The laws all contain clauses that make it clear that it is not a crime to obtain or perform an abortion that is otherwise legal. For example, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, it states: (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; I believe the distinction here, as regards abortion, is that the mother has consented. Whereas, when an unborn child is murdered, that consent is absent. Just as, in some states, consent is a defense to murder (assisted suicide).
This is a silly, circular conversation. No one is going to change the law regarding reproductive rights ... No woman is ever forced to terminate a pregnancy. Legally its the equivalent of stewing about the right to bear arms. No one is going to take the guns away.
So what makes it a Felony? How do you logically seperate them though? So then the argument shifts from whether or not a fetus is a person, for it to be considered homicide that argument has to be settled. It then centers around the mother consenting on behalf of the fetus to being killed? I don't think it is a silly conversation at all.
Of course its a silly conversation.. One is the mother's right to choose and fetal homicide is when she has NO choice. Meanwhile.. YOU don't have to have an abortion.. so leave others alone.
Grannie... I fell out of the attic when I was 7 months pregnant without injury.. If someone had PUSHED me out of the attic and I lost the baby, that would be fetal homicide. What is wrong with these folks and their critical thinking skills?
I don't think the argument has to shift necessarily. You're presuming complete (or requisite) consistency between federal and state statutes and federal and state case law, but it doesn't always work that way. Congress and state legislatures are required to abide by Roe v. Wade, but that doesn't mean that they can't pass statutes that, while they don't violate the ruling, may be inconsistent in certain respects.
I am merely trying to determine the logical argument for prosecuting fetal homicide yet making exceptions for "legal" fetal homicide.
This statement makes no sense. Can you not answer my question? For fetal homicide to exist a fetus must be a person. You cannot commit homicide on an object.
Again, if you are unable to answer my question just say so. Don't dodge it with these silly statements.
Clearly you are too stupid to know the difference between a woman deciding to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and some one else.. doing the same by violence to her person. Like I said.. no critical thinking skills.
But that presumes that fetal homicide laws and abortion laws can be reconciled. And that may or may not be the case. There are several ways you can look at it, one which you've just stated. ie. Abortion is an exception to fetal homicide laws. But again, you're presuming that there is a logical distinction between these two types of laws and that may not be true. In passing these separate statutes, the government is trying to protect two different groups, unborn children and women. That doesn't automatically mean, however, that trying to protect these groups brings forth consistent policies. And the legislature, I'm sure, is aware of the inconsistencies. Notice how, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Congress did not expressly state that an unborn child is a person. They obviously knew the consequences of doing such a thing in regards to abortion laws.
That isn't the question. The question is whether or not a fetus is a person, and if that is the case (which it would appear it is being that fetal homicide laws exist) than any termination or otherwise of that person is murder regardless of the reasoning for it. The question can then morph into whether or not the mother can consent on behalf of the fetus to being killed...but that is another discussion entirely. It is far more complicated than the dumbed down simpleton argument of - Terminating an unwanted pregnancy vs violence. To call something murder there needs to be a person involved, and if there is a person involved then abortion is the killing of a person as well. Fair enough, and that is what I want to get to. So it would appear that they are tip toeing around Roe v. Wade while still holding people accountable to murdering a person in cases involving fetal homicide? Seems rather silly to me.
So, in the case of the ectopic pregnancy - we have to get the "consent" of the foetus to save the life of the mother?
Silly or not this is unlikely to change. The Supreme Court has had several opportunities to overturn Roe v. Wade and it has declined to do so. The only way Congress could overcome the ruling is by passing a constitutional amendment, which is near impossible at this point.
That is certainly a question to ask...I am inclined to side with termination in those very rare circumstances because the end result is death of the baby either way so it becomes prudent to save the mother. The Supreme court should never have heard Roe v. Wade in the first place if you ask me. This has always been an issue for the States. Congress could easily limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.....case in point http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958: This would negate Roe v. Wade quite easily.
How..............nice, and.............gracious of you to grant that much Now ectopic pregnancy is not the only reason let us look to a few more Cancer - especially those cancers where the chemotherapy agent is teratogenic or worse will kill the foetus outright Thyrotoxicosis (thyroid "storm")- seen a case of this and we DID lose the baby and bloody near lost the mother but the only treatment for her caused an intrauterine death The list of conditions where it is mother or foetus is surprisingly long - even longer are those substances that in early pregnancy can cause abortion. They include things like Pawpaw. So should all women of child bearing age avoid Pawpaw and alcohol and ensure they take folic acid JUST IN CASE they might be pregnant??
Being pregnant is not a "just in case" thing...you know in a reasonable amount of time and can stop drinking and eating things that will harm your child. The amount of cases where it is fetus or the mother is a very small percentage of pregnancies and even abortions. My question is whether or not a fetus is a person....there seems to be contradiction around this in the legal world.
Unconsitutional court rulings require no particular action to be "overcome", as they can legally be ignored.
This is the first I've heard of H.R. 958. For one thing, I highly, highly doubt that this will make it through the House or even out of committee. Additionally, I'm not even sure if the retroactive removal of jurisdiction is constitutional. The Supreme Court had authority to decide Roe v. Wade. Roe was challenging the constitutionality of a Texas Statute. This equates to federal question jurisdiction. Just because an issue is something for the states doesn't give them authority to violate the Constitution.
Ron Paul introduced it...its constitutional. A Federal court having jurisdiction over State issues negates the need for State supreme courts does it not? This issue was not a Federal one and should never have been heared at the Federal level.
