when the mother's life is at risk if she continues the pregnancy.
Like I said, states restrict some 2nd Amendment Rights and SCOTUS has deemed that as valid. There's no reason why states can't similarly restrict some of any perceived rights to abortion.
Just as states have decided that self defense is a defense to murder, so they have decided abortion is a defense to fetal homicide laws.
As a bit of an aside, reading your posts in whole, I can see you are passionate on this issue, as am I. But try to separate the legal and policy arguments. You are much more effective when you are arguing from a policy perspective rather than a legal perspective. But arguments are strongest when you recognize their weaknesses. I actually agree with you that many fetal homicide laws, as written, are inconsistent with abortion laws, but from a policy perspective. For my part, I would revise fetal homicide laws to provide that it is only a separate count when the fetus is past the point where elective abortion could be performed and if earlier, make it an aggravating circumstance in connection with the crime on the mother if the perpetrator knew she was pregnant. But that is a matter of policy. The Equal Protection clause is a separate matter, and I really can't express how wrong I think you are in your interpretation of it. I think it is coming from a place of passion for your view regarding the policy of abortion. But the Equal Protection argument really doesn't work as you are asserting it. You are better off sticking with the policy arguments, which you shouldn't discount. They are incredibly important. And if Roe is overturned, they will be even more important.
Edited to add the following: a good example is our previous discussion regarding the Mississippi law that prohibits the demonstration of proper condom use in sex ed. We got wrapped around the axle of "demonstration." I don't mean to whip that back to the fore, but stop, take a breath, and realize that it does not hurt your argument regarding abortion at all to say, "yes, Mississippi should allow sex ed teachers to demonstrate proper condom use." There is literally nothing inconsistent about that; in fact, it actually strengthens your later arguments regarding how people need to be more responsible about the use of birth control.
I disagree with you on policy here as I am pro-choice, but I hope you accept my suggestions in the manner in which they are meant, which is really to just help the discussion and honestly help you with your advocacy as one person who values free speech to another.
Obviously there are a set of women who are stupid, who do not know where babies come from, who are too stupid to use birth control correctly or who lack the ability to say no to sex. We know they exist because they are seeking abortions.
You seem to think these should be forced to become parents and raise the next generation of stupid.
You'd be surprised.
My alma mater is a 'public ivy', and the girlfriend of one of my friends (both also attending my same 'public ivy') made a comment, an anatomical reference, that was so dumb I wondered how she passed high school biology.
Just as states have decided that self defense is a defense to order, so they have decided abortion is a defense to fetal homicide laws.
As a bit of an aside, reading your posts in whole, I can see you are passionate on this issue, as am I. But try to separate the legal and policy arguments. You are much more effective when you are arguing from a policy perspective rather than a legal perspective. But arguments are strongest when you recognize their weaknesses. I actually agree with you that many fetal homicide laws, as written, are inconsistent with abortion laws, but from a policy perspective. For my part, I would revise fetal homicide laws to provide that it is only a separate count when the fetus is past the point where elective abortion could be performed and if earlier, make it an aggravating circumstance in connection with the crime on the mother if the perpetrator knew she was pregnant. But that is a matter of policy. The Equal Protection clause is a separate matter, and I really can't express how wrong I think you are in your interpretation of it. I think it is coming from a place of passion for your view regarding the policy of abortion. But the Equal Protection argument really doesn't work as you are asserting it. You are better off sticking with the policy arguments, which you shouldn't discount. They are incredibly important. And if Roe is overturned, they will be even more important.
Edited to add the following: a good example is our previous discussion regarding the Mississippi law that prohibits the demonstration of proper condom use in sex ed. We got wrapped around the axle of "demonstration." I don't mean to whip that back to the fore, but stop, take a breath, and realize that it does not hurt your argument regarding abortion at all to say, "yes, Mississippi should allow sex ed teachers to demonstrate proper condom use." There is literally nothing inconsistent about that; in fact, it actually strengthens your later arguments regarding how people need to be more responsible about the use of birth control.
I disagree with you on policy here as I am pro-choice, but I hope you accept my suggestions in the manner in which they are meant, which is really to just help the discussion and honestly help you with your advocacy as one person who values free speech to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowGirl
For my part, I would revise fetal homicide laws to provide that it is only a separate count when the fetus is past the point where elective abortion could be performed and if earlier, make it an aggravating circumstance in connection with the crime on the mother if the perpetrator knew she was pregnant.
Accept that the 'unborn' is not a 'person' under the 14th Amendment, therefore (unless lawyers have found wiggle room) it has no protections at any stage of the pregnancy, in criminal prosecutions.
Accept that the 'unborn' is not a 'person' under the 14th Amendment, therefore (unless lawyers have found wiggle room) it has no protections at any stage of the pregnancy, in criminal prosecutions.
This thread has been going on a while and so I don't always manage to provide every disclaimer I should. As If have explained in multiple prior posts on this, I agree with you, that I don't believe that a fetus is a person. However, for the purpose of making certain arguments as made in this thread, I have indicated I would do so, for the limited purpose of the Equal Protection argument forwarded by certain voters. 2,000+ posts in, it has become dizzying to provide all the conditions and disclaimers necessary.
Perhaps if you ever experienced pregnancy and the birthing process would be a place to start. Being a natural function doesn’t make it an easy experience. Women today do adopt out, it’s one of our choices. Her choice is relevant and personal to the individual.
Being a parent is really hard too. Perhaps parents should just dispose of their kids since it's really not an easy experience.
Ridiculous argument. Lots of things in life are hard.
Doesn't mean you get to kill someone because of it.
Accept that the 'unborn' is not a 'person' under the 14th Amendment, therefore (unless lawyers have found wiggle room) it has no protections at any stage of the pregnancy, in criminal prosecutions.
This thread has been going on a while and so I don't always manage to provide every disclaimer I should. As If have explained in multiple prior posts on this, I agree with you, that I don't believe that a fetus is a person. However, for the purpose of making certain arguments as made in this thread, I have indicated I would do so, for the limited purpose of the Equal Protection argument forwarded by certain voters. 2,000+ posts in, it has become dizzying to provide all the conditions and disclaimers necessary.
No disclaimer necessary it is what it is ... btw: the fetus is a real person, just the law doesn't see it that way.
A woman can not have it both ways ... the one causing harm to the unborn will walk away scott free and there's not a darn thing she can do about it.
They are taking birth control with express intent to prevent pregnancy from the voluntary activity. Any reason you can’t answer a straight question? Should I make it more straightforward? Have you ever forgotten to take a pill? Turn off the coffee pot or misplace the keys? Ever late to a function?
Ever killed someone because you were late to a function?
Ever killed someone because you forget to turn off the coffee pot?
Ever killed someone because you couldn't find your keys?
HINT: Condoms. Unless you forget, because, well, then, you can just kill someone. No worries.
Ever killed someone because you were late to a function?
Ever killed someone because you forget to turn off the coffee pot?
Ever killed someone because you couldn't find your keys?
HINT: Condoms. Unless you forget, because, well, then, you can just kill someone. No worries.
No answer just more questions to side step the point. Typical.
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.
catch-22
