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.
The link was about someone arrested for stillbirth in CA because it was caused by her drug use. In other words, she intentionally put the baby at risk by using illegal drugs.
The link was about someone arrested for stillbirth in CA because it was caused by her drug use. In other words, she intentionally put the baby at risk by using illegal drugs.
Sort of changes the context don't you think?
Not really.
How is this different than the woman that "intentionally puts the baby at risk" by using chemical abortion drugs?
We're telling young girls that it's ok to kill the baby if you do it this way, but not that way. End of the day, the baby is still dead. If we're dead-set on teaching young people not to respect life, then we can't really complain when they don't respect life.
That is a very naive viewpoint. Just to begin, how would you define "perfectly healthy"? Where on the continuum between "perfectly healthy" and "dead" does each human being, including newborns, lie?
Well, that's the crux of the abortion debate in its entirety, isn't it? Viability is already arbitrarily defined and we've had some amazing premature babies born who have beaten the odds of survival.
Quote:
Lawyers would have a field day with this one.
Nah. It's the first draft of a bill. It's vague. Expect a lot of tweaking before it's done. That said, there isn't enough in it to have a "field day" with anyhow. Put yourself in the imaginary jurors' seat for a moment and that continuum above looks a whole lot clearer. The only ones having a field day with this so far are the usual suspects in the media who want you to believe that murdering toddlers would be greenlit if this passes.
… The only ones having a field day with this so far are the usual suspects in the media who want you to believe that murdering toddlers would be greenlit if this passes.
And the legions of social media outraged brain-dead posters with no real life of their own that satisfies them beyond shrieking.
There are many people, including some who have posted in other boards on this forum, who believe that a human being is not a "person" until it is born and separated from the mother. At that point, almost everyone agrees that a newborn has personhood and therefore a right to life under our Constitution.
The wording of the bill does not preclude a mother's killing her newborn. What else could shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any actions related to perinatal death mean?
Saying it's criminal for a woman to smother or drown her newborn is NOT the same as, for example, allowing a severely deformed newborn with no life expectancy to die naturally rather than putting it on life support.
The wording of the bill does not preclude a mother's killing her newborn.
And are there no other existing laws that address premeditated murder and such? The boilerplate "notwithstanding" clause aside, this doesn't give anyone carte blanche to indiscriminately kill newborns because their eyes aren't the right color, etc., etc.
As cynical as I am about this state's legislature, their aim here isn't to allow wilful murder of children.
Quote:
What else could shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any actions related to perinatal death mean
The bill doesn't say 'shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any actions related to perinatal death'. The preface to the bill is important too. It provides a lot of context for what the author intends. Same with section 123468. Taken together, it's hard to see sinister intent here. The bill is too vague, as I said. But it's not even out of committee either.
It's extremely irritating to me that men are not allowed to have opinions about protecting human life, especially in a case like this in which we are talking (in this thread) about children who are already born.
I'm a woman with three children. I guess that means I'm entitled to have an opinion? Or maybe not; next we'll be hearing, "If you want your newborns to live, you can let them live, but don't tell other women what not to do."
It's extremely irritating to me that men are not allowed to have opinions about protecting human life, especially in a case like this in which we are talking (in this thread) about children who are already born.
I'm a woman with three children. I guess that means I'm entitled to have an opinion? Or maybe not; next we'll be hearing, "If you want your newborns to live, you can let them live, but don't tell other women what not to do."
Sorry, but this argument loses any credibility when you look at the track records. Republicans claim to be pro-life but they're in fact only pro-birth. They want to force women to give birth when they cannot afford to do so and have the children born into a welfare system. Yet, they want to cut welfare and any other social services to help these families out. Worse yet, they are inviting back alley abortions, which cause more deaths of the woman, not just the unborn child. Sure, some kids can be given up for adoption, but the reality is that the majority will not.
How is this different than the woman that "intentionally puts the baby at risk" by using chemical abortion drugs?
We're telling young girls that it's ok to kill the baby if you do it this way, but not that way. End of the day, the baby is still dead. If we're dead-set on teaching young people not to respect life, then we can't really complain when they don't respect life.
I think there's enough people around who don't respect life who have never had an abortion and they're not necessarily young women. Prisons are full of those people.
Let's talk about women who put their unborn baby at risk. What punishment do you think they deserve? But why stop at putting a fetus at risk? Let's talk about parents who put their children at risk every singe day. What about a mother who lets her children run wild in a busy restaurant? What about a man who drives over the speed limit with his kids in the car? How about the parents who won't get their kids vaccinated? How about parents who drink too much when they have kids in their care (it only takes a few drinks to get to .08).
All of these situations involve putting children at risk. Why is it different when they're born as opposed to before they're born? And why does this just have to be about women and why does it just have to involve abortion?
If we're going to penalize women for potentially "harming" their fetus, then let's penalize everyone equally across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
It's extremely irritating to me that men are not allowed to have opinions about protecting human life, especially in a case like this in which we are talking (in this thread) about children who are already born.
I'm a woman with three children. I guess that means I'm entitled to have an opinion? Or maybe not; next we'll be hearing, "If you want your newborns to live, you can let them live, but don't tell other women what not to do."
I don't care if a man has an opinion. What I care about is if his personal opinion is going to infringe on my rights. Then there's a problem.
It's sort of like religion. I don't care if you do what God tells you to do. It's when you want me to do what God tells you to do that you cross the line.
My feeling is that a when a man decides to have sex with a woman, he's consenting to her having an abortion if that's what she wants if she gets pregnant. If he doesn't want to consent to her having an abortion, he should just keep his zipper up and not have sex. Problem solved.
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.
