Are you aware that I already said that myself in post #149? I even linked to source material. I don't understand why you feel the need to copy pretty much word for word what I already said as though it's your original content, unless you're just trying to be a troll."back room abortions" refer to abortions that are performed but aren't subjected to the normal regulations and inspections that other medical procedures are subject to because of laws which criminalixe abortion.
I would also note that the original term was "back alley abortions" because women were often told to enter the doctors office through the back alley to avoid detection.
And privacy is not the same as secrecy, though there is a lot of overlap.
Even when abortion was illegal, most abortions were performed by doctors in their office. What you meant to say was "back ally", not "back room", meaning the doctor would let the patient into the office through an ally exit so as not to be seen. It doesn't mean the abortion was performed in an ally.
Back-ally abortion;
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/2157/26/5 Myths About “Back Alley” Abortions
Myth #1. Illegal abortions were performed by unlicensed, unskilled hacks.
Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians. Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training.
The term “back alley” referred not to where abortions were performed, but to how women were instructed to enter the doctor’s office after hours, through the back alley, to avoid arousing neighbors’ suspicions.
An illegal abortion may be called a "back-alley", "backstreet", or "back-yard" abortion.
The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known illegal abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1960 printing of the American Journal of Public Health:
"Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."
Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's your opinion. If that is indeed the case than you need to justify the federal law surrounding the Unborn victims of violence act then.
Are you aware that I already said that myself in post #149? I even linked to source material. I don't understand why you feel the need to copy pretty much word for word what I already said as though it's your original content, unless you're just trying to be a troll.
I am sorry, that wasn't the entirety of the post now was it...Tell me how your opinion on the law here conflicts with the federal statute.
Again, the fact is that SCOTUS clearly stated that, under the law, a fetus is not a person
More like the Surpreme Courts opinion.
Unborn victims of violence refers to feticide which is an act against a fetus not an act against a person.
It does not confict as abortions are concidered legal and the wording to exempt legal abortions is in the feticide laws.
Citation, and again,
address the question of the Unborn Victims of Violence act, or I'll assume that you can't and are therefore talking out of an orifice other than the one generally meant for speaking. :mrgreen:
However, it is charged as murder, a capitol crime....Are we now to niggle over methods to kill the unborn?
Originally Posted by sangha
A fetus is not a person
That's your opinion. If that is indeed the case than you need to justify the federal law surrounding the Unborn victims of violence act then.
Defin person....people have memories can think outside the primal thouhts of food . what keeps a animal from being consider a person. a fetus is not a peson it is a atchatment of the parent untill it is born. Violence against unborn children is a violence against something that is part of the parent , but if you hurt something that is verry dear to a person especaily if it is going to be a future person that he/she who acted violently causing pain to the mother and possibly death to the fetus should be charged with something.
12 weks is close to the end of the first trimester you should know if your pregnaunt bye then so should have already decide if you want/ need a abortion by then.
The real debate would be if its right to not insure abortions
No, SCOTUS did not say that.Again, the fact is that SCOTUS clearly stated that, under the law, a fetus is not a person
SCOTUS said the unborn was not treated as a person by the law, at the time the ruling was made. It's been 40 years...the law has changed since that ruling. Today, the unborn is treated as a 'person' under the 14th amendment. Lacey and Conner's Law is an example of that.ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. 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 , [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ."
Roe v Wade
The perp is not allowed to perform an abortion on a woman without that womans consent.
No, SCOTUS did not say that.
SCOTUS said:
SCOTUS said the unborn was not treated as a person by the law, at the time the ruling was made. It's been 40 years...the law has changed since that ruling. Today, the unborn is treated as a 'person' under the 14th amendment. Lacey and Conner's Law is an example of that.
Under the law, the word "person" refers to a human that has been born
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation. The law specifies that these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented, an act committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during testing or treatment, or an act committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105 define capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Again, that's not true:Under the law, the word "person" refers to a human that has been born
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.'.
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law
Actually no. That's an individual state's decision. Here's a listing of states and their definitions of person where it comes to the unborn. The real state of affairs is that some states define the unborn as a person, some do not.
Again, that's not true:
I don't think I'm making the point clear.You're citing the argument which was made by the pro-life side; an argument that SCOTUS rejected.
Those laws do not apply to abortion. We're talking about abortion. Please find something relevant to post
She will be arrested as a prostitute. She can use that explanation with the judge but she might still go to jail.
-- I certainly never said ALL these children but if they were allowed to be born at least they would have a chance to live in a happy caring home.
If they find they are not happy then perhaps they can later self abort
Perhaps these children should also should have some rights over their bodies.
-- Explain what? It seems I was quite clear.
-- I have no idea, but should we abort babies because you don't know which home they might go to? I'm sure there are people who have an understanding of where children are wanted and have homes available for these babies.
-- It seems clear they would. Those babies who were aborted are also those who would grow up to be taxpayers to support the social programs initiated by the same people who expect these social programs. Who is to pay for these programs if we are killing millions of the next generation?
No need to cry just because I called you out on your hyperbole.
Even when abortion was illegal, most abortions were performed by doctors in their office. What you meant to say was "back ally", not "back room", meaning the doctor would let the patient into the office through an ally exit so as not to be seen. It doesn't mean the abortion was performed in an ally.
Back-ally abortion;
How does it not?
I don't think I'm making the point clear.
SCOTUS rejected it 40 years ago, and rightfully so, imo. 40 years ago the unborn had no established legal standing.
It's been 40 years now. The law has changed. The unborn now have legal standing.
That's for SCOTUS to decide."As used in this section" means that the word person does not apply to abortion or whether the unborn have rights under the constitution
They do in this context where the law at discussion limits the permitted abortion window. But you go on as usual and ignore anything that doesn't fit your script.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?