Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's a person then? When our founders wrote that - it did not include blacks, women, native americans, or even children.
I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.
Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.
Isn't it?
So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.
Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.
So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.
A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.
It's not murder. It's eviction.
No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)
You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.
It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.
If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.
You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.
So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.
As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.
If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.
Feelings about abortion change when you recognize that a fetus is a parasite.
In the case of liberals and their pregnancies....well, that IS a point that should be carefully considered.
I agree that the meaning has been broadened since the original concept and I think rightly so.
Our Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the Equal protections of our laws. Right? So that is a really inclusive statement.
Isn't it?
So, naturally as cases have been made that certain human beings should not be excluded, the laws have changed accordingly.
Including our laws which now make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.
So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.
A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.
It's not murder. It's eviction.
No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)
You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.
It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.
If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.
There is a distinct difference between a child that is born, and a fetus that can not survive outside the womb (is not a seperate life). No being has the inherent right to occupy another's body against that person's will.
You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.
So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.
As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.
If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.
If the fetus is unwanted, then it is a parasite.
If abortion is murder every miscarriage will become a potential murder investigation. How progressive.
If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?
I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.
How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?
What specific cases?
Though critical of the practice of prosecuting women for illegal abortions on themselves. . . Here is an article that at least acknowledges some specific cases for example.
So there again...you are opening up every miscarriage to be looked at as a potential murder.
A woman loses her right to her privacy, her body and her reproductive choices. The best and most effective methods of birth control have abortificant properties by preventing the implantation of a blastocyste, so they would be out. A woman would be forced to house, against her will, and unwanted tenant.
It's not murder. It's eviction.
No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)
You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.
It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.
If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.
There is a distinct difference between a child that is born, and a fetus that can not survive outside the womb (is not a seperate life). No being has the inherent right to occupy another's body against that person's will.
The legal counter to that argument will be very easy to make in court using both the legal precedents set in our legal homicide laws and simple logic.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason the child where it is and the only reason it is in that physical relationship with her. . . is because of the actions and risks that she took along with her partner to put it there.
The courts will agree that a child that is invited into that relationship - by the actions of his/her parents - has the legal right to be there.
You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.
So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.
Agree.
As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.
If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.
If the fetus is unwanted, then it is a parasite.
Call it anything else you want to.
So long as our laws recognize it as a human being - it is Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.
If you are not trying to suggest that the difficulty in enforcing laws to prevent the violation of children in the womb is a valid reason for not having those laws. . . what's your point?
I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.
How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?
What specific cases?
Though critical of the practice of prosecuting women for illegal abortions on themselves. . . Here is an article that at least acknowledges some specific cases for example.
Interesting article.
From the beginning of 2011 through August 2015, states enacted 287 new legal restrictions on access to abortion care.1
Since Roe v. Wade, a number of women have been prosecuted in the United States for self-inducing abortion under a variety of state statutes, ranging from fetal homicide to failure to report an abortion to the coroner.
Despite claims from antiabortion advocates and lawmakers that abortion restrictions are intended to only criminalize providers of abortion care, some prosecutors have exercised their discretion under current state laws to penalize women who end their pregnancies on their own. Moreover, these laws are even being used to pursue women who are merely suspected of having self-induced an abortion, but in fact had suffered miscarriages.
Women are not commonly charged in the United States for the crime of self-inducing an abortion, and they have rarely been convicted; however, attempts to charge and convict women for self-inducing are not at all new
There have been at least half a dozen U.S. cases where women have been arrested and charged after attempting to self-induce an abortion using illicitly obtained abortifacients.
What is seems is they are not getting charged or convicted for murder or even homicide in these cases. In the examples given, they cases were thrown out or did not result in conviction.
The distinct difference is prosecuting for illegal abortions or using illegally obtained abortificants.
No one has the right to murder or to molest a child and then to hide the act behind their so called right to privacy (sic.)
You can twist and perceive that fact however you want to - but it's not likely to change.
It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.
If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.
There is a distinct difference between a child that is born, and a fetus that can not survive outside the womb (is not a seperate life). No being has the inherent right to occupy another's body against that person's will.
The legal counter to that argument will be very easy to make in court using both the legal precedents set in our legal homicide laws and simple logic.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason the child where it is and the only reason it is in that physical relationship with her. . . is because of the actions and risks that she took along with her partner to put it there.
The courts will agree that a child that is invited into that relationship - by the actions of his/her parents - has the legal right to be there.
You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.
So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.
Agree.
As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.
If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.
If the fetus is unwanted, then it is a parasite.
Call it anything else you want to.
So long as our laws recognize it as a human being - it is Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.
Our laws say "person", not human being.
I think that fetal homocide laws are very tricky and they are based on the child in the womb being wanted (ie having a value). Once you start to make it broader you are violating the mother's rights.
How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?
What specific cases?
Though critical of the practice of prosecuting women for illegal abortions on themselves. . . Here is an article that at least acknowledges some specific cases for example.
Interesting article.
From the beginning of 2011 through August 2015, states enacted 287 new legal restrictions on access to abortion care.1
Since Roe v. Wade, a number of women have been prosecuted in the United States for self-inducing abortion under a variety of state statutes, ranging from fetal homicide to failure to report an abortion to the coroner.
Despite claims from antiabortion advocates and lawmakers that abortion restrictions are intended to only criminalize providers of abortion care, some prosecutors have exercised their discretion under current state laws to penalize women who end their pregnancies on their own. Moreover, these laws are even being used to pursue women who are merely suspected of having self-induced an abortion, but in fact had suffered miscarriages.
Women are not commonly charged in the United States for the crime of self-inducing an abortion, and they have rarely been convicted; however, attempts to charge and convict women for self-inducing are not at all new
There have been at least half a dozen U.S. cases where women have been arrested and charged after attempting to self-induce an abortion using illicitly obtained abortifacients.
What is seems is they are not getting charged or convicted for murder or even homicide in these cases. In the examples given, they cases were thrown out or did not result in conviction.
The distinct difference is prosecuting for illegal abortions or using illegally obtained abortificants.
Are you claiming that a lack of prosecutions somehow means that women can't be charged under these laws?
Or what?
You want to control women and their reproductive rights through imprisonment. You obviously don't want to live in the land of the free, so maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia, you'd like it there I'm sure.At least you didn't deny that you want to control women, and that's not attacking the messenger, that's attacking the misogynist. You'd make a good mooslim. Now go kiss a carpet.Brah, you're in serious need of a dictionary. Then look up the word "child". You're welcome.
No worries.
I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.
If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?
I'm not obsessed with what other women get up to and with controlling them like you are. You must be a commie bible thumper who wants everyone to live by your rules. You'd make a good dictator.
Yeah. I'm neither religious nor a dictator. I simply believe differently from you in the way I think the children that you are in denial of are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.
That "attack the messenger" tendency that you have. . . is that one of those liberal mindset "let's celebrate diversity" things?
Yeah. . . I'm a controlling woman hater all right. Please don't tell my loving female family members or any of the women family members like my Grandmother or my Step Mother who I was a care provider for, okay? And do ignore the fact that they shared my views on abortion.
That wouldn't be very supportive of your allegations against me.
Most of all don't tell any of the non family women who have known me for decades who are loved by me - despite their views or political beliefs.
If you run into any of them. . . just tell them you know me better because of your perceptive powers on the internet.
It isn't murder. It's eviction. No one has the right to force a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite in her body against her will. Once the fetus is viable - then it's not as clear cut, but up until then it is only a potential life.
If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.
There is a distinct difference between a child that is born, and a fetus that can not survive outside the womb (is not a seperate life). No being has the inherent right to occupy another's body against that person's will.
The legal counter to that argument will be very easy to make in court using both the legal precedents set in our legal homicide laws and simple logic.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason the child where it is and the only reason it is in that physical relationship with her. . . is because of the actions and risks that she took along with her partner to put it there.
The courts will agree that a child that is invited into that relationship - by the actions of his/her parents - has the legal right to be there.
You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.
So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.
Agree.
As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.
If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.
If the fetus is unwanted, then it is a parasite.
Call it anything else you want to.
So long as our laws recognize it as a human being - it is Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.
Our laws say "person", not human being.
WRONG.
Our Fetal Homicide Laws do not use the word "person" to make the case for murder in a case where a child in the womb is killed in a criminal act. I wish they did.
They use the fact that the child is "a human being" instead - which according to legal definitions is the same thing anyway.
How then do you explain the cases where the women (would be mothers) themselves have been charged with illegal abortions under these same laws?
What specific cases?
Though critical of the practice of prosecuting women for illegal abortions on themselves. . . Here is an article that at least acknowledges some specific cases for example.
Interesting article.
From the beginning of 2011 through August 2015, states enacted 287 new legal restrictions on access to abortion care.1
Since Roe v. Wade, a number of women have been prosecuted in the United States for self-inducing abortion under a variety of state statutes, ranging from fetal homicide to failure to report an abortion to the coroner.
Despite claims from antiabortion advocates and lawmakers that abortion restrictions are intended to only criminalize providers of abortion care, some prosecutors have exercised their discretion under current state laws to penalize women who end their pregnancies on their own. Moreover, these laws are even being used to pursue women who are merely suspected of having self-induced an abortion, but in fact had suffered miscarriages.
Women are not commonly charged in the United States for the crime of self-inducing an abortion, and they have rarely been convicted; however, attempts to charge and convict women for self-inducing are not at all new
There have been at least half a dozen U.S. cases where women have been arrested and charged after attempting to self-induce an abortion using illicitly obtained abortifacients.
What is seems is they are not getting charged or convicted for murder or even homicide in these cases. In the examples given, they cases were thrown out or did not result in conviction.
The distinct difference is prosecuting for illegal abortions or using illegally obtained abortificants.
Are you claiming that a lack of prosecutions somehow means that women can't be charged under these laws?
Or what?
People can be charged with anything. The lack of convictions, and especially, being dismissed means that the charges were baseless.
Why do fetal homicide laws refer to "fetal" and not "child"?
You want to control women and their reproductive rights through imprisonment. You obviously don't want to live in the land of the free, so maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia, you'd like it there I'm sure.At least you didn't deny that you want to control women, and that's not attacking the messenger, that's attacking the misogynist. You'd make a good mooslim. Now go kiss a carpet.No worries.
I think I will stay with the definition established by our fetal Homicide laws. The same definition that has already been used to prosecute the murders of prenatal children in the past.
If you think you have a definition that trumps that one, why aren't you using it to get any of those convictions overturned?
I'm not obsessed with what other women get up to and with controlling them like you are. You must be a commie bible thumper who wants everyone to live by your rules. You'd make a good dictator.
Yeah. I'm neither religious nor a dictator. I simply believe differently from you in the way I think the children that you are in denial of are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.
That "attack the messenger" tendency that you have. . . is that one of those liberal mindset "let's celebrate diversity" things?
Yeah. . . I'm a controlling woman hater all right. Please don't tell my loving female family members or any of the women family members like my Grandmother or my Step Mother who I was a care provider for, okay? And do ignore the fact that they shared my views on abortion.
That wouldn't be very supportive of your allegations against me.
Most of all don't tell any of the non family women who have known me for decades who are loved by me - despite their views or political beliefs.
If you run into any of them. . . just tell them you know me better because of your perceptive powers on the internet.
If you came home during a brutal winter storm to find an unwelcome child stranger huddled up in your house - trying to survive and trying to stay warm. . . and you evicted them by forcing them out into the cold - unprepared to survive in that situation.
There is a distinct difference between a child that is born, and a fetus that can not survive outside the womb (is not a seperate life). No being has the inherent right to occupy another's body against that person's will.
The legal counter to that argument will be very easy to make in court using both the legal precedents set in our legal homicide laws and simple logic.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason the child where it is and the only reason it is in that physical relationship with her. . . is because of the actions and risks that she took along with her partner to put it there.
The courts will agree that a child that is invited into that relationship - by the actions of his/her parents - has the legal right to be there.
You very well could be (and in my opinion should be) charged with MURDER in that case.
So good luck trying to use that argument in defense of abortion in a courtroom.
Agree.
As for the parasite claim, that is easily defeated too.
If you think either of those two arguments are so profound, I would like to see your explanation for why they have never been presented in a courtroom / legal setting.
If the fetus is unwanted, then it is a parasite.
Call it anything else you want to.
So long as our laws recognize it as a human being - it is Constitutionally entitled to the Equal protections of our laws.
Our laws say "person", not human being.
WRONG.
Our Fetal Homicide Laws do not use the word "person" to make the case for murder in a case where a child in the womb is killed in a criminal act. I wish they did.
They use the fact that the child is "a human being" instead - which according to legal definitions is the same thing anyway.
You were talking about the Constitution.
Hell, a tumor is a human being in the sense that it is human tissue, like an embryo.
Get back to me when Seagulls are as Constitutionally entitled to the EQUAL protection of our laws that children are entitled to .
Mmmmkay?
Human beings (children included) have Constitutional rights.
Seagulls do not.
.Anyone that can tell me they have a 100% clear conscience if they go have an abortion is either a liar or a sociopath.
What specific cases?
Though critical of the practice of prosecuting women for illegal abortions on themselves. . . Here is an article that at least acknowledges some specific cases for example.
Interesting article.
From the beginning of 2011 through August 2015, states enacted 287 new legal restrictions on access to abortion care.1
Since Roe v. Wade, a number of women have been prosecuted in the United States for self-inducing abortion under a variety of state statutes, ranging from fetal homicide to failure to report an abortion to the coroner.
Despite claims from antiabortion advocates and lawmakers that abortion restrictions are intended to only criminalize providers of abortion care, some prosecutors have exercised their discretion under current state laws to penalize women who end their pregnancies on their own. Moreover, these laws are even being used to pursue women who are merely suspected of having self-induced an abortion, but in fact had suffered miscarriages.
Women are not commonly charged in the United States for the crime of self-inducing an abortion, and they have rarely been convicted; however, attempts to charge and convict women for self-inducing are not at all new
There have been at least half a dozen U.S. cases where women have been arrested and charged after attempting to self-induce an abortion using illicitly obtained abortifacients.
What is seems is they are not getting charged or convicted for murder or even homicide in these cases. In the examples given, they cases were thrown out or did not result in conviction.
The distinct difference is prosecuting for illegal abortions or using illegally obtained abortificants.
Are you claiming that a lack of prosecutions somehow means that women can't be charged under these laws?
Or what?
People can be charged with anything. The lack of convictions, and especially, being dismissed means that the charges were baseless.
People can not be charged with "anything" unless there is a law which makes that "thing" a crime and unless there is evidence to support the charge.
Can they?
