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.
Which females' rights are to be protected? The pregnant women's? Or the female developing babies' that are killed for no reason other than someone else's selfish convenience? There's a very VALID reason that a person who kills a developing baby is charged with and convicted of murder/homicide: abortion kills a human life.
98.3% of the 930,000 abortions per year are performed solely for the sake of convenience. They're the abortions (914,000+/year) that kill healthy developing babies in healthy pregnancies due only to... "I don't want a baby."
So? It's not your body that's pregnant, is it? Are you the woman who will be condemned to a life of poverty and desperation because she had a baby at 17, and lives in the US, where children already born are considered to be useless and a waste of money that shouldn't be entitled to any support? A country where middle aged White men and women(who would almost certainly take their 17 year old daughter out of state for a secret abortion) spout "abortion is a travesty", then shout "personal responsibility" when the 17 year old mother tries to get help.
I'm still not seeing where the choice a woman makes is anyone's business but hers.
I would like to know what pregnant women think about this law in Arizona.
I think it is too extreme.
I don't think this should be a debate between liberals and conservatives
I actually have an interesting discussion with my uncle who is a very conservative ER doctor. He actually said this kind of law is very scary to him. I will just leave it at that.
This does put doctors in very dangerous position needing to defend a medical decision in court.
I'm surprised they accept contraception, that certainly wasn't available in 1864.
So with the conservatives this busy virtue-signaling about the sanctity of the innocent life, I suspect we can see some really solid legislative initiatives, particularly in the red states, to improve on the rather unfortunate infant mortality rates?
After all, Arizona has an infant mortality rate of 4.97 per 1,000 live births, while neighboring California is 3.67. And Arizona is quote good for a red state, too.
So you DO want politicians to control women's health? Pass laws regarding medical care?
So with the conservatives this busy virtue-signaling about the sanctity of the innocent life, I suspect we can see some really solid legislative initiatives, particularly in the red states, to improve on the rather unfortunate infant mortality rates?
After all, Arizona has an infant mortality rate of 4.97 per 1,000 live births, while neighboring California is 3.67. And Arizona is quote good for a red state, too.
Forced-birthers' concerns end the moment the head is through the birth canal. Especially if they are children of low income women. Cut those damn welfare queens off the public dole! Slash SNAP and WIC! Stop the school breakfast programs for poor kids! It's a waste of taxpayer's money! If their brats starve, who cares!
But please, please, please (insert huge crocodile tears here) SAVE THE FETUSES!!!
That's a medical malpractice issue, not a problem with placing limits on aborting a healthy developing baby in a healthy pregnancy. Do you understand the difference?
Do you? Do you support abortions for 25 week fetuses that have a defect not compatible with life? Or a 15 week pregnancy with ruptured membranes? Or for a woman who gets diagnosed with an aggressive cancer?
How is it any of your business what decisions a woman and her doctor make? Here's a hint, it's not.
There are many posters that believe Jesus would be for abortion, prostitution and pride parades and transgenderism, because it is aaaallllll gooooooddddd, grooovy, man. Yeah, no. I would bet not one of these posers has ever studied the Bible, which used to be part of humanities classes in college. Probably not allowed today.
Jesus would demand responsibility, accountability and honor to family. Teach a man to fish. Honor thy mother and father. Thou shalt not kill.
His first point would not be tax the rich.
Stop misrepresenting WWJD.
You have no idea what Jesus would do. No one does. It is impossible to predict what a semi-mythical person from 2000+ years ago, and whose teachings have been filtered through who know how many anonymous translators, would do today.
If Arizona Republicans had any sense at all in their brains the legislator would have put abortion on the ballot let the people of Arizona decide.
There was an attempt to get enough signatures to protect abortion in our state constitution on the ballot they came up short didn't have enough time. They were able to collect 176k signatures yet they only started in May of 2022 the deadline was August 22 if they had a full year they would have had more than enough to reach the needed 450k signatures.
This does put doctors in very dangerous position needing to defend a medical decision in court.
I'm surprised they accept contraception, that certainly wasn't available in 1864.
I agree.
What these laws do is they place physicians in an untenable position not knowing that if they serve the medical interests of their patients, whether they'll be subject to criminal liability. At best, it will make physicians hesitate to save the life of a woman; at worst, outright refuse to.
There are some clear-cut cases where a woman is acutely hemorrhaging or involved in a trauma situation where continuing the pregnancy puts a woman's life at risk.
Other scenarios, like maternal cardiac issues, present a growing risk to a mother the further her pregnancy progresses, but might not pose a clear "imminent" risk. Or in the case where a mother is diagnosed with cancer, it might not be clear whether termination of her pregnancy would be allowed in order for her to pursue treatment such as chemotherapy.
I would argue that medicine is a gray area. So it is better not send the doctors to prison. Yikes
That really makes no sense. Doctors can already be sued for malpractice if they provide negligent care in a medically problematic pregnancy. It's in their own best interest to provide medically necessary care.
Doctors fear the criminal consequences of the law far more than a malpractice suit. A loss in a malpractice suit will increase their insurance costs a bit. A loss in a criminal case will take away their freedom and, most likely, their medical license.
Then why is someone who murders a pregnant woman, meaning her blood results show she is pregnant, charged with double homicide? It seems the court system has determined that "fertilized egg" is, in fact, a life.
No, it's not the courts. It's legislatures that wrote laws making killing a pregnant woman also subject to fetal homicide charges and penalties. Every one of those fetal homicide laws has an exception for abortion.
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.
