Just a clump of cells

[TemplarKormac]

Don't like the fact they're considered children under the law? Deal with it:

18 U.S.C §1841


(a)

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2)

(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)).

(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c) 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.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Is that 1st trimester? Life shouldn't be so precious that a woman who is 1 week pregnant should be forced to give birth. Snip suck sorry.

... Birth doesn't happen in the first week... This is the exact thing I was talking about... -.-

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roedecision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And in 1992 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that decision:

'Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992

The wisdom of privacy rights jurisprudence, therefore, safeguards the right of each individual to decide for himself, in good faith and good conscience, when life begins.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I mean, you can protect the life of the unborn child in criminal acts of murder, but the unborn child is up a creek when it comes to the 'choice' of the mother.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm going to be flatly blunt. The pro-Abortion crowd is dead wrong about human biology. A human is a human inside the womb and out. This video is proof of such. This is the unborn child of a French couple who watch in amazement at the vigorous movement of the baby in the womb. To say the child isn't viable while in the womb is wrong, simply put. To say the child is not a real person until after birth is also wrong, this one seems real enough to me.

Is that 1st trimester? Life shouldn't be so precious that a woman who is 1 week pregnant should be forced to give birth. Snip suck sorry.

In the first trimester? You must be joking.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This will be difficult for you to understand but most of these little things, and they are teeny tiny, don't make it. Abortion doesn't bother nature, that's how she cleans up. Most of these will never see the light of day, regardless of induced abortion. At this stage, potential humans really are just clumps of cells.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How can liberals condemn ISIS beheadings?

After all, they're nothing more than extra-late term abortions.

How can so many conservatives be this ignorant and ridiculous.

It's as if being this stupid and ignorant is a prerequisite for being a conservative.

 

[Katzndogz]

Support for abortion took a big hit once 4d ultrasound was developed. That's why it isn't nearly as popular as it was.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm going to be flatly blunt. The pro-Abortion crowd is dead wrong about human biology. A human is a human inside the womb and out. This video is proof of such. This is the unborn child of a French couple who watch in amazement at the vigorous movement of the baby in the womb. To say the child isn't viable while in the womb is wrong, simply put. To say the child is not a real person until after birth is also wrong, this one seems real enough to me.

Is that 1st trimester? Life shouldn't be so precious that a woman who is 1 week pregnant should be forced to give birth. Snip suck sorry.

In the first trimester? You must be joking.

That's her point. That is far different than the early stages. That needs a diaper and cute blue or pink tiny hat.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Support for abortion took a big hit once 4d ultrasound was developed. That's why it isn't nearly as popular as it was.

Safe, legal, and rare, no worries.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body?

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws that end the life of unborn children?

That's for each individual to decide for himself, that you disagree with others' perception of when life begins is legally irrelevant. As a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not a 'child' until the time of birth:

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.' ibid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't like the fact they're considered children under the law? Deal with it:

18 U.S.C §1841


(a)

(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2)

(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—

(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)).

(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

(c) 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.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Wrong.

You're confusing criminal law with civil law:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution...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[.]”

The crime committed against a pregnant woman resulting in the loss of her pregnancy involves taking from the woman the right to decide for herself whether to have a child or not; as a matter of civil law, therefore, prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' not an 'unborn child,' where the woman's protected liberty prohibits the state from compelling her to give birth against her will.

 

[HUGGY]

Some things that you want to think are your business are not. Early on it is the mothers call. If you don't like that then there is something wrong with YOU.

Until a fetus becomes a whole baby and is drawing breath at birth the mother has more rights. If you dispute that then you are a fool. You certainly don't have any rights in the case of a woman being pregnant and getting an abortion.

Stop acting like you have a say in someone else's private decisions.

 

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't matter if one considers a fetus a clump of cells or a viable human infant as of yet to be birthed.

How do you rationally or ethically enforce laws the subjugate a woman's right to control her body? Abortion will happen either legally and as safely as medical practices can make it, or illegally and unsafely. Do you suggest that we strap women into beds in facilities if they maybe harbor thoughts of abortion? Put women in jail for aborting or attempting to abort? Jailing abortion doctors? It ain't gonna happen. A fertus doesn't have any legal rights and voters even in the most conservative states haven't supported measures to extend rights to the unborn.

The SCOTUS ruled on this issue 41 years ago. The fight is over. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe 's trimester framework, while affirming Roe 's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roedecision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That ignores the fact that Roe allows for controls to limit abortion in later stages.

Clearly it is not always the mothers choice even if the child has not been born yet. The short answer to your question about the things we can do is yes.

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) yet the woman has the option early in her term.

 

[FA_Q2]

Some things that you want to think are your business are not. Early on it is the mothers call. If you don't like that then there is something wrong with YOU.

Until a fetus becomes a whole baby and is drawing breath at birth the mother has more rights. If you dispute that then you are a fool. You certainly don't have any rights in the case of a woman being pregnant and getting an abortion.

Stop acting like you have a say in someone else's private decisions.

Except we actually do - see above.

it is not a 'private' decision as it affect the life of another - actually ends it. At some point that life has a right to exist and the line is not when it takes it's first breath.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) ...

They are sometimes necessary, brutal as they are, and they are.

 

[FA_Q2]

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) ...

They are sometimes necessary, brutal as they are, and they are.

Necessity is not at issue and never will be.

If something is medically nessisary it will be done - period. The only thing in question is optional abortions - the VAST majority of them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Abortion law is actually rather good these days - late term abortions are largely illegal (and that should be made universal IMHO) ...

They are sometimes necessary, brutal as they are, and they are.

Necessity is not at issue and never will be.

If something is medically nessisary it will be done - period. The only thing in question is optional abortions - the VAST majority of them.

So don't call for a universal ban, that means no exceptions.

 

[Dragonlady]

One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Doctors generally believe this is nature's way of disposing of a fetus which isn't viable or not developing properly. So yes, it does take quite a bit of luck to get from zygote to infant. Those who oppose a woman's right to choose conveniently forget these numbers.

I believe that children should be wanted and cherished. Studies have shown that unwanted children don't do as well as children who are wanted. Unwanted children have more emotional problems, lower academic scores, and higher rates of delinquency. A child should be loved, cherished and cared for. If the parents can't do that, then they shouldn't have the baby.

Conservatives want women to be forced to have babies, saying you shouldn't have sex if you can't live with the consequences. In short, they view the baby as some sort of punishment for wanton behavior, and seek to control women's sexuality by removing abortion as an option. They ignore the studies that say that half of the women who have abortions are married or in a committed relationship, and already have one or more children.

If you think abortion is immoral, don't have one. But don't try to impose your beliefs and morals on others. You can't believe in individual rights and responsibilities on one hand, and then tell women they don't have the right to make these decisions about their own lives and their own bodies. You can't say you oppose the government telling you how to live your life, and then ask the government to deny women the right to chose how many children she should have. That's not even the slightly bit logical.

 

[HUGGY]

Some things that you want to think are your business are not. Early on it is the mothers call. If you don't like that then there is something wrong with YOU.

Until a fetus becomes a whole baby and is drawing breath at birth the mother has more rights. If you dispute that then you are a fool. You certainly don't have any rights in the case of a woman being pregnant and getting an abortion.

Stop acting like you have a say in someone else's private decisions.

Except we actually do - see above.

it is not a 'private' decision as it affect the life of another - actually ends it. At some point that life has a right to exist and the line is not when it takes it's first breath.

Actually you do not. Mind YOUR own business.