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

[sakinago]

....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?

How are you comparing these too arguments?? Where are these vans full of mexican families getting dumped out in the middle of the desert? Secondly, the mothers your referring are making a decision to come to America illegally, knowing that if they get caught, by law they get deported, just like every other country on the planet. These mothers arent just magically appearing here, nor are they being deported to the middle of the desert. These are choices they're making with risks involved.

Just like it's a choice to participate in the act of REPRODUCTION. And if you participate in reproduction without contraceptives, babies tend to happen. Or should we not expect people to be responsible for their actions? And do not throw out the red herring of rape and incest, becaus that is .0002.% of the abortions, I'm not referring to that.

America also has some of the loosest abortion laws in the world, more so than much of Europe.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

:::sigh:::

What part about "NEW LAWS will have to be written BASED on existing fetal homicide laws" are you not comprehending?

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

No Kidding.

Try reading again, what I wrote.

 

[yiostheoy]

No Kidding.

Try reading again, what I wrote.

What part of Roe V. Wade are you not comprehending ??

Try following the link:

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

 

[Chuz Life]

[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.

False!

I never made that claim. In fact, I explained specifically the difference between a child (person) in the womb and a child once born (a citizen.)

They do not have "all" the same rights - because, Citizens have rights that non citizens do not have. That said - killing another human being (person) in a criminal act is still a crime of MURDER. Whether the person killed is a 'citizen' or not.

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?

Do quote where I said they should be treated differently.

You can't do it, because I never made such a claim.

Beyond that, I am not a kind nor a dictator. In my opinion, ANY criminal abuse or neglect that results in the death of a child of ANY age should be dealt with essentially the SAME with respect to the rights of the child that is killed.

f 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?

See above.

I never claimed they should be treated differently.

 

[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?

Not all homicides are murders.

Are they?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

 

[sealybobo]

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

They will make it very very hard for a poor woman in Detroit to have access to abortion. So a lot of women who shouldn't be having kids will.

 

[Chuz Life]

[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?

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

Laws which criminalize abortions are consistent with our laws against assault and murder. More importantly, laws banning abortion would be consistent with the 'equal protections' clause of our Constitution.

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.

So far, the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that and they are declining many opportunities to overturn those laws and convictions.

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

And that is with a Supreme Court that is yet to receive any appointees from (soon to be) President - Donald Trump.

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.

Like I said in the OP. This is just as what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated COULD happen.

His words did not fall on deaf ears.

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.

All miscarriages are deaths of once living children. However, not all miscarriages are the result of criminal acts. Only a simpleton would try to paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

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

You shouldn't make such assumptions when you only know a fraction of a person's views and even less about what their rationale is.

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

There is nothing inconsistent about my views - ESPECIALLY when you understand how they are based upon the basic principles of our Constitution. (the same way the Supreme Court is supposed to approach it)

 

[Chuz Life]

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

I'll take that bet.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Do you disagree that this issue will be front and center, when Trump appoints a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia?

 

[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.

False!

I never made that claim. In fact, I explained specifically the difference between a child (person) in the womb and a child once born (a citizen.)

They do not have "all" the same rights - because, Citizens have rights that non citizens do not have. That said - killing another human being (person) in a criminal act is still a crime of MURDER. Whether the person killed is a 'citizen' or not..

Well that is an interesting distinction- are you claiming that the fetus is not a citizen? But a born child is?

Yes- killing another person is a crime- the crime can be murder, manslaughter, and sometimes it is negligence.

Criminal negligence is a far more serious form of negligence that usually involves the death of another individual. The defendant has failed to perceive the serious nature of his or her actions and instead precipitated a gross violation of the standard of care expected on an individual

The two most common forms of criminal negligence are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child. Criminally negligent homicide is willful and wanton conduct that causes the death of another. The neglect of a child is the failure to provide for the needs of the child and dereliction of one’s duties as a parent or caretaker. The implication in a child neglect case is that the parents lacked the mental, physical and emotional capacity to care for the child, rather than the willful abuse of the child.

Here is an interesting conundrum- Child Protective Services has the authority to remove a child from a mother who is neglecting it. What would CPS responsibility be in the case of a pregnant woman who is smoking or drinking alcohol?

 

[Syriusly]

[
You can't do it, because I never made such a claim.

Beyond that, I am not a kind nor a dictator. In my opinion, ANY criminal abuse or neglect that results in the death of a child of ANY age should be dealt with essentially the SAME with respect to the rights of the child that is killed..

So then we are back to treating pregnant women the same way we treat mothers.

Any pregnant woman who endangers her pregnancy will need to be treated exactly the same as a mother who endangers her child.

And any miscarriage will need to be treated the same as a child's death- with investigations to ensure that the death was not caused by neglect or malfeasance.

 

[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?

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

Laws which criminalize abortions are consistent with our laws against assault and murder. More importantly, laws banning abortion would be consistent with the 'equal protections' clause of our Constitution.

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.

So far, the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that and they are declining many opportunities to overturn those laws and convictions.

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

And that is with a Supreme Court that is yet to receive any appointees from (soon to be) President - Donald Trump.

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.

Like I said in the OP. Just as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated COULD happen. Hie words did not fall on deaf ears.

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.

All miscarriages are deaths of once living children. However, not all miscarriages are the result of criminal acts. Only a simpleton would try to paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

All deaths of a child are deaths of a once living child. However, not all deaths of a child are criminal acts.

Either a miscarriage is treated the same as a child's death- or it isn't.

If it is, every miscarriage will have to be reported, every miscarriage will have to have the cause of death established.

And pregnant women who neglect their pregnancy will have to be charged just as mothers who neglectfully allow their children to become poisoned by nicotine.

 

[miketx]

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

Clearly you are certainly unwilling to debate what you don't want to debate in this thread.

Because the idea that the government would force a 12 year old impregnated by her father to stay pregnant to term is pretty ugly.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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

There is nothing inconsistent about my views - ESPECIALLY when you understand how they are based upon the basic principles of our Constitution. (the same way the Supreme Court is supposed to approach it)

As I have pointed out that your viewpoints on how to treat pregnant women versus the mothers of living children are clearly inconsistent, as is your viewpoint on how to treat the pregnant victims of rape and incest.

 

[miketx]

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.

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

Clearly you are certainly unwilling to debate what you don't want to debate in this thread.

Because the idea that the government would force a 12 year old impregnated by her father to stay pregnant to term is pretty ugly.

This last so called message from you is why no one wants to debate liberals, and you in particular. They pull completely false statements like the above out and pretend they are real.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Regardless, I (personally) am not going to debate the exceptions in this thread.

Clearly you are certainly unwilling to debate what you don't want to debate in this thread.

Because the idea that the government would force a 12 year old impregnated by her father to stay pregnant to term is pretty ugly.

This last so called message from you is why no one wants to debate liberals, and you in particular. They pull completely false statements like the above out and pretend they are real.

LOL- you don't want to debate anyone- you just want an echo chamber.

IF a fetus is a human being- do you force the pregnant 12 year old victim of rape or incest to go to full term? If not- do you allow her to have an abortion?

 

[miketx]

I certainly wouldn't force her to, but what you do is spew out extreme garbage, non stop.

 

[Chuz Life]

[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?

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

Laws which criminalize abortions are consistent with our laws against assault and murder. More importantly, laws banning abortion would be consistent with the 'equal protections' clause of our Constitution.

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.

So far, the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that and they are declining many opportunities to overturn those laws and convictions.

Constitutional Challenges to Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

And that is with a Supreme Court that is yet to receive any appointees from (soon to be) President - Donald Trump.

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.

Like I said in the OP. Just as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart anticipated COULD happen. Hie words did not fall on deaf ears.

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.

All miscarriages are deaths of once living children. However, not all miscarriages are the result of criminal acts. Only a simpleton would try to paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

All deaths of a child are deaths of a once living child. However, not all deaths of a child are criminal acts.

True. Some children die of natural causes.

That is what I just said. Isn't it?

Either a miscarriage is treated the same as a child's death- or it isn't.

And if it isn't? Then what?

What do you intend to do about it?

If it is, every miscarriage will have to be reported, every miscarriage will have to have the cause of death established.

And if they are not?

Then what?

Will you protest that we need to crack down harder on women who have has a miscarriage?

I seriously doubt that you will. And that's why all this blather about it is nothing more than a red herring and fear mongering. Lawmakers are not now and will never be required to treat every miscarriage as a possible criminal act just because the practice of abortion has been criminalized.

If and when abortion is finally banned, Women will be no less considered "innocent until PROVEN guilty" than they are today.

And pregnant women who neglect their pregnancy will have to be charged just as mothers who neglectfully allow their children to become poisoned by nicotine.

I agree that in cases where the abuse and neglect can be PROVEN, the woman should be held accountable for that abuse. But where do you get the "have to be" from?

Can you at least be honest and admit that it is only your own expectations that you are talking about and NOT necessarily what will actually be the result of these policies?