~ MOD ALERT ~ Why is Pro-Life seen as Anti-Woman?

It is only evidence of overzealous prosecutorial misconduct:

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.or..._the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php

 

That isn't what I asked for, give me a specific case where a woman has been convicted and her conviction was not overturned?

 

You can twist it all you want to but the precedence has already been established.

Women compromise their autonomy during pregnancy because there is more than one human being involved in that physical relationship.

 

and again I would like to see evidence to support the above.

 

I don't need a 'conviction' to prove or to support my claim that a woman compromises her own autonomy with a pregnancy.

The fact that women can be and have been prosecuted for drug use while pregnant is proof enough.

Note that supreme court has NOT ruled that such prosecutions are unconstitutional.

Indeed, the Supreme Court declined to consider Regina McNight's case (South Carolina) and while her conviction was overturned because the State Supreme Court decided she had poor counsel.... they did not rule that on anything to do with her autonomy.

She remained in jail waiting for a bail hearing and a court date for her retrial.

Then to: "To avoid being retried and possibly sentenced to an even longer term, McKnight pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was released from prison. She had already served eight years." ~ Winning Progressive

 

Updated -

 

Even though every single on of those convictions have been overturned, including a number declared as unconstitutional, you don't need proof to support your claim

The Supreme Court also stated "The Court has stated that the decision not to take a case is not a comment on the merit of the appeal."

Actually she pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was purely done so she could get out of prison, her lawyers are still fighting to have all charges rescinded.

A single case based on junk evidence IMO doesn't give precedence at all.

 

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I don't believe a zygote is a person. After the intial 3 months, I don't support elective abortions. According to the Constitution it is not a person until it is born. But for myself, I would not have an abortion at any time, because of my Christian faith. But I know that every American is not a Christian, and I cannot force my Christian beliefs on others. However, if I was raped and got pregnant, I'm sure I would contemplate having an abortion and I wouldn't be committing a sin.

What do you mean you're not clear? You're willing to support legislation that would take that decision away from them because you're not sure?
I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't have an abortion if my life was at risk, but I can't speak for other women. A woman whose life is at risk, especially if she is a mother and has other children that will be left orphan, should be the only one to make the decision whether or not she wants to risk her life. And, to take it away just because of some strong belief that a clump of cells (zygote) is a person is totally wrong, in my opinion.

Not everyone believes that life begins at conception. The Jewish people, whom most Christians respect because they are the chosen, don't believe it is a person until it is born.

 

Just because you want to say they are "a person" does not make them a person. They have the potential to become a person, if they are carried to term and allowed to be born. The Constitution does not declare them a person until they are born.

Not everyone believes that sex is just for procreation. If it was, then I'm sure there are a lot of pro-lifers who are violating that, because you are not going to tell me that you all don't have sex unless you are planning to have a child. So, knowing that, you must also know that accidents happen. The woman may not have intended to pro-create when she was having sex, so to claim that it was her own actions is totally immature. And, it was the actions of the male, too. And, when a woman is raped, it most certainly is not her own action, yet most of you would support legislation that would force a raped woman to bear the child of the rapist.

She gave consent to have sex. Not every sex act has to result in a pregnancy. If you believe it does, you're back in the 15th Century.

Her autonomy is only compromised when men, who don't have to bear the brunt of pregnancy insert their two cents.

Oh, since when are humans asexual? It takes a male and a female to procreate.

 

Which position of yours do you want to support? LOL

Oh thats right, the one that says you want abortion legal, no restrictions so that if a woman wants to kill her viable fetus she can. That one? That is radically pro-choice I would say.

You said this which is hilarious..."Killing children already is illegal, so who are you trying to convince?"

Could you explain why our government won't let women kill their unborns the whole nine months? Why does our government put restrictions on when a woman can kill? If that which is in the womb is not a child...then what's the big deal killing it? I know your position is pro-abortion throughout nine months...you want all abortions legal...no restrictions..but as I said..our government says NO. Must be viability matters. And yes Scott Peterson...hey what about that verdict? Why was he changed at all for that killing? What did he kill that ticked the government off that they would charge him?

What you post on this forum about abortion is your opinion and yet you don't think anyone else should be able to share theirs.....Hmmmm.

 

Where does the Constitution say that the unborn aren't persons?

 

Correct.

I don't need actual CONVICTIONS to support the claim that a woman compromises her own autonomy during pregnancy.
Past prosecutions, plea deals etc. have already establish some basic rights for prenatal children as a legal premise.

That's fine and I understand why they say that but they are still making a statement about their current position on the Constitutionality of a case, when they decline to consider an appeal.

I hope they use your claims of autonomy and denials about the child's personhood in their appeals!

Did the courts rule that a woman's autonomy is NOT compromised during a consensual pregnancy?

 

did they rule that it was?

 

1. What is the legal definition for 'MURDER?'

2. Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER for killing a child in the womb 'IN ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT'if the child killed is NOT a person.

The Constitution only uses 'born' (birth) as a requirement for citizenship. You have to be 'born' here to be a citizen. The Constitution does not define 'personhood'.

Straw Man walking.

You are railing against a position I've never held.

Most of us wouldn't be here if they didn't.

It's biological fact.

Nooooo....

Really?

(sarcasm)

Did that really have to be stipulated?

Agreed.

[/quote] yet most of you would support legislation that would force a raped woman to bear the child of the rapist.[/quote]

The rape exception is a completely different Constitutional subject and debate.

With all due respect to pro-lifers who don't, I tend to favor the 'rape and life of the mother' exceptions for Constitutional reasons.

And, I don't agree that there are more pro-lifers who oppose those exceptions than there are who support them.

At any rate, it's a secondary debate and issue (because of the small percentages) and I would rather concentrate on the main thrust of the debate which is the 'personhood' issue and the basic human (and Constitutional) rights of prenatal children AND their mothers during pregnancy.

Consent comes with an assumption of risks.

When you play with a loaded gun, you may not intend to shoot someone with it.... You are still legally liable for your actions when the gun goes off.

What?

Are you claiming that there are no women who believe a woman compromises her autonomy when she's carrying another person in her womb?

I don't believe that for a minute.

When I say that a woman compromises her own autonomy when she assumes the risks for pregnancy and actually gets pregnant, I am talking specifically about HER actions.

It's not to absolve the father of his role in the situation nor of his responsibilities as the biological father.

 

I believe they did.

Because the LAWS remain in place for women who abuse drugs during pregnancy to be charged with crimes against their prenatal children in the future.

 

So actually they didn't then .. it's just what you "believe" .. fair enough, just as I believe that current precedence (not just premise) would allow abortion based on self defense laws.

- - - Updated - - -

the usual responses of "consent to sex, is implied consent to pregnancy, based on assumption of risk" but even in legal terms this is not correct, sex is not the same condition as pregnancy, it only creates the risk that pregnancy will occur. The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk.

 

As my edit says.... the laws against drug abuse during pregnancy remain in place and unchallenged and they do not support your claims about the pregnant woman's autonomy.

I believe that self defense laws are (or can be) applicable too. (life of the mother pregnancies for example)

We simply disagree on which pregnancies would qualify and which ones would not.

A typical consensual pregnancy is not an injury.

 

and that comment does not address the actual standing in law of - The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk.

Questions -

Is sexual intercourse guaranteed to make a woman pregnant on every single occasion .. Yes/No

If Yes, then I suggest you brush up on your reproductive biology.

If No, then sexual intercourse only creates the risk of pregnancy.

Is pregnancy an injury .. the pregnancy itself may not be an injury - though in some cases it is legally seen as an injury, however the pregnancy does cause injury - things that if they were to be happening to a non-pregnant person would be legally seen as injuries and no court would stop someone from seeking all available options to cease those injuries.

This comes down to consent again, you or any other person can consent to injuries to yourself by another person .. however if you are being injured without consent you are within the law to use deadly-force in self defense in order to stop the cause of those injuries .. do you agree with that assessment?

There are further options that must be tried prior to deadly force, ie give the aggressor a chance to withdraw, or non-lethal force, are either of these options realistically available to a pregnant woman in order to stop the continuation of injury .. Yes/No

If Yes, then please expand on how

 

Yes and no.

If you join into a football game or any other full contact sport (boxing)... you do so with the knowledge of the risks for injury to yourself and to others. You can not then sue the other players for an incidental injury to yourself when you assumed the risks by joining the game. They are not liable for YOUR injuries. (so long as the game was played within the rules and nothing criminal went beyond that). You would not have the right to pull a gun on the 40 yard line and shoot dead the guy who was about to tackle you.... because you 'felt your life was in danger.'

Would you.

(the answer is no)

Nope.

If the woman has the right to protect herself from injury?

So does the child.

Not entirely.

Self defense laws are not that simple.

You can't use excessive force, you can't entrap others by bringing them into a situation against yourself with your own consent or recklessness and then kill them - claiming self defense and (like someone else said) it's an action of last resort... if the situation can be resolved another way, it has to be (in most jurisdictions) at least attempted to be resolved that way (without deadly force).

Yes.

The vast majority of pregnancies are temporary and medically manageable.

Done.

 

No .. however the football game is a single condition akin to the sexual intercourse, if a player were to "tackle" another outside of the single condition of the game it would be construed as assault. A pregnancy is not part of the single condition of sexual intercourse, it is a second condition akin to the tackle outside of the football game.

Also are any of the players in the football game denied medical care for the injuries suffered during the game due to their consent?

Nope, that is like saying a mentally ill person, who unknowingly is causing injury to another has a right to protect themselves from the victim should they try to use force to stop the injury, in fact a case like this resulted in no charge - http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/officer-who-shot-mentally-ill-man-wont-be-charged-20120829-250t7.html .. the zef is the causing the injury and is the aggressor (whether knowingly or not) and all people are, by law, allowed to protect themselves from injury .. are they not?

I never said they were

and none of this negates the situation of a pregnant woman who is pregnant without her consent.

Explain how a woman can remove the continuing actual injuries being sustained without the use of deadly force?

Entrapment, as far as I am aware entrapment means to knowingly lure someone into a situation where they would commit a crime that under normal circumstances they would not. Entrapment laws do not apply to private citizens - "Only Government Agents Can Entrap - Entrapment law is a leash intended to curb outrageous conduct by police officers and other public officials. An entrapment defense does not arise if private individuals convince defendants to commit crimes." for reference - Henderson v. United States, 237 F.2d 169 (5th Cir. 1956). Furthermore the woman has issued no consent for the pregnancy.

Agreed so please list the ways a woman can resolve the situation without deadly force?

and this is relevant how, are you not allowed to avail yourself of injury if it is only "temporary"
Medically manageable - hmm so a rapist injecting his victim with drugs and then releasing her is ok after all it's only temporary and medically manageable .. despite the fact that the injuries have already occurred.

If I cause a deep incision into your arm can you defend yourself with the use of deadly force, having given me chance to withdraw and tried non-deadly force, even though the injury is only temporary and medically manageable?

not done at all.

 

This is why analogies fail.

Pregnancy is a unique condition and relationship and analogies can only take us so far.

Pregnancies are known to be the result of sexual intercourse.

When you assume the risks for pregnancy, you imply consent WITH YOUR ACTIONS, for the child you created with your actions to be where it is.

And children have a Constitutional right to the protections of our laws.

That's my last on it because anything else is speculation - until it is actually argued before the courts.

 

Giving a football player medical care doesn't harm anybody else.