Is killing abortion doctors a moral right?

[Faun]

Is there a conflict in our laws when our laws make even an accidental killing of a child in the womb (during a criminal act) a crime of MURDER but when a woman INTENTIONALLY hires someone to kill her child in her womb herself. . . There is no crime at all?

I say yes.

The conflict is obvious and eventually that contradiction will have to be re-addressed by the courts.

If there's a conflict, then the fetal protection laws are unconstitutional as they cannot infringe on womens' constitutional right to have an abortion.

 

[Chuz Life]

Protecting the Unborn: A Step-By-Step Approach

As Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, has stated, “It seems (abortion advocates’) greatest fear is not of what the (fetal homicide) bill actually does legally, but of how it might encourage people to think about the unborn child.”

Conner Peterson, Laci Peterson’s unborn son, became a person in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the American people through the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. No matter how abortion advocates might try to re-frame the debate, Conner passed through the prism of public consciousness to become more than just a “blob of tissue.” He had a name—therefore, he had existed, and his young life had been brought to a tragic end. And the law justly recognizes that fact.

This is how the fight against abortion must be waged: one step at a time. Incrementalism can try our patience, but it can also be quite effective. As the fight against slavery was fought in stages, so too the battle for civil rights protection for unborn children must be played out on one front at a time.

Once feticide has been outlawed throughout the U.S., pro-life advocates can move onto the next step. Each small victory wins more respect for unborn children, and hastens the day when they finally will be accorded equal rights under the law.

 

[Faun]

Protecting the Unborn: A Step-By-Step Approach

As Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, has stated, “It seems (abortion advocates’) greatest fear is not of what the (fetal homicide) bill actually does legally, but of how it might encourage people to think about the unborn child.”

Conner Peterson, Laci Peterson’s unborn son, became a person in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the American people through the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. No matter how abortion advocates might try to re-frame the debate, Conner passed through the prism of public consciousness to become more than just a “blob of tissue.” He had a name—therefore, he had existed, and his young life had been brought to a tragic end. And the law justly recognizes that fact.

This is how the fight against abortion must be waged: one step at a time. Incrementalism can try our patience, but it can also be quite effective. As the fight against slavery was fought in stages, so too the battle for civil rights protection for unborn children must be played out on one front at a time.

Once feticide has been outlawed throughout the U.S., pro-life advocates can move onto the next step. Each small victory wins more respect for unborn children, and hastens the day when they finally will be accorded equal rights under the law.

Fetal abortion laws take great care not to infringe on abortion because once they do, they will be shot down like a rabid dog for being unconstitutional.

 

[Chuz Life]

IX
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. - Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade

 

[Faun]

IX
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. - Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade

Keep reading...

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So called 'fetal protection laws' are political theater, designed to appease those hostile to the privacy rights of women.

Indeed, all 'fetal protection laws' have provisions excluding lawful abortions, acknowledging the fact that such laws would be otherwise un-Constitutional.

Consequently, to point to 'fetal protection laws' as some sort of ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ that the law is some manner ‘recognizes’ an embryo/fetus as a ‘person’ is ignorant and ridiculous, and at best disingenuous.

 

[Faun]

So called 'fetal protection laws' are political theater, designed to appease those hostile to the privacy rights of women.

Indeed, all 'fetal protection laws' have provisions excluding lawful abortions, acknowledging the fact that such laws would be otherwise un-Constitutional.

Consequently, to point to 'fetal protection laws' as some sort of ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ that the law is some manner ‘recognizes’ an embryo/fetus as a ‘person’ is ignorant and ridiculous, and at best disingenuous.

That idiot actually posted the appellee argued a fetus is a "person" according to the 14th Amendment, as though argument alone establishes reality, but then omits the justice's decision where the ruling specifically clarified that amendment does NOT establish a fetus is a "person."

 

[Mudda]

Protecting the Unborn: A Step-By-Step Approach

As Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, has stated, “It seems (abortion advocates’) greatest fear is not of what the (fetal homicide) bill actually does legally, but of how it might encourage people to think about the unborn child.”

Conner Peterson, Laci Peterson’s unborn son, became a person in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the American people through the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. No matter how abortion advocates might try to re-frame the debate, Conner passed through the prism of public consciousness to become more than just a “blob of tissue.” He had a name—therefore, he had existed, and his young life had been brought to a tragic end. And the law justly recognizes that fact.

This is how the fight against abortion must be waged: one step at a time. Incrementalism can try our patience, but it can also be quite effective. As the fight against slavery was fought in stages, so too the battle for civil rights protection for unborn children must be played out on one front at a time.

Once feticide has been outlawed throughout the U.S., pro-life advocates can move onto the next step. Each small victory wins more respect for unborn children, and hastens the day when they finally will be accorded equal rights under the law.

So let's say your side gets everything they want and abortions are outlawed. How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

 

[Chuz Life]

So called 'fetal protection laws' are political theater, designed to appease those hostile to the privacy rights of women.

Indeed, all 'fetal protection laws' have provisions excluding lawful abortions, acknowledging the fact that such laws would be otherwise un-Constitutional.

Consequently, to point to 'fetal protection laws' as some sort of ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ that the law is some manner ‘recognizes’ an embryo/fetus as a ‘person’ is ignorant and ridiculous, and at best disingenuous.

1. Under our fetal homicide laws, a person can be (and several have been) charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during the committing of a criminal act.

2. What is the legal definition of MURDER?

 

[Chuz Life]

IX
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. - Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade

Keep reading...

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.

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

 

[BreezeWood]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

 

[Faun]

IX
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. - Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade

Keep reading...

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.

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

I ignored nothing. You quoted some some text from from Row v. Wade about arguments trying to establish personhood for a fetus and I responded by showing you text from same where the decision ruled the 14th does not establish such personhood.

I would expect you understand decisions overrule arguments.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Faun]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

Abortion is a constitutional right. The fetal protection laws you reference have never been constitutionally challenged. It's been over 10 years since such laws have been past. What's taking you numbnuts so long to get them reviewed by the Supreme Court?

 

[Chuz Life]

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life

 

[BreezeWood]

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life

* by the way, forum rules require a comment for a post to be submitted ...

The prosecution had alleged that Airman Boie placed the medication Misoprostol in his pregnant wife’s food without her knowledge to induce an abortion.

A lower court had held that Missouri’s law “impermissibl[y]” adopted “a theory of when life begins,” but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids.

a convicted killer, Matthew Bullock, had argued

these are all examples where a third party are responsible for crimes against innocent victims where the criminal attempts to misconstrue an interpretation of Roe v Wade to suit their own interest -

the same as people like chuz that ignore a balanced resolution blindly insisting on only their point of view -



the trimester is set by Roe v Wade where life becomes sustainable and protected by the court to insist otherwise is to be disingenuous in regards to the overall considerations consistent with a democratic society.

.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, I will watch it Creek here and there. My Brother John is a HUGE Vikings fan! Husband loves Giants, hahahaha, Jim of course with the steelers, and I happen to like the Cowboys! I think I have a pic of Jim in his Steelers shirt.

Criminals charged and convicted who are appealing their convictions are not 3rd parties. And the fetal homicide laws they were convicted under do not have ANY specifications with regards to the trimester that their murder victim (s) were in.

That is one of the many contradictions between Roe and the Fetal Homicide laws that those convicted murderers are trying to get the SCOTUS to consider.

 

[Mudda]

You are ignoring that a later Court can be persuaded otherwise and you are ignoring how the fetal homicide (and other pro-life) laws which have been passed since Roe will lead to that persuasion.

... will lead to that persuasion.

Republicans vow no hearings and no votes for Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.

you really mean not adhering to the Constitutional rule of Law to manipulate the outcome to suit your own "persuasion" you then will insist others should follow as though it were a fair and honest law ... can't do it without cheating chuz.

How do you plan on forcing women to carry babies against their will?

they can hardly wait, a return to old time religion, praise Jebus ...

.

No one has the right to violate the rights of any other person. Especially children. The Supreme Court will inevitably be persuaded to reverse their previous ruling on Roe in much the same way they were compelled to reverse their own ruling on Dred Scott.

Our fetal homicide laws are large part of that legislative process. It has nothing to do with religion.

A fetus Isn't a person, now you know.

 

[Mudda]

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws | National Right to Life

"the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids."

You lose again.

 

[BreezeWood]

That is one of the many contradictions between Roe and the Fetal Homicide laws ...

you seem oblivious that the contradiction attempts by antiabortion advocates have all been amicably resolved to pertain to the trimester the original RvW made exception for.

there are no real issues when the fantasies of the antiabortion people are removed, it's a pity modern society has to endure their fanatical and intrusive tactics.


if not religion / philosophical reasons then what is the motivation for people like chuz ?

.