fetus can't feel pain before 24 weeks

[Fandango 1,440]

There is no need to change the law because there is no need for the government to force one group of people to follow the beliefs of another group of people.

I am PRO CHOICE and I am anti-abortion. It means I would never want my wife to kill a child we conceived and that I will meet by obligations if we do. I do not, however, believe that MY belief should be forced BY LAW on other people.

Most people who claim to be pro-choice are not, most people that claim to be pro-life are not. They choose good sounding euphamisms that are in no way related to their actual beliefs regarding choice or life.

How may "pro-lifers" support a Gay couples right to marry? So much for their life. Screw their life. How many don't want a murderer executed?

How many "pro-choicers" believe a woman should be able to defend the children they DON'T abort with a concealed handgun? How many think that a woman should be able to choose which school she sends her children to...and her tax dollars?

I am pro-choice on everything.

Excellent post. I think I'm right there with ya.

I am pro-life in my own beliefs, but as much as I believe it's wrong, I do admit that there are some scenarios where the choice isn't so easy. So I try to stay out of what others 'should' do. But by the by, I am pro-life and support gay marriage, and handguns too heh.

[Fandango 1,440]

Woot! That's a baby that will be raised right. Not like some scumbag liberal draft dodger.

I LS

Edited June 27, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The rights of the fetus are intertwined but not separate from the mother. The mother's rights supersede those of the fetus where abortion is sought.

Again, circumstance and intent define the specifics of criminal charges. We all are surely aware of this.

[Fandango 1,440]

The rights of the fetus are intertwined but not separate from the mother. The mother's rights supersede those of the fetus where abortion is sought.

Again, circumstance and intent define the specifics of criminal charges. We all are surely aware of this.

WADR, are you being intentionally obtuse?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are you? If you can't understand context then you have no understanding of how the law works

[Fandango 1,440]

Are you? If you can't understand context then you have no understanding of how the law works

The law says killing a fetus is not murder.

You kill a pregnant woman, and get charged with 2 counts of murder.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, its only important if you aren't willing to see the context of different situations.

If you kill "anyone" it isn't automatically murder.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

The law says killing a fetus is not murder.

You kill a pregnant woman, and get charged with 2 counts of murder.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I'm not sure that this is the case in every jurisdiction within the US, nor at which point of the fetus' viability in those states which do permit this that this comes into play.

[Fandango 1,440]

I'm not sure that this is the case in every jurisdiction within the US, nor at which point of the fetus' viability in those states which do permit this that this comes into play.

I suppose there's some logic to that. Thanks M.

It's an interesting contradiction, that's for sure!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I suppose there's some logic to that. Thanks M.

It's an interesting contradiction, that's for sure!

It's part of the problem with having a federal system. A killing of a 4-month pregnant woman might be a single homicide in one state and double the next state over. And who are the people who make these decisions on a state to state basis? Bureaucrats? Doctors? Legislators? To be sure it's a very specific situation which is blessedly rare, but underscores the slipperiness of the legal definition of viability.

[Fandango 1,440]

It's part of the problem with having a federal system. A killing of a 4-month pregnant woman might be a single homicide in one state and double the next state over. And who are the people who make these decisions on a state to state basis? Bureaucrats? Doctors? Legislators? To be sure it's a very specific situation which is blessedly rare, but underscores the slipperiness of the legal definition of viability.

Yeah, it's certainly problematic at best, because if a 4 month pregnant woman can have an abortion, then her murderer shouldn't be charged with double homicide. I'd like to see lawmakers stop contradicting themselves, but that'll never happen, lol

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The situation is different in the UK, there is a specific crime called child destruction which applies instead of murder.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

The situation is different in the UK, there is a specific crime called child destruction which applies instead of murder.

We handled this in about 10 minutes in my Criminal Law class so I cannot recall at what point this kicks in, or under which circumstances.

[KaiserD 12]

Again, many on the pro-choice side of this debate have misunderstood my rationale for posting that. But that's not surprising either.

Well abortion debates get ugly at the best of times, charging a highly sensitized topic by making it personal is a bad idea (to me) but for what it's worth I think you handled yourself with a great deal of decorum, much more than I could.

I also highly respect that even if you disagree with it, you wouldn't try to take the rights away from anyone else. I feel bad that you've had to say this like 6 times lol

Who taught you that a miscarriage results in a good chance you would bleed to death? The truth is, despite people liking to talk about "abortion for the health of the mother," there is no actual medical reason for a woman to have an abortion. Abortions carry risks and are just as likely as a delivery to lead to hemmoraging.

Incorrect.

Many people who suffer from hyperemesis gravidarum have abortions and are granted them because of their health. Although even in the worst cases with today's technology and knowledge we can keep the mother and baby alive (and very importantly, nourished), it is hugely strenuous on the mother's health and wellbeing (especially if anti sickness meds don't work). That is the only condition I know of because I lived it but I bet there are more.

I am on the contraceptive pill, but I take it knowing that I could be the 1 in 100 women who could get pregnant despite taking it properly - and if that happens there is a good chance I may need an abortion. I am the only care for my 2 year old and if getting this sickness occurs again (which statistics say that there's a very good chance of that and it will be worse) he would have to look after himself (which obviously he can't). It would not be so bad for these women if the insurance paid for the proper treatments but a lot of the time they don't even when it's cheaper to hook up a mother with an IV at home than have inpatient hospitalization, or just pay for the damn drugs.

67% of women interviewed for an abortion with HG said they had it because they could not care for themselves or their families.

If I got pregnant again and my son was school age...well that's different, I would probably try to suck it up. I have a huge amount of respect for people who go through this multiple times, it has put me off deliberately having more children and sometimes I still have nightmares about it. I certainly would not judge anyone who decided to terminate because they couldn't handle it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We handled this in about 10 minutes in my Criminal Law class so I cannot recall at what point this kicks in, or under which circumstances.

I think it applies to illegal abortions after 24 weeks or the situation where someone punches a woman in the stomach to cause a miscarriage.

The rights of the fetus come into play after birth, so someone who hits a woman to cause a miscarriage can be charged with murder or manslaughter if the baby survives birth but dies from the injuries thereafter.