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.
That must be a problem that you're having because I have no problem whatsoever following threads in which not every single post is fully quoted each and every time. You just have to pay attention.
Ah yes. Because we all know that you are perfect, every time.
Find out what is working in the states with the lowest infant mortality rates and use it. I bet banning all or most abortion would not be one of the ways to go about doing it.
well, I gave you a possible starting point - that MS was also #1 in teen pregnancies. And another one - that Black infant mortality is 2x white ... not just some percentage higher - but double.
NH is the "best" at infant mortality, at 3.1/live birth. They also have the 46th "unwed mothers" rate. Oh, and they have < 2% Black population. The race isn't causation by any means, but it's surely a strong indicator that "something" is going on with Black moms, especially likely the unwed, that affects infant mortality.
So perhaps more birth control is in order, generally.
So far... That's always subject to change. SCOTUS has reversed its own rulings no less than 300 times.
And, when they do there is usually a sound reason.
Not going to happen here unless there is some rogue conservative judicial activist waiting in the wings.
The situation where someone injures or kills a fetus as a result of assaulting a pregnant woman is entirely different than the situation where a woman is having a voluntary medical procedure. There is no application of equal protection that is relevant.
Not yet as far as I know, but it would not surprise me if that's next.
Women have already been confined as in locked up due to drug addiction while pregnant.
hmmm, now you take it in yet another direction and moral dilemma.
The laws that allow "control" of women who are found to be pregnant and drug-addicted - thus harming the fetus inside her (at least I assume that's the reasoning) - are they a good or bad thing? Shouldn't be allowed....that is, she should be free to control her body even as a user of let's say opiates?
And what about the laws that charge men with assaulting their pregnant girlfriend/spouse and the laws about intentionally harming the child? Should those statutes be removed, and we only rely on the general assault laws?
Heck, while we're at it ... should "assault on a female" even be a crime any different from assault?
The TX heartbeat law implements the 10th Amendment by not criminalizing abortion and leaving the power of enforcement to the people, per the 10th Amendment. The injured party/parties can either file a tort, or not, depending on how they feel about abortion.
They don't have the child, grandchild, niece/nephew, etc., they would have had if the pregnancy had come to term.
Do you not understand that states DO NOT implement constitutional amendments?
Those relatives cannot show any injury from a woman having an abortion. Not having a grandchild that was never born is not an injury. Besides, it's none of their business whether a woman chooses to have an abortion. You make it sound like they have an ownership interest in the unborn child. That's a really bizarre take. Are you going to force your kids to have children on your schedule?
hmmm, now you take it in yet another direction and moral dilemma.
The laws that allow "control" of women who are found to be pregnant and drug-addicted - thus harming the fetus inside her (at least I assume that's the reasoning) - are they a good or bad thing? Shouldn't be allowed....that is, she should be free to control her body even as a user of let's say opiates?
And what about the laws that charge men with assaulting their pregnant girlfriend/spouse and the laws about intentionally harming the child? Should those statutes be removed, and we only rely on the general assault laws?
Heck, while we're at it ... should "assault on a female" even be a crime any different from assault?
In general, I am opposed to criminalizing pregnancy when it comes to women. Miscarriage is very common and women should not have to fear police knocking on their door because some busybody notices they are no longer pregnant. Ditto criminalizing drug use/addiction doesn't do anything to solve the problem and will only result in pregnant addicts failing to seek treatment that might help them or their baby if they plan to deliver the baby.
I'm not opposed to fetal homicide laws applied to male or female third parties who harm a fetus as a result of assaulting a woman. But, if they are going to be misused by people seeking to criminalize abortion then they will need to be repealed. They can be replaced with enhanced penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman. This is really a very small subset of the population compared to the rights of all women.
But, all of this is really off topic for this thread.
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.
