CDZ Can There be Exceptions?

[Chuz Life]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Tresha91203]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

 

[Chuz Life]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

It's interesting that you think that actually physically carrying a pregnancy that is forced on you in a crime like RAPE is no more stressful than being around strange men. . . After being raped.




Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Tresha91203]

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

It's interesting that you think that actually physically carrying a pregnancy that is forced on you in a crime like RAPE is no more stressful than being around strange men. . . After being raped.




Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

It's interesting you think I believe that. I never said that at all.

I was addressing potential constitutional exceptions, not what should or shouldn't be, not how people feel. I am discussing self defense. She can kill the rapist if she feels her life is in danger. She doesn't think the baby is going to kill her. If she does, and you could get a doc to sign off on that, maybe.

If you wanted to know what we felt should or should not be, perhaps your OP could have been more clear.

 

[Tresha91203]

If the SC deems a fetus a life, that life is equal to the mother's. That's how the law works. The law is not going to say one life's mere existence is life threatening unless a doctor says the pregnancy will likely kill the mother. The fetus is not hostile or threatening. The mother may be traumatized, even mentally unstable as a result of the rape, which is totally understandable. That does not make the fetus an aggressor or a criminal worthy of the death penalty. All of this is assuming the SC defines a fetus as a life (they haven't and they wont). Do you believe one life is more deserving than another? Was this not what you were asking?

 

[Chuz Life]

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

It's interesting that you think that actually physically carrying a pregnancy that is forced on you in a crime like RAPE is no more stressful than being around strange men. . . After being raped.

It's interesting you think I believe that. I never said that at all.

You said " I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense."

Okay. So what about the physical condition of a rape pregnancy?

Do you think it would be Constitutional to force women to carry pregnancies to term that were forced onto them in a crime of rape?

I was addressing potential constitutional exceptions, not what should or shouldn't be, not how people feel. I am discussing self defense. She can kill the rapist if she feels her life is in danger. She doesn't think the baby is going to kill her. If she does, and you could get a doc to sign off on that, maybe.

Is our right to self defense limited to only cases where we feel we might be "killed?"

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that it is more open than that.

For example, if a rapist were to tell a woman that he isn't going to hurt her or kill her - he just wants to have sex. . . she could still legally KILL him if that is what she reasonably believed was necessary to prevent his attack.

Agree?

 

[Chuz Life]

If the SC deems a fetus a life, that life is equal to the mother's.

Life?

The Constitutional argument is not about whether a living human being in the fetal stage of their life has "life" or is "life." That part is undeniable.

The Court will have to decide whether or not a human being in the first days of their life is a "person" and then to decide whether or not they are entitled as such (persons) to the same Constitutional protections that all other persons are entitled to.

That's how the law works. The law is not going to say one life's mere existence is life threatening unless a doctor says the pregnancy will likely kill the mother.

That comment makes no sense at all.

The fetus is not hostile or threatening.

True.

But it's the physical condition / nature of the forced pregnancy that places the pregnant woman in jeopardy and it's Not the attitude of the child she is pregnant with that places her in jeopardy.

That's seems so obvious, I don't know what it even has to be said.

The mother may be traumatized, even mentally unstable as a result of the rape, which is totally understandable. That does not make the fetus an aggressor or a criminal worthy of the death penalty.

It's absolutely true that a child in the fetal stage of their life is neither an aggressor nor a criminal worthy of the death penalty. However, that is not the claim that is being made or argued either.

The child in this (rape pregnancy) case is a real and undeniable physical threat to the raped woman's health and autonomy. The child is forced into her more as a weapon or further extension of the rape itself. Yes, it's a child / person but unfortunately his or her presence is physical and mental extension of the rape itself.

All of this is assuming the SC defines a fetus as a life (they haven't and they wont).

Again, I think you mean "persons" and too late. The Supreme Court already does recognize "children in the womb" as "persons." Even as "murder" victims... when they are killed in a criminal act as defined under our many "fetal homicide" laws.

Do you believe one life is more deserving than another?

Our laws regarding the right to use self defense are not predicated on whether any one person deserves life more than another. They are predicated on every person's right to defend themself when they "reasonably believe" their life is in danger.

Was this not what you were asking?

No. It isn't.

 

[Tresha91203]

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

It's interesting that you think that actually physically carrying a pregnancy that is forced on you in a crime like RAPE is no more stressful than being around strange men. . . After being raped.

It's interesting you think I believe that. I never said that at all.

You said " I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense."

Okay. So what about the physical condition of a rape pregnancy?

Do you think it would be Constitutional to force women to carry pregnancies to term that were forced onto them in a crime of rape?

I was addressing potential constitutional exceptions, not what should or shouldn't be, not how people feel. I am discussing self defense. She can kill the rapist if she feels her life is in danger. She doesn't think the baby is going to kill her. If she does, and you could get a doc to sign off on that, maybe.

Is our right to self defense limited to only cases where we feel we might be "killed?"

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that it is more open than that.

For example, if a rapist were to tell a woman that he isn't going to hurt her or kill her - he just wants to have sex. . . she could still legally KILL him if that is what she reasonably believed was necessary to prevent his attack.

Agree?

You are changing the goalposts. One may use lethal forms of self defense to protect one's self (or another) from bodily harm or death (or reasonable expectation of same). Rape IS bodily harm. Also, it is reasonable to fear death at the hands of her rapist, as rapists often kill their victims.

A doctor determines if the fetus' existence poses reasonable risk of harm or death to the mother. It is not based on how the mother feels about the fetus or the rapist. The fetus is not attacking the mother. The fetus is not engaged in criminal or threatening behavior.

I get that you are saying it is often traumatic to carry the product of a vicious assault. I agree. IF a fetus is a person (thank you for the correction), it has equal standing as the mother according to the (pretend) law. She may kill it and get off on a diminished capacity defense, much like some post partum mother's who kill their born children. The baby is an innocent. The mother, through no fault of her own, has diminished capacity. It is a catch 22. The mother needs help to overcome her mental trauma.

You seem to be asking if it is OK to kill an innocent person, hypothetically, if the killer has been traumatized by another. Is that what you are asking?

This is what is wrong with hypothetical questions. As the law stands, the fetus is not a person with equal standing as the mother. That's not going to change IMO. If it did change, the fetus is an innocent person threatening no one. The mother's mental health would have to be addressed and healed rather than the innocent person be killed due to another's mental illness.

Edited to change life to person.

 

[Tresha91203]

Let me see if I can get a better grip on your hypothetical to understand what you are after. In your scenario:

1. Has the fetus been deemed a person, with equal protections under our laws?

2. Is it the goal that the mother's trauma affords her the self defense or maybe ? stand your ground defense option, or would she legally be left with diminshed capacity or insanity defense?

3. Would this hypothetical law be enforced even? (Prior to Roe vs Wade, it was not prosecuted)

When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here's Why | LifeNews.com

I am not advocating throwing rape victims in jail for having an abortion. You get that, right?

 

[eflatminor]

The entire argument, including the Constitutionality of abortion rests on the basic premise of when life begins. We've not settled that debate and many would argue the Supreme Court had no authority to attempt to do so in Roe V Wade. Regardless, their ruling then leaves the issue unsettled today, as this ongoing debate demonstrates.

So, if you believe life starts at conception, there is almost never justification for abortion as you'd be murdering a child. If you believe life begins at birth, you'll happily chop that little sucker up minutes before delivery. The SC said life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb, which technology renders a moving target and leaves us with the mess we have today.

I remain agnostic on the legality. Woman are going to do this regardless of the law. Personally, I can't contemplate the notion of ending a viable pregnancy voluntarily. But then, I have no ovaries.

Tricky topic to be sure. It's the one debate that can divide libertarians with differing opinions on when life begins.

I suspect some day technology will render the debate moot. When we can take a fetus at any stage from one woman who doesn't want it and implant it in a woman that does, the notion of abortion will become obsolete.

I would disagree with your premise. We know when life begins, that is not in question. There is no workable definition of life that would preclude a fetus but include a child. It is simply fact that life begins at conception. The general argument usually revolves around when 'person hood' begins as that is a more philosophical term versus life which is a more scientific one.

The crux of the problem lies when one gains basic rights or the protection of them.

The courts found otherwise, but I respect your position.

 

[Chuz Life]

You don't think pregnancies are endangering? A pregnancy is dangerous to not only the physical aspects of a person's life but to many other aspects as well.

If someone assumes those risks consensually? That's one thing. But to have all those risks forced on you in a criminal act? That's another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

It's interesting that you think that actually physically carrying a pregnancy that is forced on you in a crime like RAPE is no more stressful than being around strange men. . . After being raped.

It's interesting you think I believe that. I never said that at all.

You said " I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense."

Okay. So what about the physical condition of a rape pregnancy?

Do you think it would be Constitutional to force women to carry pregnancies to term that were forced onto them in a crime of rape?

I was addressing potential constitutional exceptions, not what should or shouldn't be, not how people feel. I am discussing self defense. She can kill the rapist if she feels her life is in danger. She doesn't think the baby is going to kill her. If she does, and you could get a doc to sign off on that, maybe.

Is our right to self defense limited to only cases where we feel we might be "killed?"

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that it is more open than that.

For example, if a rapist were to tell a woman that he isn't going to hurt her or kill her - he just wants to have sex. . . she could still legally KILL him if that is what she reasonably believed was necessary to prevent his attack.

Agree?

You are changing the goalposts.

Am not.

One may use lethal forms of self defense to protect one's self (or another) from bodily harm or death (or reasonable expectation of same). Rape IS bodily harm. Also, it is reasonable to fear death at the hands of her rapist, as rapists often kill their victims.

Countless women have been harmed and have even died from pregnancies gone wrong. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise. It is also ludicrous the hold a view that a raped woman's fears of the consequences of continuing a pregnancy that was forced onto her in a rape would be unfounded or unreasonable.

 

[Tresha91203]

I have not stated any position. I was answering the question of constitutional exceptions. I do not believe it would be a constitutional exception to kill the baby (if the SC should define a fetus as such) unless the baby were a clear and present danger to the mother's life. I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense.

It's interesting that you think that actually physically carrying a pregnancy that is forced on you in a crime like RAPE is no more stressful than being around strange men. . . After being raped.

It's interesting you think I believe that. I never said that at all.

You said " I don't believe emotional distress reaches that level, especially since the baby is merely existing, not harassing or threatening. Many rape victims are distressed by the presence of strange males but they don't get to kill them and claim self defense."

Okay. So what about the physical condition of a rape pregnancy?

Do you think it would be Constitutional to force women to carry pregnancies to term that were forced onto them in a crime of rape?

I was addressing potential constitutional exceptions, not what should or shouldn't be, not how people feel. I am discussing self defense. She can kill the rapist if she feels her life is in danger. She doesn't think the baby is going to kill her. If she does, and you could get a doc to sign off on that, maybe.

Is our right to self defense limited to only cases where we feel we might be "killed?"

For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that it is more open than that.

For example, if a rapist were to tell a woman that he isn't going to hurt her or kill her - he just wants to have sex. . . she could still legally KILL him if that is what she reasonably believed was necessary to prevent his attack.

Agree?

You are changing the goalposts.

Am not.

One may use lethal forms of self defense to protect one's self (or another) from bodily harm or death (or reasonable expectation of same). Rape IS bodily harm. Also, it is reasonable to fear death at the hands of her rapist, as rapists often kill their victims.

Countless women have been harmed and have even died from pregnancies gone wrong. It is ludicrous to claim otherwise. It is also ludicrous the hold a view that a raped woman's fears of the consequences of continuing a pregnancy that was forced onto her in a rape would be unfounded or unreasonable.

As I have repeatedly stated, a doctor determines if the pregnancy is dangerous. Most pregnancies are not life threatening or harmful by medical definition.

I have also already stated the mother may be acquitted on the basis of her fear, just as a post partum depression mother may be.

I will wait for your answers to post 49. I don't see your question as a legal or constitutional one based on your responses.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let me see if I can get a better grip on your hypothetical to understand what you are after. In your scenario:

1. Has the fetus been deemed a person, with equal protections under our laws?

That's what they actually are (human beings / persons) anyway... so Yeah.

2. Is it the goal that the mother's trauma affords her the self defense or maybe?

It's about her right to self defense. Yes. But it's about more than only the trauma of the rape itself. A pregnancy that results from a rape is a continuation and even a growing threat to the rape victims life, heath and well being. All of which she has a right to defend.

3. Would this hypothetical law be enforced even? (Prior to Roe vs Wade, it was not prosecuted)

When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here's Why | LifeNews.com

Only one way to find out.

I am not advocating throwing rape victims in jail for having an abortion. You get that, right?

Neither am I. However, unlike you, I see an abortion in their cases as being justified and you don't. It's as if the fact that their pregnancy was forced on them instead of having resulted from a risk that they willing took makes no difference to you at all.

 

[Tresha91203]

Let me see if I can get a better grip on your hypothetical to understand what you are after. In your scenario:

1. Has the fetus been deemed a person, with equal protections under our laws?

That's what they actually are (human beings / persons) anyway... so Yeah.

2. Is it the goal that the mother's trauma affords her the self defense or maybe?

It's about her right to self defense. Yes. But it's about more than only the trauma of the rape itself. A pregnancy that results from a rape is a continuation and even a growing threat to the rape victims life, heath and well being. All of which she has a right to defend.

3. Would this hypothetical law be enforced even? (Prior to Roe vs Wade, it was not prosecuted)

When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here's Why | LifeNews.com

Only one way to find out.

I am not advocating throwing rape victims in jail for having an abortion. You get that, right?

Neither am I. However, unlike you, I see an abortion in their cases as being justified and you don't. It's as if the fact that their pregnancy was forced on them instead of having resulted from a risk that they willing took makes no difference to you at all.

I haven't given an opinion on it one way or the other. You are mistaken. My personal opinion is her body, her choice.

I am coming at your question from a legal / constitutional standpoint, which is what I thought you were interested in discussing. Currently, the unborn is not afforded the same rights as a born person. If the unborn are afforded the same protections as the born, you will be able to legally kill an unborn baby under the same circumstances that you may legally kill a born baby. Both babies would be protected equally.

If a rape victim gives birth to the product of her rape, is she legally able to kill it if it begins to display physical features of her rapist, thereby re-traumatizing the mother?

This is why our laws differentiate between the unborn and the born. The unborn, while innocent, physically and by necessity, exist inside the body of an autonomous person.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let me see if I can get a better grip on your hypothetical to understand what you are after. In your scenario:

1. Has the fetus been deemed a person, with equal protections under our laws?

That's what they actually are (human beings / persons) anyway... so Yeah.

2. Is it the goal that the mother's trauma affords her the self defense or maybe?

It's about her right to self defense. Yes. But it's about more than only the trauma of the rape itself. A pregnancy that results from a rape is a continuation and even a growing threat to the rape victims life, heath and well being. All of which she has a right to defend.

3. Would this hypothetical law be enforced even? (Prior to Roe vs Wade, it was not prosecuted)

When Abortion Was Illegal, Women Were Not Jailed for Having Abortions. Here's Why | LifeNews.com

Only one way to find out.

I am not advocating throwing rape victims in jail for having an abortion. You get that, right?

Neither am I. However, unlike you, I see an abortion in their cases as being justified and you don't. It's as if the fact that their pregnancy was forced on them instead of having resulted from a risk that they willing took makes no difference to you at all.

I haven't given an opinion on it one way or the other. You are mistaken. My personal opinion is her body, her choice.

The tired old "her body her choice" argument has been defeated since day one. By allowing for State regulations based on the child's development, Not even the Roe v Wade decision held that premise.

I am coming at your question from a legal / constitutional standpoint, which is what I thought you were interested in discussing.

Good!

Currently, the unborn is not afforded the same rights as a born person.

That would be a great topic for another thread. It might be one worth starting, myself. Especially since you seem to think that our basic human rights is something that is "afforded" to us by our government.

Where in the Constitution does it state that our government has the right, power or authority to "afford" us our rights?

If the unborn are afforded the same protections as the born, you will be able to legally kill an unborn baby under the same circumstances that you may legally kill a born baby. Both babies would be protected equally.

You say this as if the circumstances and physical conditions could ever be the same between them.

If a rape victim gives birth to the product of her rape, is she legally able to kill it if it begins to display physical features of her rapist, thereby re-traumatizing the mother?

Could you ever make the case that a raped woman who waited and actually gives birth to her attackers child is facing the same threats to her life, heath and well being that she was facing early on in her pregnancy when she was first raped and then found out she was pregnant?

I doubt that you can.

This is why our laws differentiate between the unborn and the born. The unborn, while innocent, physically and by necessity, exist inside the body of an autonomous person.

Again, not even the Roe decision supports your claims on that.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is another problem not being discussed here. One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, called a "spontaneous abortion". In countries where abortions are banned, women who suffer miscarriages are often accused of abortion.

How can you make something which happens spontaneously in 1/3 of all pregnancies, illegal?

If God deemed every zygote as sacred, why do so many of them self-abort.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Chuz Life]

There is another problem not being discussed here. One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, called a "spontaneous abortion". In countries where abortions are banned, women who suffer miscarriages are often accused of abortion.

This is crucial to the debate.

Who are their accusers?

How can you make something which happens spontaneously in 1/3 of all pregnancies, illegal?

One way would be to recognize the fact that miscarriages do in fact naturally occur and then write that acknowledgment into the law itself.

If God deemed every zygote as sacred, why do so many of them self-abort.

What does "God" have to do with any of this? Do you have any proof that "God" exists? Please. This is a secular discussion on the laws, science and the Constitution. No one needs a "God" or a belief in God to know what the Constitution says or to recognize (through science) the moment that a new child's life begins.