I do know a bit about those drugs, and I think it is entirely possible they could charge the man with something like attempted murder.
You don't just give someone an abortive pill. Before that, the woman must take a progesterone blocker that helps the process go more smoothly. She must also take antibiotics.
In the absence of those two things, the abortion is far more traumatic. Risk of hemorrhage is high, and risk of infection is higher as well. Also she wasn't assessed for possible medical complications, obviously.
On top of that, you could add yet another bodily harm charge, because she wasn't tested for conflicting blood types. This means that, if this embryo had a conflicting blood type she was exposed to and she gets pregnant in the future, she could lose the pregnancy.
That is not a safe abortion by medical standards, and it could have potentially killed her or permanently damaged her reproductive function.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-19-13 at 11:52 AM.
Our Child and Family Services Act gives the relevant Minister the authority: (e) a child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering, and the child's parent or guardian does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or is unable to consent to, the treatment;
I'm surprised the US would not similarly protect its children.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Well, seeing as the two organisms involved in the situation are both the same species, the older one should call the other one "son" or "daughter" in this case, not "parasite."What else do you call an organism that survives solely through the forcible extraction of nutrients from another organism's metabolic processes? It's an absolutely appropriate comparison that you are only dismissing because you are trying to justify an irrational and inhumane moral stance that denies human rights to half of humanity.
They can't be bought or sold only as a technicality - a human baby has its human rights protected, a human fetus does not. As soon as a human in the fetal stage of life leaves its mother, no matter how far along its embryological development, the kid is no longer a fetus but a baby. It's like lava vs. magma - if it ain't below the surface of the earth, it ain't magma.They're not property because they cannot be bought and sold. They can be killed because they are not members of society, but they cannot legally or morally be exploited.
Nevertheless, a fetus IS regarded as subhuman property under the terms of our current legal status quo; property to be disposed of at the whim of its owner.
And so you are either right ...or you are wrong as to whether the Constitution grants the government "the power to protect the unborn". If the Constitution does not grant the power... expressly, i.e. enumerated and or imply the granting of such power, but also does not disallow that power, then those powers may be left up to the States and all those beyond to the People themselves under Amendments 9 & 10 of our Bill of Rights, does it not?
So, lets see what just what it is you can locate on the former... and then we maybe we might discuss the latter as well. Oh, and not to worry, I have not forgotten the self evident stuff, either.
Thanks in advance for the assistance, sincerely, as I am a seeker of truth, so want to be as often as possible in possession of the applicable facts. Also, in the absence of a reply, I will assume you cannot locate those necessary passages either.
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unbornIn short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.