CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

[Chuz Life]

[

And if the mother is a smoker- or a drinker- that miscarriage would have to be treated as a suspicous death- reported to authorities for investigation to see if the mother was guilty of gross or simple negligence that resulted in the death of a child.

That reads like fear mongering.

Miscarriages happen naturally every day.

Realistically speaking, the only time a miscarriage would "have to be" reported or investigated would be in cases where criminal negligence or intent can be proven by a prosecutor.

Not so quick.

Remember- what you want us all to agree to is that at the moment of conception- that fetus is exactly the same legally as a 5 year old child.

Correction.

They are the same Constitutionally. As they are all "persons."

A five year old (born in the U.S.) is something that a prenatal child (even the same child) is not or was not. That is - a five year old child is "born." That makes them a "citizen."

I hope you can appreciate the fact that there is a difference and a distinction (even in our Constitution) between a "person" and a "citizen."

If a 5 year old child dies, a death certificate would have to be issued, including a cause of death.

You are talking in platitudes.

Do you claim that every 5 year old that has ever died has been issued a death certificate?

Are you claiming that a five year old that dies and does not get a death certificate was any less a human being / person when they were alive?

Our constitution makes no such requirement for personhood.

If the child had been forced to consume alcohol or nicotine by his mother, and that appeared to be related to his death, certainly the mother could be charged with manslaughter or murder.

As well she should be charged for something like that.

Do you disagree?

And a pregnant woman is certainly forcing alcohol and nicotine on her fetus.

Yeah. And some women have already been charged and prosecuted for that - even without laws banning abortion.

Your point is?

What about women who 'starve' their fetus because they starve themselves?

What about them?

Remember- you want to treat the fetus exactly like a born child.

I want consistency in our laws.

Do you agree that it is an inconsistency for a bank robber to be charged with MURDER for even accidentally killing a child in the womb during a criminal act. . . but if the same woman INTENTIONALLY kills that same child by starving it to death or by ingesting drugs to kill it will face no charges at all?

If the neighbor down the street had her 5 year old die- and never told anyone but just buried the 5 year old in the backyard.....would there be any legal ramifications?

Probably.

But that doesn't prove that her child was any less a "person" if she doesn't get charged in that case. Does it? The answer is no. And that's why your argument with that is a red herring / non sequitur.

Now lets look at what happens when a woman has a miscarriage at 6 weeks. Treating that fetus like a child- why wouldn't that mother be obligated to not only tell authorities of her pregnancy(as she would a birth) but also of the death of the fetus?

That sort of thing would be left up to the States. I can see States passing such a requirement. however, it would not be absolutely necessary for a State to do so - in order to pass OTHER laws to protect the rights of children in the womb.

You call this fear mongering- I am pointing out that IF you insist that a newly implanted fetus is exactly the legally as a 5 year old child- then everything that applies to how we treat a living child- including the death of a living child- would necessarily be the same.

That is incorrect and it is still fear mongering too. because we used to have laws against abortions in this country before and none of the States at that time had laws requiring anything close to what you are proposing. Indeed, there are many countries where abortion is already banned today and none of them are taking it to the extreme that you are worried about.

 

[Chuz Life]

....Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

No doubt a zygote is human, but this doesn't prove personhood. Why do you dodge the question about proving it?

A human being in the zygote stage of their life is not only "human."

It is "a human." That is - it is a "human being." And many of our fetal homicide laws already recognize them as such.

You say the fetus is a human.

And many of our state laws disagree with you.

The Federal Law (Unborn victims of violence act) says that a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" is "a human being."

Do tell me why I should dismiss what our federal laws say and adopt your alleged denials by a few States instead. Remember, I can list 38 States that for the most part agree with the Federal Law.

And I can list the language which says that nothing about that law applies to abortion. Quite the contradiction eh?

Not really.

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;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
So- just to point out- that if a woman were to starve her 5 year old child to death- she could be criminally prosecuted for that death- according to this law- she could do the same thing to her fetus- and not be prosecuted.

No-one is talking about using our existing fetal homicide laws (as written) to prosecute women for having abortions.

Read closely - "the laws banning abortion would be NEW laws - based in part on the precedents set for in our Fetal Homicide Laws - which essentially ESTABLISH the personhood and therefore the Constitutional rights of "children in the womb."

Do you think that the pregnant woman should be prosecuted?

LOL!

If she is still "pregnant" what are you suggesting I think she should be prosecuted for?

 

[Chuz Life]

So- what do you think about women who have been raped being required to carry the fetus that resulted- to term?

That would be a great topic for another thread.

I would rather not derail this one with it.

 

[Syriusly]

So- what do you think about women who have been raped being required to carry the fetus that resulted- to term?

That would be a great topic for another thread.

I would rather not derail this one with it.

I can understand why you would not want to.

But you do realize that under what you are proposing, the government would have to force a girl who was raped by her father to carry that fetus to term.

 

[Syriusly]

No doubt a zygote is human, but this doesn't prove personhood. Why do you dodge the question about proving it?

A human being in the zygote stage of their life is not only "human."

It is "a human." That is - it is a "human being." And many of our fetal homicide laws already recognize them as such.

You say the fetus is a human.

And many of our state laws disagree with you.

The Federal Law (Unborn victims of violence act) says that a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" is "a human being."

Do tell me why I should dismiss what our federal laws say and adopt your alleged denials by a few States instead. Remember, I can list 38 States that for the most part agree with the Federal Law.

And I can list the language which says that nothing about that law applies to abortion. Quite the contradiction eh?

Not really.

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;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
So- just to point out- that if a woman were to starve her 5 year old child to death- she could be criminally prosecuted for that death- according to this law- she could do the same thing to her fetus- and not be prosecuted.

No-one is talking about using our existing fetal homicide laws (as written) to prosecute women for having abortions.

Read closely - "the laws banning abortion would be NEW laws - based in part on the precedents set for in our Fetal Homicide Laws - which essentially ESTABLISH the personhood and therefore the Constitutional rights of "children in the womb."

Oh read it quite well.

You are citing 'fetal homicide' laws and then give a hand wave to the very same laws which say that they do not apply to abortion- or ever to the woman who is pregnant.

A woman who shoots herself in the stomach and causes the termination of her pregnancy cannot be prosecuted under these laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

So- what do you think about women who have been raped being required to carry the fetus that resulted- to term?

That would be a great topic for another thread.

I would rather not derail this one with it.

I can understand why you would not want to.

But you do realize that under what you are proposing, the government would have to force a girl who was raped by her father to carry that fetus to term.

No it wouldn't

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

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

You call this fear mongering- I am pointing out that IF you insist that a newly implanted fetus is exactly the legally as a 5 year old child- then everything that applies to how we treat a living child- including the death of a living child- would necessarily be the same.

That is incorrect and it is still fear mongering too. because we used to have laws against abortions in this country before and none of the States at that time had laws requiring anything close to what you are proposing. Indeed, there are many countries where abortion is already banned today and none of them are taking it to the extreme that you are worried about.

Remember you are the one who started this thread applying a legal logic which attempts to spell out that a fetus upon implantation is a human being with all of the same rights as a 5 year old child.

How can you on the one hand say that that fetus is a human being- but on the other hand say that the mother would be treated differently if she caused through her neglect the death of her 5 year old child- or cause the termination of her 5 week old pregnancy?

If that 5 week old fetus is to be treated the same as a 5 year old child- then the pregnant woman is liable in exactly the same as the mother of the 5 year old.

Explain how you can rationalize treating the mother differently?

 

[Syriusly]

So- what do you think about women who have been raped being required to carry the fetus that resulted- to term?

That would be a great topic for another thread.

I would rather not derail this one with it.

I can understand why you would not want to.

But you do realize that under what you are proposing, the government would have to force a girl who was raped by her father to carry that fetus to term.

No it wouldn't

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

Wait- so the government would allow the girl to 'murder' the 'child' within her?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
I want consistency in our laws.

Do you agree that it is an inconsistency for a bank robber to be charged with MURDER for even accidentally killing a child in the womb during a criminal act. . . but if the same woman INTENTIONALLY kills that same child by starving it to death or by ingesting drugs to kill it will face no charges at all?t.

I don't think you do. You want laws to stop abortions.

I do agree it is inconsistent for a bank robber to be charged with murder for accidentally terminating a woman's pregnancy- I think frankly its wrong. I think that the law was put in place for exactly the purpose you are using it- to lay the frame work to claim that a 5 week old fetus is a human being and to outlaw abortion.

Again- you have no problem with the inconsistency when it comes to treating a miscarriage as something different from the death of a living child.

You seem to also be okay with abortion in the case of incest and rape.

if you really want 'consistency' then to be consistent:

• All abortion would have to be outlawed- including for that 12 year old girl impregnated by her father.
• Women who got abortions would have to be charged with murder- even if they left the United States for the abortion.
• Women who had miscarriages would have to report the miscarriage just as they are required to report the death of their living child.
  
• And if the autopsy of the miscarried fetus was determined to have miscarried through the neglect or intentional harm by the woman- she would be liable for prosecution.

If you want consistency that is.

 

[Chuz Life]

So- what do you think about women who have been raped being required to carry the fetus that resulted- to term?

That would be a great topic for another thread.

I would rather not derail this one with it.

I can understand why you would not want to.

But you do realize that under what you are proposing, the government would have to force a girl who was raped by her father to carry that fetus to term.

No it wouldn't

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

Wait- so the government would allow the girl to 'murder' the 'child' within her?

Start a new thread on the rape aspect if you like. But please don't derail this thread with it.

With that, I am off to bed. Work happens.

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

 

[Syriusly]

So- what do you think about women who have been raped being required to carry the fetus that resulted- to term?

That would be a great topic for another thread.

I would rather not derail this one with it.

I can understand why you would not want to.

But you do realize that under what you are proposing, the government would have to force a girl who was raped by her father to carry that fetus to term.

No it wouldn't

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

Wait- so the government would allow the girl to 'murder' the 'child' within her?

Start a new thread on the rape aspect if you like. But please don't derail this thread with it.

With that, I am off to bed. Work happens.

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

Sleep well.

Either this is a discussion of the legal ramifications of declaring life begins at conception- or it isn't

Just because you don't want to discuss one of the ramifications of considering life to begin at conception is not a derailment.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

It's not a serious matter. It was settled over 40 years ago and it's not going to be banned

 

[sakinago]

Being that abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.

But then, when has the right ever cared about original intent?

What what what??? What period fantasy tv dramas are you getting you're info from? And then you're antithesis supports slavery as a viable counter point (even though Jefferson, along with a very large majority of the founders, were the first abolistionist.) So, how many abortions were happening with approval of the public at the time the constitution was written? Puhlease pull up that statistic for all of us. Pretty pretty please.

 

[grbb]

Life is NOT sacred.

Nothing is.

Life of Bill Gates, obviously worth far more than life of those worthless thieves and burglars.

What about your own life? Would you value others' life as much as you value your own life? Of course not. Check your medical bills. When is the last time you willingly pay for someone else' surgery. Why wouldn't you pay for someone else' doctor? Because their life means little to you.

When my grandma died, I didn't have enough money. My richer uncle paid for her medical condition. But we sort of know. She's old. She gonna die anyway. Her life doesn't worth that much to "prolong and prolong". It's a sad fact. We all love my grandma. But we know that life value have limit. Not that we can prolong her life too actually.

It motivates me to get richer and richer. One day, I too will die. If a doctor told me that my medical bill is $1 million, I would rather inherit that $1 million to my children than continue living.

Life has economic value.

A fetus may be humans. However, like small start up, the valuation is too small. It's not going to cause too much deviation from optimum allocation of resources if we let fetus die.

A fetus of a welfare parasite is just a very worthless humans.

 

[sakinago]

Life is NOT sacred.

Nothing is.

Life of Bill Gates, obviously worth far more than life of those worthless thieves and burglars.

What about your own life? Would you value others' life as much as you value your own life? Of course not. Check your medical bills. When is the last time you willingly pay for someone else' surgery. Why wouldn't you pay for someone else' doctor? Because their life means little to you.

When my grandma died, I didn't have enough money. My richer uncle paid for her medical condition. But we sort of know. She's old. She gonna die anyway. Her life doesn't worth that much to "prolong and prolong". It's a sad fact. We all love my grandma. But we know that life value have limit. Not that we can prolong her life too actually.

It motivates me to get richer and richer. One day, I too will die. If a doctor told me that my medical bill is $1 million, I would rather inherit that $1 million to my children than continue living.

Life has economic value.

A fetus may be humans. However, like small start up, the valuation is too small. It's not going to cause too much deviation from optimum allocation of resources if we let fetus die.

A fetus of a welfare parasite is just a very worthless humans.

This is the sadest world view I've heard in what I'd like to say in a long time...But it's not, and this is the problem with a utilitarianism view of the medical field, and it's being propagated as what we should expect as human beings, but it's not. I have at least 3 patients a week from Canada that I infuse chemo through despite a 4 hour drive from the the boarder. The problem is, is that canadian healthcare works great, up until you have a specialized individual problem, then you can't get the treatment you need when you need it. So you come to america for it. Nobody praises the ability to get this treatment on demand in America, BC it's always given. But to my Canadian patients it's something special, but NY times never hears about these people. Instead they talk about all the Canadians with a cold who get antibacterials when its a viral infection, and they praise this like the next best thing to madam curie

 

[candycorn]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

No. The President has no standing to “dismiss” the patient/doctor confidentiality “code”. Not sure if it is a law or not.

 

[yiostheoy]

First of all, let's be clear. It is understood that the President alone does not have the power nor the authority to "ban abortion" on their own. Please don't read too far into the title of this thread.

That said, on inauguration day, January 20, 2017 - When President Elect Donald Trump is sworn in as the President of the United States, he will "swear or affirm that he "will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of our land. What it says matters not only to the "pro-choice" arguments surrounding abortion but to the "pro-life" side of the issue as well.

The Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments state clearly that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws and that no "person" can be "deprived of their life" without due process of law.

When Roe v Wade was being decided, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said; "the basic Constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s critical to this case, is it not?"

To which the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington responded; "Yes, it is."

Justice Potter Stewart continued; "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?"

And Sarah Weddington responded again, saying; "I would have a very difficult case."

All sides have agreed from the start that the Constitution and "personhood" are key components in the abortion debate.

Of course, we all know that the Supreme Court ruled in their 7-2 decision - that "All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

However, The Supreme Court did recognize even in Roe that; "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."

The Supreme Court of the United States is very sensitive to the "personhood" aspect of the abortion issue.

During Oral Arguments, Justice Potter Stewart commented; "Well, if---if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here,would you not?"

MRS. WEDDINGTON responded: "I would have a very difficult case."

The question becomes; "What (if anything) has changed in the way of establishing the "personhood" of children in the womb - in the four decades following the Roe v Wade decision?

The most obvious answer to that question is found in the language and in the upheld convictions of our nations many "Fetal Homicide" laws.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Forty Three Years after Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart speculated that a State or State's "could" establish "personhood" for children in the womb, the Federal Government and nearly Forty States have already passed laws which essentially do exactly that.

As Gloria Feldt, the former President of Planned Parenthood said herself; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot."

The Oath of office that President (elect) Trump will be taking soon, on January 20th, 2017 will not leave room for anything less!

Your rant is awfully long.

Can't you summarize it in a couple of sentences?

Bad writing rants on and on without summaries.

Trump can nominate SCOTUS justices. That's all.

If they are too extreme then Schumer And Co will filibuster them.

Thus I doubt Roe V. Wade will change anytime soon. Certainly not during Trump's presidency.

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.

Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?

No. The President has no standing to “dismiss” the patient/doctor confidentiality “code”. Not sure if it is a law or not.

Patient/doctor privilege is written into the Federal and the various States' statutes. FYI.

 

[Divine Wind]

....No-one is talking about using our existing fetal homicide laws (as written) to prosecute women for having abortions.

Read closely - "the laws banning abortion would be NEW laws - based in part on the precedents set for in our Fetal Homicide Laws - which essentially ESTABLISH the personhood and therefore the Constitutional rights of "children in the womb.".....

You are. You're arguments are like those of the LW anti-gun mob; an incremental approach to dictating certain beliefs. By your logic, if a zygote is a "person" then abortion is homicide and the mother should be prosecuted for murder. OTOH, if you kick a Mexican mother and her children back into the desert and they die, you don't consider them to be human. Amirite?

 

[xyz]

Personally, I don't think this depends as much on Trump as it does on lobbyists and other political pressure groups.

He was at one time pro-abortion, and I don't think he cares that much about this issue that he would put it on the agenda himself, especially with more pressing issues.