- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 12,050
- Location
- Over the edge...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Come to think of it most states do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability or "quickening."
Some states have them some do not. Some include all stages of pregnancy from conception some do not. Come to think of it most states do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability or "quickening."
What gave you this idea? Do you have any proof to back this assumption?
At least 38 do have them. 21 of those say at any stage of pregnancy.
That is your opinion and even though I do not agree with it, I'd love to see what reasoning you used to arrive to that opinion, especially in the light of my initially pointing out the inconsistency in these laws. How do you get past the outright conflicting statutes?Fetal Homicide laws add to the rather large amount of proof that the unborn child is a legal entity.
They do, especially when you lack the understanding to know what they mean.Facts suck, don't they?
Thank you for proving my point. But just in case it evades you or the math is out of reach for you I'll break it down. There being 50 states of which, by your account, only 21 criminalize the killing of a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, that leaves 29 states that DO NOT criminalize at any stage of pregnancy. They either do not criminalize at all or only after viability or "quickening." Here is the hard math part. 29 is a greater number than 21 and 25 is half of the number of states. Since 29 is also greater than 25 it follows that a majority or "MOST" meaning more than those who do not, do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability or quickening. I hope that was not too difficult to follow and it cleared it up for you. If need be I'll explain again, but unfortunately I will not be able to draw pictures. This media and my artistic skills just don't allow it.
I knew you'd try this spin, very lame. If that's how you want to back your statement, fine, but it is exceptionally lame.
Regardless, at least 38 of 50 have fetal homicide laws, the remaining 12 confer harsher sentences for crimes against pregnant women. Most of them (but not all) specify unborn children as persons. And nearly everyone uses the term unborn child.
Some states have them some do not. Some include all stages of pregnancy from conception some do not. Come to think of it most states do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability or "quickening."
Given the inconsistency of these laws what if anything do they add or detract to and from the abortion issue/debate?
How can it be reasoned that in some places fetuses are significant to a degree and in some they are not?
Also keep in mind that ALL of the laws make explicit exceptions for abortion.
There is no doubt that the pro-life community lobbied for fetal homicide laws with the intention of undermining RvW. Hopefully, these laws will eventually be repealed and replaced with laws simply requiring or allowing harsher punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman.
What supporters of legal abortion say about "fetal homicide" laws
Professor Michael Dorf, Columbia University School of Law
Professor Michael Dorf is a former Supreme Court clerk who, by some accounts, drafted some key parts of the 1992 5-4 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. This passage is excerpted from Dorf’s essay for Findlaw.com, titled “How Abortion Politics Impedes Clear Thinking on Other Issues Involving Fetuses,” under the subheading, “Why Feticide Prohibitions that Exempt Abortion Are Consistent with Roe.” FindLaw Legal News
There are two satisfactory answers to the worry that supporting anti-feticide laws undermines Roe.
First, laws treating feticide as murder do not need to define fetuses as persons. California's law is illustrative. It defines murder as the killing of a human being or a fetus.
Second, there is nothing especially troubling about permitting the law to define the word “person” differently for different purposes. Statutes routinely define various words, including “person,” so that they will mean exactly what the legislature intends in a particular context, and even general constitutional language can be interpreted differently depending upon the context. Corporations, for example, are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment in the sense that their property cannot be taken without fair processes, but not in the sense that they are entitled to vote on equal terms with natural persons
Such laws are inconsistent with abortion being legal. Something needs to change.
Most of them have specific exceptions for abortion.
Really? That is the best you can do after making a fool of yourself and having your ass handed to you?I knew you'd try this spin, very lame. If that's how you want to back your statement, fine, but it is exceptionally lame.
Really? That is the best you can do after making a fool of yourself and having your ass handed to you?
No mac, I don't think it, it is a fact and I did not do it you did it all by yourself.If you think you did that, then you are truly delusional.
But I did not make any assertion on any position. I posed a question for debate and I presented facts. You were the one, who in a rush to discredit me made a fool of yourself. I had nothing to do with it.If you think your ridiculous position amounts to squat in light of this, then reality need play no part in your absurd conclusions.
Such laws are inconsistent with abortion being legal. Something needs to change.
Really? That is the best you can do after making a fool of yourself and having your ass handed to you?
But I did not make any assertion on any position. I posed a question for debate and I presented facts. You were the one, who in a rush to discredit me made a fool of yourself. I had nothing to do with it.
Then you are truly grasping at straws.Come to think of it most states do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability or "quickening."
It could be explained to these bereaved families that to prosecute their daughter's murderers for two murders might endanger reproductive choice for all women, thereby cheapening and invalidating the noble choice their daughters made, by making pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood itself compulsory: turning it into an imperative dictated by the state. There would be no dignity or humanity in that, not for their dead daughters, for other pregnant (or even not pregnant) women, or for society in general.
Molten Dragon, I knew there'd come a time when we'd agree. And the "something" that needs to change is that abortion needs to be banned for all but medical reasons after this "quickening" or "viability" stage.
I actually fully agree with you on that. I don't believe elective abortion should be legal after the point of viability.
:cheers:
I am surprised.
As I've said before, that's where I am. ProChoice to that point. You know how the polls tell us that the majority of Americans are ProChoice? I wonder how many ProChoicers (like you and I) feel the exact same way.
Most, since breakdown polls show that the majority of pro-choicers are only so inclined out to the first trimester. A very small percentage favor abortion at any stage.
Misreading? Do you honestly believe that mac misread the post and that is why he asked where I got the information, then he went on to "disprove" what I said and stated that "Facts suck, don't they?" in an attempt to show how wrong I was?Misreading a post is hardly having one's ass handed to them.
If you read my past posts you know that I neither seek or claim victory as it does not exist. However, one does, over time, exhibit certain characteristics of their debating style. I am caustic, others are less than honest.Are these the cheap victories we're looking for? Good luck with that yardstick.
And so much much more for the better.I've always thought we could "change the numbers" in one generation with the right education.
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?