• 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!

Ben Carson: There's No War On Women, But On 'What’s Inside Of Women’ (VIDEO)

countryboy said:
So basically your point is, the law is grossly and unevenly distributed. You still never answered the question. If an unborn child is not a person, why is Scott Peterson on death row charged with two murders? Really, don't worry about an answer, I've had my fill of evil propaganda for one day.
Click to expand...

The state took an interest because the "child in utero" was killed when Scott Peterson killed the pregnant woman.

States can and often do take an interest in non persons.
 
countryboy said:
So? A segment of the "medical" community has bought into the evil. Big deal. :yawn:
Click to expand...

There is no evil in a spontaneous abortion.
Abortion is the proper medical term whether the loss of the pregnancy was natural or was induced.


Spontaneous abortion is noninduced embryonic or fetal death or passage of products of conception before 20 wk gestation. Threatened abortion is vaginal bleeding without cervical dilation occurring during this time frame and indicating that spontaneous abortion may occur in a woman with a confirmed viable intrauterine pregnancy.

Diagnosis is by clinical criteria and ultrasonography. Treatment is usually expectant observation for threatened abortion and, if spontaneous abortion has occurred or appears unavoidable, observation or uterine evacuation.

Fetal death and early delivery are classified as follows:

Abortion: Death of the fetus or passage of products of conception (fetus and placenta) before 20 wk gestation

Fetal demise (stillbirth): Fetal death after 20 wk

Preterm delivery: Passage of a live fetus between 20 and 37 wk (see Preterm Labor)

Abortions may be classified as early or late, spontaneous or induced for therapeutic or elective reasons (see Induced Abortion), threatened or inevitable, incomplete or complete, recurrent (also called recurrent pregnancy loss—see Recurrent Pregnancy Loss), missed, or septic (see Table: Classification of Abortion).

Spontaneous abortion is noninduced embryonic or fetal death or passage of products of conception before 20 wk gestation. Threatened abortion is vaginal bleeding without cervical dilation occurring during this time frame and indicating that spontaneous abortion may occur in a woman with a confirmed viable intrauterine pregnancy. Diagnosis is by clinical criteria and ultrasonography. Treatment is usually expectant observation for threatened abortion and, if spontaneous abortion has occurred or appears unavoidable, observation or uterine evacuation.

Fetal death and early delivery are classified as follows:

Abortion: Death of the fetus or passage of products of conception (fetus and placenta) before 20 wk gestation

Fetal demise (stillbirth): Fetal death after 20 wk

Preterm delivery: Passage of a live fetus between 20 and 37 wk (see Preterm Labor)

Abortions may be classified as early or late, spontaneous or induced for therapeutic or elective reasons (see Induced Abortion), threatened or inevitable, incomplete or complete, recurrent (also called recurrent pregnancy loss—see Recurrent Pregnancy Loss), missed, or septic (see Table: Classification of Abortion).
Click to expand...

Spontaneous Abortion - Gynecology and Obstetrics - Merck Manuals Professional Edition
 
SlevinKelevra said:
halfway kidding....... but....
So if RvW were to be repealed, should this be treated as suicide or manslaughter? :confused:
Click to expand...

Repealing RvW won't necessarily alter states rights to set their own legal standards about abortion. NY made abortion legal in 1970, three years prior to RvW.

RvW simply is a public recognition by government of fundamental rights that's always existed within the Constitution.

Repealing RvW is a violation of women's Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, Due process under the law, right to privacy...and all EQUAL TO MEN.

Another way to look at it is that women can't be discriminated against for having a uterus instead of a penis.

In other words, women would basically become breeding slaves. Forcing women to gestate and give birth is forced servitude. Forced servitude is a violation of the 13th Amendment.

I could go on and on - but you get the gist.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
halfway kidding....... but....
So if RvW were to be repealed, should this be treated as suicide or manslaughter? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think spontaneous abortion would be treated as suicide by default. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Fetal homicide laws operate under the assumption that the fetus was wanted by the pregnant person. It is essentially a property law. Imagine for example you have some furniture in your house you want to get rid of. However, before you actually get rid of it, somebody breaks in and steals it. Would the police consider it any less of breaking and entering? The same premise applies to fetal homicide laws. The problem comes when these laws are expanded to include other things like abortions which are perfectly legal under the law.
Click to expand...

Bull****. You don't get charged with murder for destroying property. Don't be ridiculous.
 
minnie616 said:
The state took an interest because the "child in utero" was killed when Scott Peterson killed the pregnant woman.

States can and often do take an interest in non persons.
Click to expand...
A child is not a person? One does not get charged with murder for killing a "non person". Do pro-abortionists even realize how idiotic their arguments sound? :roll:
 
countryboy said:
Bull****. You don't get charged with murder for destroying property. Don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's almost like you read nothing that I said and just made up some fictional argument. Fetal homicide law operates under the premise of a fetus being wanted. Much in the same way that theft laws operate under the premise that whatever is in your house is still wanted. Neither operates under the premise of what you might have been thinking about doing with either the fetus or the property itself. Did this really go over your head?

In any case, your question remains silly. Feticide laws are a pretty recent invention of the religious right. Asking why their consequences exist is like asking why any other laws crafted and passed almost exclusively by anti-choicers exist. They're futile attempts to try and reverse the progress of reproductive rights.

Get it through your head cb. The choice to reproduce is not going to go away because it makes your randomly assorted religious beliefs uncomfortable. It is here to stay. Don't like it? Don't take advantage of it, but don't take advantage of it either through condoms or the assortment of birth control technology out there. Have 100s of kids. Proliferate the planet with your seed and have them believe as you do. The rest of us will simply continue to ignore the nonsense.
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
A child is not a person? One does not get charged with murder for killing a "non person". Do pro-abortionists even realize how idiotic their arguments sound? :roll:
Click to expand...

An unborn is not a person.
" Child in utero" is a legal term used in the UVVA to describe an unborn.

Under US Code Chapter 1 an unborn is not considered a person.

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Click to expand...

And just to clear ...
Part C of US Code >title 1 refers to a born alive infant.

The requirements of this Section shall not be construed to prevent an infant’s parent(s) or guardian(s) from refusing to give consent to medical treatment or surgical care which is not medically necessary or reasonable, including care or treatment which either:
(1) Is not necessary to save the life of the infant;
(2) Has a potential risk to the infant’s life or health that outweighs the potential benefit to the infant of the treatment or care; or
(3) Is treatment that will do no more than temporarily prolong the act of dying when death is imminent.




The states have an interest in the " potential person" so if a person assaults or batters a woman and the fetus dies that person can be charged with violating feticide laws.

That does not mean the " child in utero" is considered a " Constitutional person " .
Despite the seeming conflict, there are a number of reasons why feticide laws do not threaten abortion rights.

First, even though[some] fetal murder laws use the word "person," they do not confer constitutional personhood.

They confer only an artificial type of personhood, one that is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that does not carry with it a "right to life." (90)

Second, feticide laws are not grounded in fetal rights; they are based on the interests of the state.

States can, and do, act to protect certain entities, even when those entities themselves have no rights.

Moreover, whereas abortion mediates between the opposing interests of the state and the woman, feticide laws pursue the same goals for both the woman and the state. In these scenarios, the state and the woman have similar interests, so the state can be more aggressive about pursuing its goals.

Finally, there is a clear difference between a pregnant woman consenting to an abortion and a nonconsensual attack on a woman that results in the loss of her pregnancy. The woman has a right to act; the attacker does not. Once we look below the surface, then, it becomes apparent that fetal legislation need not be viewed as a threat to women's rights.
Click to expand...

The myth of fetal personhood: reconciling Roe and fetal homicide laws. - Free Online Library
 
Last edited:
countryboy said:
It's called miscarriage. Look it up.
Click to expand...

The medical term for a miscarriage is spontanious abortion and has been called spontanious abortion by doctors since at least the 1940s when my mother had 2 spontanious abortions between my sister and I.


From Live Science:

A miscarriage is the loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy.
The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.
Click to expand...

Miscarriage: Signs, Symptoms & Causes
 
Last edited:
SlevinKelevra said:
It repeals the ACA in its entirety (including contraception mandate)
It does not reinstitute a contraception mandate.

There's nothing to paste because they don't want it included.
Click to expand...

Can't you afford contraception?
 
American said:
Can't you afford contraception?
Click to expand...

The most effective contraception is long term contraception which had a upfront cost of about
$800 to $ 1,000.
The cost was prohibitive to most working poor and also to many lower middle income couples/ women.
 
minnie616 said:
The most effective contraception is long term contraception which had a upfront cost of about
$800 to $ 1,000.
The cost was prohibitive to most working poor and also to many lower middle income couples/ women.
Click to expand...

You are cherry picking.
 
American said:
You are cherry picking.
Click to expand...

If pro lifers want women to have fewer abortions than long term birth control is best birth control currently to achieve that goal.
When women are given the option of birth control they would choose if cost were not a factor they choose the long term birth control over other methods.

From CBS news:

The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.

The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.

There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
Click to expand...

Study: Free birth control leads to way fewer abortions - CBS News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom