• 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!

Fetal homicide vs Roe Vs Wade

Yes. That's the entire point of activist law firms pushing this "fetal homicide" thing: to set the stage for a Roe challenge.

It hasn't made a lot of headway, seeing as how Roe includes a number of rulings about what qualities a fetus has of a life and when, and not much has changed medically since that time (and it won't until we come up with a womb substitute -- just the limits of nature).

Personally, I think the Supreme Court's reasoning for legalizing abortion is merely a side issue, not the real reason it should be legal, which is that all people have a right to protect their bodily integrity from anything and anyone. But that's neither here nor there. Fact is, they've already ruled about the medical and Constitutional particulars of what a fetus is at various points in gestation, and stated what they are unwilling to rule on due to lack of objective criteria to judge upon.

But it's a big country, and the states get away with all kinds of stuff.

So is all this based on opinion. Or do you have any content you could link me about how this could get to the Supreme Court through this law in the states of fetal homicide? You say they're setting the stage. Do you have any content on this that is convincing to you from a legal standpoint of how they will achieve this?

I'm interested in the unborn violence act the president Bush signed into law. There is a clause in this act that speaks about abortion. It's in part C.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

And I wonder if that means that this will never make it to the federal Supreme Court because it recognizes abortion as being OK in the act that I believe these fetal homicide cases used to make the law in the states. I don't even know for sure that they have to use this unborn violence act to make fetal homicide A law in their state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So is all this based on opinion. Or do you have any content you could link me about how this could get to the Supreme Court through this law in the states of fetal homicide? You say they're setting the stage. Do you have any content on this that is convincing to you from a legal standpoint of how they will achieve this?

I'm interested in the unborn violence act the president Bush signed into law. There is a clause in this act that speaks about abortion. It's in part C.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

And I wonder if that means that this will never make it to the federal Supreme Court because it recognizes abortion as being OK in the act that I believe these fetal homicide cases used to make the law in the states. I don't even know for sure that they have to use this unborn violence act to make fetal homicide A law in their state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, that's a pretty obvious answer. Usually this starts as a singular charge, in a state that has no such law. If their charges are ruled against, just go through the appeals system 'til you get to the top, same way any other case makes it to the Supreme Court. That's just basic knowledge of civics. You should have learned that in high school.
 
Well, that's a pretty obvious answer. Usually this starts as a singular charge, in a state that has no such law. If their charges are ruled against, just go through the appeals system 'til you get to the top, same way any other case makes it to the Supreme Court. That's just basic knowledge of civics. You should have learned that in high school.

So there is no way to find out if in a hypothetical situation of a drunk driver hitting a pregnant woman and causing her to have a miscarriage because of the accident and then being charged for homicide of the unborn fetus. If you could make an appeal that the unborn fetus has no constitutional rights because of Roe vs wade. That it would go all the way to the Supreme Court? Or would this even be excepted to be heard in a lower court?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-trial-s-attempted-fetal-homicide-article-1.1461226

I see there's cases on fetal homicide and cases on feticide which might be the same thing. But none of them are using this type of appeal. Is it just because people haven't thought of this... ? I feel like this would be a very common understanding or thought for any lawyer that's been the law school. I imagine they would talk a lot about abortion rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So I understand that murder and abortion are two different things. But fetal homicide contradicts Roe vs wade because it gives the fetus life if you can charge somebody with homicide for killing it even in the first trimester. So if somebody gets charged for double homicide because of this they can just fight it all the way to the supreme federal court and argue that the fetus has no constitutional rights so you can't charge me. And This would just be a Supreme Court case where they have to decide when life begins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's not complicated nor is it hard to understand...this has been explained to you multiple times

if a woman has chosen to carry said fetus then she has...period

if you remove said fetus you are in big trouble

what is so perplexing?
 
So there is no way to find out if in a hypothetical situation of a drunk driver hitting a pregnant woman and causing her to have a miscarriage because of the accident and then being charged for homicide of the unborn fetus. If you could make an appeal that the unborn fetus has no constitutional rights because of Roe vs wade. That it would go all the way to the Supreme Court? Or would this even be excepted to be heard in a lower court?

Man on trial in S.D. for attempted fetal homicide - NY Daily News

I see there's cases on fetal homicide and cases on feticide which might be the same thing. But none of them are using this type of appeal. Is it just because people haven't thought of this... ? I feel like this would be a very common understanding or thought for any lawyer that's been the law school. I imagine they would talk a lot about abortion rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unborn Victims Act along with State Feticide law create a special definition for the yet to be born, which doesn't conflict with Roe v Wade , thereby allowing the prosecution of those who intentionally (or even negligent homicide )kill a fetus. Laws that define the offenses individuals can be charged with a felony will vary by state
 
Unborn Victims Act along with State Feticide law create a special definition for the yet to be born, which doesn't conflict with Roe v Wade , thereby allowing the prosecution of those who intentionally (or even negligent homicide )kill a fetus. Laws that define the offenses individuals can be charged with a felony will vary by state

I am so sorry to ask for clarification but I assure you it's because I have no college and graduated high school with the 1.6 GPA. And I am very new to politics and even what I'm sure is a below average understanding of the law. So I am asking for layman terms. State laws that go along with the unborn victim act for fetal homicide convictions can not be challenged by the decisions made in Roe vs Wade that still stand after Casey verse Planned Parenthood that recognize the unborn as having no constitutional rights. Because of the clause in the unborn victim act?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am so sorry to ask for clarification but I assure you it's because I have no college and graduated high school with the 1.6 GPA. And I am very new to politics and even what I'm sure is a below average understanding of the law. So I am asking for layman terms. State laws that go along with the unborn victim act for fetal homicide convictions can not be challenged by the decisions made in Roe vs Wade that still stand after Casey verse Planned Parenthood that recognize the unborn as having no constitutional rights. Because of the clause in the unborn victim act?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PP v Casey altered the "fetus viability" clause and threw in "undue burden" without defining specifically what that meant.

The change in viability isn't meaningful today. It will become meaningful if a future technology comes into existence that allows a fetus to survive outside of the womb at an earlier stage of development.

Undue burden means government can't intervene during pre-viability stage. But the term is so abstract in PP v Casey that State Legislatures have enacted bad laws, which they know will be protected by pro-life majority District Courts of Appeal. And those courts hope to force challenged state laws, which purposely impose "undue burden", to be heard by the Supreme Court, with the intent to dismantle Roe v Wade. So far 14 States have bit the dust with that legal strategy.

The Unborn Victims Act was created to prosecute people who kill a fetus during the commission of specific crimes. Since fetuses have no personhood rights, a special definition was created by Congress to create a legal status that didn't conflict with Roe v Wade. States must use that definition in order to legislate their own laws used to prosecute persons who kill fetuses during some unlawful action or behavior.

This help?
 
PP v Casey altered the "fetus viability" clause and threw in "undue burden" without defining specifically what that meant.

The change in viability isn't meaningful today. It will become meaningful if a future technology comes into existence that allows a fetus to survive outside of the womb at an earlier stage of development.

Undue burden means government can't intervene during pre-viability stage. But the term is so abstract in PP v Casey that State Legislatures have enacted bad laws, which they know will be protected by pro-life majority District Courts of Appeal. And those courts hope to force challenged state laws, which purposely impose "undue burden", to be heard by the Supreme Court, with the intent to dismantle Roe v Wade. So far 14 States have bit the dust with that legal strategy.

The Unborn Victims Act was created to prosecute people who kill a fetus during the commission of specific crimes. Since fetuses have no personhood rights, a special definition was created by Congress to create a legal status that didn't conflict with Roe v Wade. States must use that definition in order to legislate their own laws used to prosecute persons who kill fetuses during some unlawful action or behavior.

This help?

This is unbelievably helpful! I really appreciate your time to lay that all out for me. I understand it so much and it makes some of the state laws made here in South Carolina makes sense as well. You have also given me direction to find me answers now with future questions I have around this. Thank you so very much!!!!!! [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom