The Schizophrenic US regarding Abortion Laws

[elts1956]

Some States have passed laws protecting the unborn, in utero child, from all violence. For instance if the pregnant mother is accidentally, or purposefully killed while carrying her child, these State laws carry punishment for the perpetrator for not one, but for two lives.

I would love to see a Pro Choice/Abortion supporter explain these.

Below are two example of State Laws which have been passed to protect the unborn. However, because abortion is now legal, an abortion can be obtained in these states.

Schizophrenic??? Naaaaah!!!

To find what other states support the Unborn Laws go to:

nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims(Fetal Homicide)
National Right to Life Committee
June 25, 2008

Full-Coverage Unborn Victim States (25)

(States With Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims Throughout the Period of Pre-natal Development

What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 35 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn victims of federal and military crimes.

Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability” as a “person” and “human being” for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a “human embryo or fetus” under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344

 

[Florida_mom]

I am very much pro-life…but to put on the legal hat (that I don’t own btw)…

The thing that I notice with Roe V Wade–is it doesn’t “legalize” abortion–it legalizes a “womans choice” with her body.

In the event of death of a mom who at the moment of death is still carrying an unborn child–it is presumed that at the time of her death, she was keeping the child.

Im sure the defense of the accused would maybe try to see if the women ever considered an abortion, but that is moot IMHO.

She did not choose to kill her baby when they committed the act that caused her and her child’s death.

IOW–she did not make a decision to at that moment to end the life of that child.

It is a step in the right direction IMHO, but I can see where pro-choice advocates would argue that this is not in conflict with their opinions that abortion should remain legal. They will most often argue about a women’s choice and not permitting the govt or anyone else to take that choice away.

With a murder, accidental or on purpose–the murderer not only removes her choice to live, but also removes her choice to keep her baby.

The law is just and not in conflict with Roe V Wade. In fact, I believe the reason it is constitutional is due to Roe V Wade and thus is upheld.

Some abortion advocates do not like these laws b/c the more human rights that a baby is given who was taken via these crimes–the weaker they feel is the argument to protect a woman’s choice. B/c–the law could be applied to weaken choice (in their eyes).

Just my thoughts. Laws such as these are paving the way for inalienable rights to all the unborn.

 

[elts1956]

I am very much pro-life…but to put on the legal hat (that I don’t own btw)…

The thing that I notice with Roe V Wade–is it doesn’t “legalize” abortion–it legalizes a “womans choice” with her body.

In the event of death of a mom who at the moment of death is still carrying an unborn child–it is presumed that at the time of her death, she was keeping the child.

Im sure the defense of the accused would maybe try to see if the women ever considered an abortion, but that is moot IMHO.

She did not choose to kill her baby when they committed the act that caused her and her child’s death.

IOW–she did not make a decision to at that moment to end the life of that child.

It is a step in the right direction IMHO, but I can see where pro-choice advocates would argue that this is not in conflict with their opinions that abortion should remain legal. They will most often argue about a women’s choice and not permitting the govt or anyone else to take that choice away.

With a murder, accidental or on purpose–the murderer not only removes her choice to live, but also removes her choice to keep her baby.

The law is just and not in conflict with Roe V Wade. In fact, I believe the reason it is constitutional is due to Roe V Wade and thus is upheld.

Some abortion advocates do not like these laws b/c the more human rights that a baby is given who was taken via these crimes–the weaker they feel is the argument to protect a woman’s choice. B/c–the law could be applied to weaken choice (in their eyes).

Just my thoughts. Laws such as these are paving the way for inalienable rights to all the unborn.

I am wondering what will happen to these state laws if FOCA is passed.

 

[mapleoak]

I am wondering what will happen to these state laws if FOCA is passed.

The pro-death solution to these problems is to make it so that an unborn child killed secondarily through assault against a woman is not murder. That is the sword of Damocles with trying to use these laws to confound the pro-death with logic.

 

[Florida_mom]

I am wondering what will happen to these state laws if FOCA is passed.

I’m not familiar with the acronym.

What I know–it seems pro-abortionists are pretty much trying to deny humanhood to a fetus. But their Roe V Wade avoided declaring humanhood and focused on the choice element. I could be wrong–but I dont think Roe V Wade addressed that.

But the key with assault and murder–the woman’s choice was removed.

I think this is one of those things where you could use their very own case against them.

Much like Nadya Suleman. I find much of what she did an extreme error of judgement. I am not certain if she is Catholic. But I know Dave Ramsey (not a Catholic) often quotes a scripture that refers to “He who fails to take care of there own home first is worse than an unbeliever.”

But despite her error in judgement to surgically create a pregnancy–it was created. All the folks who are saying she should have been forced to selectively reduce or that she should have never been implanted with 1 let alone 6 embryos (2 divided and became twins) are speaking contrary to the court case that lets women decide to for themselves if they should kill the baby.

Abortionists shouldnt be worried about humanhood–but they are b/c they feel that once declared, it removes a woman’s choice. But I have yet to see a court case or confession that a woman CHOOSES to be assaulted or murdered. Their very stance is an oxymoron. They know that “choice” is a week argument for murder–so now they have to prove that a baby is not a human.

Evidently the little folks who occupy our wombs are alien or another species if they are not human. (un-Christian sarcasm against the anti-folks).

 

[elts1956]

I’m not familiar with the acronym.

What I know–it seems pro-abortionists are pretty much trying to deny humanhood to a fetus. But their Roe V Wade avoided declaring humanhood and focused on the choice element. I could be wrong–but I dont think Roe V Wade addressed that.

But the key with assault and murder–the woman’s choice was removed.

I think this is one of those things where you could use their very own case against them.

Much like Nadya Suleman. I find much of what she did an extreme error of judgement. I am not certain if she is Catholic. But I know Dave Ramsey (not a Catholic) often quotes a scripture that refers to “He who fails to take care of there own home first is worse than an unbeliever.”

But despite her error in judgement to surgically create a pregnancy–it was created. All the folks who are saying she should have been forced to selectively reduce or that she should have never been implanted with 1 let alone 6 embryos (2 divided and became twins) are speaking contrary to the court case that lets women decide to for themselves if they should kill the baby.

Abortionists shouldnt be worried about humanhood–but they are b/c they feel that once declared, it removes a woman’s choice. But I have yet to see a court case or confession that a woman CHOOSES to be assaulted or murdered. Their very stance is an oxymoron. They know that “choice” is a week argument for murder–so now they have to prove that a baby is not a human.

Evidently the little folks who occupy our wombs are alien or another species if they are not human. (un-Christian sarcasm against the anti-folks).

FOCA, FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT which will overturn ALL protective anti abortion laws. They are passing it piecemeal in congress as I write.

 

[Florida_mom]

FOCA, FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT which will overturn ALL protective anti abortion laws. They are passing it piecemeal in congress as I write.

Ewww!

Why does it take finding out about things on accident with this govt. I had no idea!

that just stinks.

Unfortunately–when a woman doesnt exercise the choice to kill her baby and the baby dies at someone else’s hands why in untero, I am unclear as to how FOCA could constituationally protect the accused.

Right now–they have arrested a doctor in south florida for a botched abortion that legally will be tried as murder as the autopsy showed the baby took a breath before it died at the hands of the clinic.

I’m sure his filthy lawyers will make all attempts that the mom intended this. This has ALWAYS been my issue with the later abortions–b/c if the mom went into labor prior to the abortion as this woman did—it is murder as it took place. But had they aborted prior to her contracting (I don’t wish to learn how they would do this–but going with this thought)–then it is legal.

It seems stupid and idiotic and…well…murder.

I’ll have to look at this FOCA more. But I am sick and tired of politicians saying all abortions should be legal for the mother’s health.

I do not know one single solitary condition that would requiring assasinating a baby in order to save the mother’s life for the partial-birth stuff. I understand the need to deliver early–but it would be up to NICU to determine the health of the child and help it live. Choosing to kill it under the guise of mother’s health when really it is about a medical expense .

She would die if the baby were born alive? They still have to remove it somehow. It just can’t stay dead in the womb as there are a whole host of issues with that.

Disgusting and vehemently wrong on all levels!

FOCA is going to legalize that kind of murder?

Babies are on record as viable at 20-22 weeks. (I forget the exact number.) To kill the child is for the sole purpose to escape the medical bills to keep that baby alive if mother’s health was in enough danger to end the pregnancy early.

I am curious at what point pro-abortionists determined that a woman who is victimized by an assautl or murder chose to be a victim and chose to have her baby be a victim.

 

[elts1956]

Ewww!

Why does it take finding out about things on accident with this govt. I had no idea!

that just stinks.

Unfortunately–when a woman doesnt exercise the choice to kill her baby and the baby dies at someone else’s hands why in untero, I am unclear as to how FOCA could constituationally protect the accused.

Right now–they have arrested a doctor in south florida for a botched abortion that legally will be tried as murder as the autopsy showed the baby took a breath before it died at the hands of the clinic.

I’m sure his filthy lawyers will make all attempts that the mom intended this. This has ALWAYS been my issue with the later abortions–b/c if the mom went into labor prior to the abortion as this woman did—it is murder as it took place. But had they aborted prior to her contracting (I don’t wish to learn how they would do this–but going with this thought)–then it is legal.

It seems stupid and idiotic and…well…murder.

I’ll have to look at this FOCA more. But I am sick and tired of politicians saying all abortions should be legal for the mother’s health.

I do not know one single solitary condition that would requiring assasinating a baby in order to save the mother’s life for the partial-birth stuff. I understand the need to deliver early–but it would be up to NICU to determine the health of the child and help it live. Choosing to kill it under the guise of mother’s health when really it is about a medical expense .

She would die if the baby were born alive? They still have to remove it somehow. It just can’t stay dead in the womb as there are a whole host of issues with that.

Disgusting and vehemently wrong on all levels!

FOCA is going to legalize that kind of murder?

Babies are on record as viable at 20-22 weeks. (I forget the exact number.) To kill the child is for the sole purpose to escape the medical bills to keep that baby alive if mother’s health was in enough danger to end the pregnancy early.

I am curious at what point pro-abortionists determined that a woman who is victimized by an assautl or murder chose to be a victim and chose to have her baby be a victim.

Don’t know if you were around these corriders during campaign and election time, but there was plenty on bo’s pro abortion promises, including the signing of FOCA. FOCA, as a whole policy, will probably never come to the table, but the Dems are getting it in the law books piece meal. When they get done, FOCA, by other names, will be in existence.

 

[Florida_mom]

No–I am new.

In any case, my mom is aghast that I am still a republican. But sadly, I cannot vote democrat as all my choices thus far have been pro-abortion for their public.

Can’t do it, won’t do it.

 

[elts1956]

No–I am new.

In any case, my mom is aghast that I am still a republican. But sadly, I cannot vote democrat as all my choices thus far have been pro-abortion for their public.

Can’t do it, won’t do it.

Me either.