• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women Who Have Miscarriages Could Face Prosecution in West Virginia

That's not all we're gonna do! Next week we're going to ban ovulation....except for transgender women who are a protected class and therefore above the law.
 
That's not all we're gonna do! Next week we're going to ban ovulation....except for transgender women who are a protected class and therefore above the law.
Here is a notification for your little DP bell. Yay!
 
It's like the wild west there, and in Texas.
 
Sure, the law as written sucks. The prosecutor already said though that they would fail to do so.

UNLESS ... What was the unless?
Once again, this is a problem with specific law language.
Pro-life is a house of cards.
I don't disagree, specifically since I am pro-abortion
 
UNLESS what?
Why are you shouting?
I can't explain it to you unless I know you understand what happens when a woman has a miscarriage. Can you tell me what you think happens when a woman has a miscarriage?
 

Based on the actual charges, this is just one more workaround proving that the states know they cant charge women with murder or criminal charges for having an abortion. Every time they use or create crap laws like this they are admitting it. Just like the other red states: none of them criminalize having an abortion...they criminalize providing them.

That's why they cant stop the pills (altho they're trying to stop access) or women driving to other states, killing their unborn, and returning. Because women's rights to bodily autonomy, life, due process, etc are federally protected and the states cant supersede that.

So this case uses laws regarding the disposal of human remains to go after women. It's cheap and low-brow and cruel. If there are actual remains that could be preserved (later into 2nd term), these would mostly be women that wanted the pregnancies. These laws end up mostly punishing women/couples that would be grieving a loss. Women choose abortions early, ~97% of the time. This wouldnt affect them much if at all.
 
Last edited:
Watts is an inhuman monster who checked herself out of the hospital against medical advice twice and tried to hide her miscarriage by plunging her 21-week fetus down the toilet and clogging the plumbing with the remains.

Your opinion is noted but it does not contradict my point.
 
Last edited:

Shouldn't infanticide involve an actual infant?
 
Watts is an inhuman monster who checked herself out of the hospital against medical advice twice and tried to hide her miscarriage by plunging her 21-week fetus down the toilet and clogging the plumbing with the remains.
She should have used drano and a plunger. Although incineration might have been a better method of disposal.
 
Shouldn't infanticide involve an actual infant?
Yes, but how would the cops know whether the child died before or after birth? What glaring physical difference is there between a child 10 seconds before birth and a child 10 seconds after birth that would make it obvious the child died before birth?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…