That's a very borderline case, and it may depend on exactly how early the abortion is performed. But just because a child has a condition like that, does not automatically make it okay to preemptively kill. There needs to be some bar set, otherwise we'll be killing babies over little things (missing an arm in the 24th week of pregnancy? abort. Genetic test reveals increased chance of heart disease later in life, abort)
This woman had a mental illness, what should the punishment be for a woman that isn’t suffering some delusion? They just didn’t want it? Think execution is a fair penalty? Life? How long is that innocent “baby’s” life worth to you?
I see you have moved to dishonestly editing down posts because you can’t formulate a response. No, women have abortions for tons of reasons. They don’t want a child, they don’t want another child, they are poor, they are focused on their career, they have medical issues, they have psychological issues, their protection failed, they don’t know the father, they are no longer with the father, they are too young, they are too old, and hundreds of other reasons. What should their punishment be @kazenatsu What is an appropriate penalty for the premeditated murder of a “baby”?
Then why can't they be killed in a State where abortion is not allowed in the third trimester unless it is to save the woman's life?
The point is that born people can be killed in certain circumstances, while fetuses CANNOT be killed in certain circumstances. So certain fetuses have more protection than certain born people. Correct.
Those advocating laws against women's healthcare on this issue do not even have a record of considering the woman's LIFE. Nor do they care about issues such as rape and incest. For you to suggest that they have legislative language oriented to justification of aborting seriously deprecated fetuses is just plain silly. If you think they do, then CITE IT.
Fetuses are covered by the law in that they are a physical part of a woman, who is a person covered under our constitution as well as federal, state and local law. And, your ridiculous division shows absolutlely notheing wrt the OP.
If you care about this subject then do some research. The point here is that they have no laws against women, PAY for abortions, and STILL cause there to be fewer abortions. Forcing your religious laws against women is NOT seen as acceptible by more than 75% of Americans and it is shown NOT to be necessary by the example of Canada.
You seem oblivious to the fact that certain fetuses are protected from being killed. So there's no point in continuing.
It doesn't mean that the reason for fewer abortions is that there are no laws against abortion and that they pay for abortions. If the US adopted the same policies, there's no question that the abortion rate would either go up, or remain the same. When did I mention religion?
Yes, it would be punishing Christians. It would be an attack on freedom of religion, which is in the Constitution, whereas abortion is not. Plus, you've not given a reason why it would happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Says the person who once used a MILK analogy! Yes, because I don't believe the woman would have committed a crime. While at the same time, someone who commits a crime should be prosecuted. The end result would be that fetuses would receive further protection to what they already have, and this wouldn't even require a fetus being deemed a legal person, although if RvW was overturned, some States could decide to go down that road. Oh yes, because BORN babies make decisions all of the time! Yeah, just like my two month old nephew, who is harming my sisters breasts all of the time! I guess my sister should have him killed then! Without any warning? Isn't this a repeat of what you said just above it? Or do you mean, women die from pregnancy AFTER pregnancy? It's good to see you recognise the weakness in the legal argument, recognising that the law could indeed change. Pretty pointless to make that point considering that I didn't say that protections ARE rights. How the hell am I exhibiting a complete lack of knowledge of pregnancy by asking, "what is the physical difference between the kid as they travel down the birth canal, and birth?" You're clearly deflecting away from a most uncomfortable question! What the hell are you talking about? My answers were given in that post! Do you just want me to repeat them in an separate post to you?
Obviously something will change for women if abortion was banned. Well I'm told that men can get pregnant now too, so I guess they can also get abortions!
But you keep insisting abortion has an effect on them (men).....which it may but that has nothing to do with women's right to an abortion..
That's what I thought you meant, I just could hardly believe that anyone could think women are so stupid that they don't know what illegal means. Or they don't know what abortion is. That they don't know why they had to secretly hire a doctor to perform an abortion. But I've seen that Anti-Choicers really have no respect for women as human beings so they must think they are all a bunch of cattle....too stupid to know what they're doing...the height of a sickness called sexism. I didn't and that doesn't make your analogy good. Why haven't you consulted a lawyer? Are you afraid you'll find out the truth....that hiring someone to commit a crime IS a crime... Is that just too much common sense for you? there needs to be something better than that to take to the Supreme Court IF Rvw could be overturned....... And you know they don't how??? That's your feeble answer to my : """"YEAHHHHH, you FINALLY admitted the fetus harms the woman it's in !!!!! Something the entire rest of the world knew for eons....LOL... And it doesn't matter whether the fetus can't make a choice, it STILL is harming the woman...""""" It's so very unfortunate that you can't tell the difference between BORN and UNBORN.....the rest of the world can. Sometimes....you see, and I know this will be hard for you to understand, but women are all different and have different situations. Why would anyone say something so stupid....oh, wait, you just did No, "weakness" is a product of your unrestrained imagination....I would never use it in regard to RvW because it's been going strong for over 50 years You seem to think those two words are interchangeable or else don't know how to use them correctly. You exhibit a lack of knowledge of pregnancy by asking "what is the physical difference between the kid as they travel down the birth canal, and birth?" You clearly want to deflect away from the fact that you don't know the difference.
""""Women lose it and go crazy all the time""""" (sarcasm alert) Gee, folks, no sexism or misogyny here, no sirree...[/QUOTE]
the word is WIT not whit. And Pro-Choicers have NEVER said """all women who get abortions are at their whit's end""" LOL, you ARE desperate...
The POINT with Canada is that there does NOT need to be abortion laws... The POINT is that laws against women are not needed despite Anti-Choicers thinking all women are nothing more than rather stupid cattle whom they desperately want to control and punish.
