Would a pregnant woman eating a poor diet be charged with murder

[Jack2aTee]

Assume a national abortion bad if Trump et.al. are elected. Included in ban would be mifepristone and contraceptives. Woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby. She deliberately eats a poor dangerous diet that causes a miscarriage. Will she be charged with murder? Can it be proved? Is this something pregnant woman will resort to to get rid of a child they don't want?

 

[Bodecea]

Well, Righties have already shown they will investigate (and even charge) women who have had miscarriages.

 

[SkyChief]

Assume a national abortion bad if Trump et.al. are elected. Included in ban would be mifepristone and contraceptives. Woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby. She deliberately eats a poor dangerous diet that causes a miscarriage. Will she be charged with murder?

No.

Many women engage in activities harmful to their unborn child. None of them are prosecuted for murder, even when their behavior caused miscarriage.

Can it be proved? Is this something pregnant woman will resort to to get rid of a child they don't want?

They could do this if they choose. They could also beat their belly with a baseball bat and pummel the fetus to prompt a miscarriage.

A much better way to get rid of an unwanted fetus is to go to a state which allows abortion.

 

[BirdinHand]

Assume a national abortion bad if Trump et.al. are elected. Included in ban would be mifepristone and contraceptives. Woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby. She deliberately eats a poor dangerous diet that causes a miscarriage. Will she be charged with murder? Can it be proved? Is this something pregnant woman will resort to to get rid of a child they don't want?

Women have been using natural abortifascients since the dawn of time.



Good luck stopping them.

 

[dmpi]

Could a poor diet be consider suicide?

 

[roguenuke]

No.

Many women engage in activities harmful to their unborn child. None of them are prosecuted for murder, even when their behavior caused miscarriage.

They could do this if they choose. They could also beat their belly with a baseball bat and pummel the fetus to prompt a miscarriage.

A much better way to get rid of an unwanted fetus is to go to a state which allows abortion.

Some have been charged with crimes due to behaviors that could be risky and it was only relatively recently that laws have started to change to make it more and more likely for this to happen.

 

[Lursa]

No.

Many women engage in activities harmful to their unborn child. None of them are prosecuted for murder, even when their behavior caused miscarriage.

That's because it's not illegal to do so now, right? Altho some states have tried to incarcerate drug addicts in late stages of pregnancy to keep them clean.

They could do this if they choose. They could also beat their belly with a baseball bat and pummel the fetus to prompt a miscarriage.

Can parents do that to a toddler or teen? Then why could the woman do it to her unborn? He's presented a hypothetical change in the law.

A much better way to get rid of an unwanted fetus is to go to a state which allows abortion.

He wrote 'national.' Did you even read the OP?

 

[Lursa]

Women have been using natural abortifascients since the dawn of time.



Good luck stopping them.

And there are some new devices that they can make available, thru mail, as well. We'll see all new black markets.

 

[Jack2aTee]

No.

Many women engage in activities harmful to their unborn child. None of them are prosecuted for murder, even when their behavior caused miscarriage.

They could do this if they choose. They could also beat their belly with a baseball bat and pummel the fetus to prompt a miscarriage.

A much better way to get rid of an unwanted fetus is to go to a state which allows abortion.

But you missed the part about a national abortion ban if Trump is elected. Which there isn't a chance in hell he will defer doing if he's in office, forget that horsesh*t he spews about believing it should be left up to the states. "You know, my fellow Americans, I've had a change of heart about that promise I made before I was elected that I would not institute a national abortion ban. I now believe it's good for America to have one. Sorry about that."

 

[Jack2aTee]

Look for giant demand on wire hangers when the abortion ban goes national.

 

[Gordy327]

Assume a national abortion bad if Trump et.al. are elected. Included in ban would be mifepristone and contraceptives. Woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby. She deliberately eats a poor dangerous diet that causes a miscarriage. Will she be charged with murder? Can it be proved? Is this something pregnant woman will resort to to get rid of a child they don't want?

They resorted to back alley abortions before Roe. Assuming there is a ban, we'll likely see more back alley abortions or child abandonment/neglect. And probably a rise in maternal or fetal/infant mortality and morbidity. Those supporting strict restrictions or bans against abortion are in effect, inadvertently perhaps, promoting those potential issues. They either do not se outside their anti abortion box or they do not care.

Look for giant demand on wire hangers when the abortion ban goes national.

Until antiabortionist elements demand a ban on wire hangers, like those who want birth control or abortifacients banned.

 

[Lursa]

That's absurd. There is not going to be any national abortion ban.

Trump actually has a fairly moderate stance on abortion. Lunatics on the left ignore that fact, and naturally their running around the barnyard clucking about how the sky is falling seems ridiculous to sensible people.

He doesnt give a shit, is what his stance is. He wants to bask in approval. He can turn Vance loose as the bad guy and then bask in the warm white Christian nationalist glow.

He doesnt care what happens with abortion once he's in office.

 

[SkyChief]

But you missed the part about a national abortion ban if Trump is elected.

No president has the power to ban abortion. Congress could pass legislation to do that, and the president could sign it, but the courts would be compelled to overturn any federal ban on abortion.

Which there isn't a chance in hell he will defer doing if he's in office, forget that horsesh*t he spews about believing it should be left up to the states. "You know, my fellow Americans, I've had a change of heart about that promise I made before I was elected that I would not institute a national abortion ban. I now believe it's good for America to have one. Sorry about that."

Trump should know that he cannot ban abortion.

 

[Gordy327]

Congress could pass legislation to do that, but the courts would be compelled to overturn any federal ban on abortion.

I would hope the courts would overturn any bans. But given the current SCOTUS, I'm not entirely confident they would.

 

[Lursa]

No president has the power to ban abortion. Congress could pass legislation to do that, and the president could sign it, but the courts would be compelled to overturn any federal ban on abortion.

Interesting. On what basis?

Trump should know that he cannot ban abortion.

He's not running on that. That would be stupid, right?

 

[SkyChief]

Interesting. On what basis?

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X which states that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the People.

If Congress passed a national abortion ban, then they would be overstepping the states' right to legislate.

He's not running on that. That would be stupid, right?

Sure. Bottom line is that there is not going to be any national abortion ban - regardless of who is president, and who sits on the Supreme Court.

 

[Lursa]

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X which states that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the People.

If Congress passed a national abortion ban, then they would be overstepping the states' right to legislate.

We have federal laws banning hunting marine mammals. Federal laws governing pollution. Federal law defining marriage. Sorry, you'll have to do better.

Sure. Bottom line is that there is not going to be any national abortion ban - regardless of who is president, and who sits on the Supreme Court.

"Na huh" isnt debate.

 

[SkyChief]

We have federal laws banning hunting marine mammals. Federal laws governing pollution. Federal law defining marriage. Sorry, you'll have to do better.


"Na huh" isnt debate.

I made the effort and gave the correct answers to your questions. The answers are correct, and true.

If you don't like them, then ignore them. Pretend that they are not true.

 

[Lursa]

I made the effort and gave the correct answers to your questions. The answers are correct, and true.

I refuted it so I dont know why you just posted such a falsehood. "Na huh" is not debate.

If you don't like them, then ignore them. Pretend that they are not true.

I dont have to ignore anything. I'm here to debate and that's what I did. If you cant respond, dont. That's obvious.

 

[Jack2aTee]

No president has the power to ban abortion. Congress could pass legislation to do that, and the president could sign it, but the courts would be compelled to overturn any federal ban on abortion.

Trump should know that he cannot ban abortion.

Technically, that's true. But given a MAGA Congress' penchant for kissing Trump's ass every time he walks by, they'd jump in a heartbeat to pass anything he told them to pass.

 

[Jack2aTee]

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X which states that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the People.

If Congress passed a national abortion ban, then they would be overstepping the states' right to legislate.

Sure. Bottom line is that there is not going to be any national abortion ban - regardless of who is president, and who sits on the Supreme Court.

Never say never.

 

[SkyChief]

I refuted it so I dont know why you just posted such a falsehood. "Na huh" is not debate.



I dont have to ignore anything. I'm here to debate and that's what I did. If you cant respond, dont. That's obvious.

You're ignoring the Federal ban on personal Marijuana use. There is STILL a federal ban on personal marijuana use, however many states allow it - in defiance of the Federal statute.

Abortion would be the same. Even if the Federal government banned abortion, some states would invoke their 10th Amendment right to pass legislation to supersede and effectively nullify the ban.

But it won't ever get to that point. SCOTUS would be compelled to immediately strike down any national abortion ban.

 

[Lursa]

You're ignoring the Federal ban on Marijuana. There is STILL a federal ban on personal marijuana use, however many states allow it - in defiance of the Federal statute.

Abortion would be the same. Even if the Federal government banned abortion, some states would invoke their 10th Amendment right to pass legislation to supersede the ban.

States didnt invoke the 10th, they just did it. And the govt CHOSE to allow it. That 'ban' is very old and likely to end soon, as it's useless and society recognizes that.

Here, the federal govt would choose to impose the ban...so then why would they allow states to do their own thing? That's a facile, empty response. In this example, the govt is ACTING for social change. In the pot example, they're reacting to social change.

 

[SkyChief]

States didnt invoke the 10th, they just did it. And the govt CHOSE to allow it. That 'ban' is very old and likely to end soon, as it's useless and society recognizes that.

Here, the federal govt would choose to impose the ban...so then why would they allow states to do their own thing?

That never happened. You made it up. The Federal government did not choose to impose the ban. Trump said they would, but they CANNOT, and I've explained why they cannot.

But even if they DID, the states could pass legislation to supersede the Federal statute. The voters could do it. We did it in California, and Colorado did it before we did.

That's a facile, empty response. In this example, the govt is ACTING for social change. In the pot example, they're reacting to social change.

Apologies to the OP - - somehow we really got deep in the weeds.

The topic is pregnant woman eating a poor diet being charged with murder. I say NO, she cannot be charged with murder.

 

[Lursa]

That never happened. You made it up. The Federal government did not choose to impose the ban. Trump said they would, but they CANNOT, and I've explained why they cannot.

We're discussing the OP, jeebus. Holy shit.

But even if they DID, the states could pass legislation to supersede the Federal statute. The voters could do it. We did it in California, and Colorado did it before we did.


Apologies to the OP - - somehow we really got deep in the weeds.

No they cant, WA, CO, and CA did it after discussions with the Surgeon General and the DOJ. And the govt specifically said it wouldnt do anything.

They did it 'complicitly' with the feds.

So what I wrote is true "in the context of the OP" :

​

...the federal govt would choose to impose the ban...so then why would they allow states to do their own thing? That's a facile, empty response. In this example, the govt is ACTING for social change. In the pot example, they're reacting to social change.​

And so voters could vote whatever they wanted but the govt could still impose federal enforcement. See: ICE. The federal govt is (mostly) ignoring sanctuary cities but still enforces federal law...and a state cant vote to allow open borders to illegals for their states.