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

[Chuz Life]

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!

So what do you expect President Trump to do- since as you pointed out- he has no authority to do anything regarding abortion.

I expect President Trump to not blink when it comes time to appoint Supreme Court Justices (more than one, I predict) that will rule on the side of life - when they are inevitably asked to reconcile the disparity between our many "Fetal Homicide" laws and Roe.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

And those scientific facts are very unkind to the pro-life movement.

If you think so.

But, so far - the Supreme Court has let the convictions under our fetal homicide laws which support MY claims, stand.

Well those laws are interesting- because they generally say that the law does not apply in the case of abortion- or if the person 'committing the crime' is the mother.

There are clear contradictions in the law- a mother is not exempt from murder- if her child is alive.

If the fetus is a legal human being from the moment of conception- then miscarriages must be treated as the death of a child.

Every miscarriage.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

The problem the Libtards face is they they made abortion a federal issue. If forced to make a "choice" between partial birth abortions and no abortions, a majority of decent persons will always choose the latter.

The problem with Confascists is that they want to make all abortion illegal, even the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. If force to make a choice between legal abortion or forcing a woman who was raped to have the child of her rapist- a majority of decent persons will always choose the former.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

So what do you expect President Trump to do- since as you pointed out- he has no authority to do anything regarding abortion.

I expect President Trump to not blink when it comes time to appoint Supreme Court Justices (more than one, I predict) that will rule on the side of life - when they are inevitably asked to reconcile the disparity between our many "Fetal Homicide" laws and Roe.

So all of this is about Trump appointing the Supreme Court justices he said he would appoint?

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay, If it's a semantic debate you would like, let's have that. But, let's also explore the fact that early man might not have had all of the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today

And those scientific facts are very unkind to the pro-life movement.

If you think so.

But, so far - the Supreme Court has let the convictions under our fetal homicide laws which support MY claims, stand.

Well those laws are interesting- because they generally say that the law does not apply in the case of abortion- or if the person 'committing the crime' is the mother.

True.

The approach to establishing the personhood for children in the womb has been somewhat incremental. The precedence has now been set, never the less. A person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

MURDER by definition is one person criminally killing another 'person.'

There are clear contradictions in the law- a mother is not exempt from murder- if her child is alive.

Never read that one before.

If the fetus is a legal human being from the moment of conception- then miscarriages must be treated as the death of a child.

Every miscarriage.

I don't know any women who don't already treat miscarriages like the death of a child. In my experience, most women are fully aware that -that is what it is.

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.

 

[Chuz Life]

The problem the Libtards face is they they made abortion a federal issue. If forced to make a "choice" between partial birth abortions and no abortions, a majority of decent persons will always choose the latter.

The problem with Confascists is that they want to make all abortion illegal, even the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. If force to make a choice between legal abortion or forcing a woman who was raped to have the child of her rapist- a majority of decent persons will always choose the former.

You are mistaken when you claim that all of any one group is monolithic in their views or desired outcome. Pro-lifers are no more monolithic on the subject of abortion than 'pro-choicers' are.

That said, the one thing we should all agree on is the Constitution and what the INTENT is - to guard all person's lives and rights equally. And that requires a Supreme Court that does not IGNORE the existence of one group of "persons" and their rights - for the political convenience of another.

If you want to debate the Rape exception, for example - I would like to do that sometime. Maybe in another thread.

 

[Chuz Life]

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!

So what do you expect President Trump to do- since as you pointed out- he has no authority to do anything regarding abortion.

I expect President Trump to not blink when it comes time to appoint Supreme Court Justices (more than one, I predict) that will rule on the side of life - when they are inevitably asked to reconcile the disparity between our many "Fetal Homicide" laws and Roe.

So all of this is about Trump appointing the Supreme Court justices he said he would appoint?

Ultimately, that is what matters most. However, I think it's about more than only that. It's a thread and poll. It's open to discussion and debate. Education, enlightenment, etc.

 

[Divine Wind]

The approach to establishing the personhood for children in the womb has been somewhat incremental. The precedence has now been set, never the less. A person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

MURDER by definition is one person criminally killing another 'person.'.

You brought up "the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today" but all you have presented are legal arguments. How come you keep running from the question of presenting a scientific argument for personhood at conception?

Is that question too "confrontational"?

 

[Chuz Life]

The approach to establishing the personhood for children in the womb has been somewhat incremental. The precedence has now been set, never the less. A person can be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act.

MURDER by definition is one person criminally killing another 'person.'.

You brought up "the facts and understanding of biology, dna and human reproduction that we have today" but all you have presented are legal arguments. How come you keep running from the question of presenting a scientific argument for personhood at conception?

Is that question too "confrontational"?

The WhitePaper that I provided for you, (post #33) the last time you brought this up, is "scientific." Not Legal.

And it even says it is "scientific" in its title.

 

[Divine Wind]

The WhitePaper that I provided for you (post #33) the last time you brought this us is "scientific." Not Legal.

And it even says it is "scientific" in its title.

Hmmm....I don't recall it. Was that in the illegal post you made or one of those deleted because you reported me?

BTW, anyone can write a paper titled "Scientific review of wiping one's ass" but that doesn't make it scientific. Remember when I asked for a "reputable" source?....or was that one reported too?

 

[Chuz Life]

The WhitePaper that I provided for you (post #33) the last time you brought this us is "scientific." Not Legal.

And it even says it is "scientific" in its title.

Hmmm....I don't recall it. Was that in the illegal post you made or one of those deleted because you reported me?

BTW, anyone can write a paper titled "Scientific review of wiping one's ass" but that doesn't make it scientific. Remember when I asked for a "reputable" source?....or was that one reported too?

LOL

Can you seriously not scroll back to post #33?

Or click on the hyperlink?

 

[Divine Wind]

LOL

Can you seriously not scroll back to post #33?

Or click on the hyperlink?

LOL

Can you seriously be so dishonest you won't admit to reporting me?

 

[Divine Wind]

....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?

 

[Chuz Life]

The WhitePaper that I provided for you (post #33) the last time you brought this us is "scientific." Not Legal.

And it even says it is "scientific" in its title.

Hmmm....I don't recall it. Was that in the illegal post you made or one of those deleted because you reported me?

BTW, anyone can write a paper titled "Scientific review of wiping one's ass" but that doesn't make it scientific. Remember when I asked for a "reputable" source?....or was that one reported too?

I quoted the source for the WhitePaper and I included all of her credentials.

I understand you don't like the conclusion, the source, the author, etc. But you can not deny the fact that "WhitePapers" are very relied upon when making policy. Including the policies and legislation that gave us the Fetal Homicide Laws we have today.

You and your ilk may feel the need or the desire to bring the debate all the way back to the starting point but I (and my ilk) don't really have the need to do that.

Unless and until you can repeal and or overturn our existing fetal homicide laws. . . you can bet your last dollar that we (me and my ilk) are going to continue to use the legal precedence established by those laws - to overturn Roe.

 

[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.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.

 

[Syriusly]

....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.

 

[Syriusly]

The problem the Libtards face is they they made abortion a federal issue. If forced to make a "choice" between partial birth abortions and no abortions, a majority of decent persons will always choose the latter.

The problem with Confascists is that they want to make all abortion illegal, even the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. If force to make a choice between legal abortion or forcing a woman who was raped to have the child of her rapist- a majority of decent persons will always choose the former.

You are mistaken when you claim that all of any one group is monolithic in their views or desired outcome. Pro-lifers are no more monolithic on the subject of abortion than 'pro-choicers' are..

Odd isn't it- that you chose to tell me this- and not Jwoodie- whose post i was replying to.

Of course you are right- I was clearly being sarcastic and replying to his claim of monolithism of 'Libtards'.

Despite the propaganda of Confascists like jwoodie, those of us who are pro-choice are not 'pro-abortion'- I don't know anyone who is any more pro-abortion than they are 'pro-appendectimy'- in a perfect world there would not be a single unwanted pregnancy, and no woman would ever think an abortion was necessary. Personally, I would be happy if there were no abortions at all- if that was because not a single woman felt a need for an abortion.

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

 

[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.

 

[Syriusly]

....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?

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.

Do you think that the pregnant woman should be prosecuted?