Irrelevant to the point we are debating. Allowing an exception doesn't negate the entire rule. It recognizes the personhood of a child in utero at any stage of development.
it does no such thing. persons have legal responsibilities and liabilities. persons can be charged with a crime, at ANY age. are you saying fetuses can now be charged with a Federal crime? LOLOLOL!!!!!!
Our laws are written to protect the exceptions. If you can't charge a woman who has been raped with murder because the day after pill was used, then you can't charge any woman with murder for using the day after pill. And if using the day after pill does not lead to a murder charge, than what argument can you make against other forms of abortion? There is no "kinda murder," on the books. Your claim that abortion will become illegal is really moot considering today's technology and medical practices. Every miscarriage would have to investigated as murder and every woman who leaves the country would have to take pregnancy tests.
You could not be more wrong. An infant is a person, a toddler is a person, a senior incompetent adult is a person. You are flailing.
It is clearly a homicide no matter how you look at it. Should it be allowed through a self defense angle legally?IDK but I would be ok with having that debate.
How do you enforce that law? Given the availability of day after pills, any and all miscarriages would have to be investigated as murder. It's been proven that exercise while pregnant increases the possibility of miscarriage by 5 to 7%. You would have to charge a woman with negligent homicide if she miscarried while exercising. Since abortions are legal in many countries, any woman leaving the states would have to take a pregnancy test. Any pissed off ex could accuse a woman of murder if she had a miscarriage. One of the major reasons given by the SC justices on Roe v Wade was that the abortion laws were unenforceable and skewed against the poor who couldn't just take a "vacation".
a woman cannot legally kill her child. the UVVA allows a woman to kill her fetus. therefore, it doesn't view fetus as a person
NO, he didn't: Ronstar said: ↑ it does no such thing. persons have legal responsibilities and liabilities. persons can be charged with a crime, at ANY age. are you saying fetuses can now be charged with a Federal crime? LOLOLOL!!!!!!""""" He said "PERSONS".... a fetus is NOT a person.
Furthermore, since any and all pregnancies can result in the death of the mother during gestation and birth, it could be argued that any and all pregnancies can be terminated to protect the life of the mother. And the optics of putting a mother of two into prison for life because her birth control failed and at age 42, she was being put at high risk to carry to term ... s**t, that just doesn't work for very long.
Can't take your word for it,show me! Homicide means simply the killing of a person by one or more other persons. Legality isn't a component of the definition of the word.
A fetus has NO rights, it does have protections and no matter what the UVVA says it includes a clause that says it does NOT have anything to do with abortion or women's right to an abortion. It does NOT make a fetus a person, it can't, it didn't.
And what are we to do with women with mental disabilities who become pregnant every year. Manic depressives have an over-active sex drive while in the manic phase, and a lowered cognitive ability to make rational decisions. You going to put a manic/depressive in the gas chamber because she went off her meds? And what will be the penalty for taking the day after pill? Life in prison? The needle?
Optics, now that is a he'll of a threshold. We convict women who claim they killed their husbands because they abused them. How bout them optics.
And does the male become an accomplice if he does not notify the authorities of a miscarriage? He has no way of knowing if it was induced or not - so he would have to.
