If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...

Act 301 regulates abortion and has exceptions for ANY gestation that harms the health of a woman.

Not only is the concern real but the concern is perhaps over-broad.

 

And here I thought there was hope for you......I should've known better.

Where's "around here" ?


How do born people get aborted?

 

You like the majority of pro-lifers make the same basic error, whether that error is intentional or not remains to be seen, you attempt to transpose the human adjective and the human noun.

Actually they are not, human as you have used it is an adjective - relating to or characteristic of humankind - you then use a correct dictionary definition that clearly uses the human noun and not the adjective.

A fetus is human (adjective) it is not A human (noun) being under the current scientific definition. to be A human (noun) being one must meet a classification, it is called Taxonomy .. this is the list ;

http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/table_humans.htm

and as can easily be seen a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) does not meet that classification.

Person is a legal construct and as has been decided (rightly or wrongly) the unborn do not meet the requirements of the meaning of person under the Constitution. See Roe vs Wade oral arguments and final decision.

That of course does not imply that the legal definition of person cannot change, on the contrary it has already been changed in the past to include slaves as persons .. however, even if the unborn were to be included in the legal meaning of person it would not automatically mean elective abortion being banned .. in fact the unborn being included would strengthen the case in favour of abortion at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it under consent and self-defence laws and the equal protection clause.

It was not a question raised at all, the personhood of the fetus was never an issue prior to Roe it simply was not seen or acknowledged as a person, even early abortion restrictions had nothing to do with the personhood status of the unborn. I believe it was around 1968 that the personhood status of the unborn was first raised.

 

Nope. The current legal standing (per Roe and Casey) is mortally flawed and aching for update to address the VARIOUS important State interests in regulation not thus far addressed including the constitutional right to raise children without undue government interference. Most, if not all, late-term abortions would be allowed by Act 301 if necessary to care for the health of the mother or other medical need.

A female who decides late in gestation that she would rather kill the baby than deliver only needs two doctors to say this is in her best medical interests.
How hard could it be to find two doctors to say killing a fetus is better for the distressed female than delivering a child?

This law will be affirmed as a constitutional State regulation of gestation.

 

Gosh , I still don't know if Anti-Choicers want bigger government with the advent of the Special Unit For Prosecuting Evil Women.........no one has responded...

 

That is your opinion, one that has already been turned away by the courts. The current legal standings of Roe and Casey are not flawed in anyway and I would like to see this list of various important state interests please.

Then what is the purpose of this bill, if as you attest it will not stop abortions then it becomes nothing more than a feel good law and as such worthless.

 

So the mother is mentally incapacitated. Hey, no problem - she's alive!

Your assessment of "real concern" and "over broad" are seen as ludicrous by no more than a quick scan.

And, the idea that such determination is taken out of the hands of the woman and her doctor hit me as typical of those who assault what can only be described as our fundamental human rights.

 

This is pure hypocrisy.

The same crowd is working hard to deny women access to ANY doctor.

The nonsense about requiring two is no more than an assault and has absolutely no relation to medical need.

 

What the poster is asserting is that because abortion carries with it a risk to the female, that under existing restrictions detailed in Roe the state can restrict abortion to the 1st 12 weeks based on the interest of the state in maternal health, part of the evidence presented uses a piece of research that avows an increase in mental health issues for women who have had abortions, what the research fails to take into account is the mental condition of these women before pregnancy and abortion. furthermore what the poster has neglected to forsee is that every medical procedure carries with it a risk ergo by his logic all medical procedures should be made illegal. What the poster also fails to see is that pregnancy itself creates risks to the female and also causes her injuries, so again by his logic the state could, in fact, force abortions onto women based on the same interest in maternal health.

The proposed law is fatally flawed on numerous levels and even a non-profesional lawyer like me can see that.

 

Numerous solid points here.

Thanks

The charade of concern for women is really disgusting. And, the fact that it comes from people who claim to be religious is just one more layer on that.

 

It's a blob of tissue is a major selling point at the local abortitorium.

There is an wealth of proof they are selling body parts in these videos being released. It's doing a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement.

 

It's against the law to sell body parts for profit.

- - - Updated - - -

They are the victims of Planned Parenthood across the country.

 

Really, care to point it out where that is a "selling" point.

Having watched both the edited and un-edited versions of these videos there is not a single violation of any federal or state law, there are allegations in these videos not proof of any wrong doing unless of course you can show me in any of these videos actually footage of a person or persons breaking federal or state law, as far as I am aware talking about something is not a federal or state offence .. perhaps for someone with an agenda it is.

I always thought the crux of American justice was innocent until PROVEN guilty, has that changed?

There is certainly enough in those videos for the relevant people and clinics to be investigated and should evidence of any wrong doing be found then a court case and if that court case finds the people involved guilty they should be sentenced with the clinics involved being subjected to loss of funding .. however, calling for the de-funding of a whole organisation based on the alleged illegal activity of a few people and a few clinics is over kill and more to do with the desire of some Republicans and some members of the public to destroy PP what ever the cost.

I wonder do you feel the same way about religious organisations, should they be fully de-funded based on the few of the clergy that have already been convicted of paedophilia? If not why not as the so called reasoning is not different to what you are stating for PP .. Punish the whole organization on the alleged conduct of a few of its people .. if not explain why not, or is it that your own desire to see PP destroyed outweighs your moral outrage?

 

please point out where in any of those videos human parts are being sold for profit?

 

You seem to be willing to allow people to discard their eggs and sperm anyway they choose, that demonstrates that you see them as being of no value. Zygotes, on the other hand, you see as valuable because you want to require women to nurture them.

 

"""""If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...



the creation of a State or Federal law enforcement division....specifically tasked to investigate, apprehend, etc. persons who violated the abortion ban law?

Much in the way there was a "Bureau of Prohibition" formed under the Department of the Treasury in 1921 (ref: Eliot Ness, of "Untouchables" fame) to enforce the Volstead Act.

Thus freeing local police, State police, and the US Marshals and FBI to concentrate on other criminal activities. """





Would you?

 

These are investigative journalists doing the job the MSM should be doing. They are exposing the crimes of this organization, and yes, it should not only be defunded but have it doors closed and the whole lot brought up on federal racketeering charges under RICO statutes. But the criminal investigations are just beginning so we'll see what happens.

The church on the other hand wasn't conspiring to make money off of a criminal pedophilia ring. You don't close it down for the same reason you don't close all public schools for the tens of thousands of pedophile teachers that get little attention because the work for the schools and not the church.

- - - Updated - - -

I read about it. I think it was the 3rd or 4th one.

 

I don't think that would be necessary. Abortion isn't like alcoholism. Women won't be running around with tommy-guns looking for an abortionist.

 

WAAAAYYYYYYYYY more priests raping children and having it COVERED UP by more PRIESTS (PROVEN) than anyone allegedly breaking any laws at PP.

 

Abortion doesn't have anything to do with alcoholism (and neither does the OP)


HOW would you handle all the illegal abortions? There will be lots and more taxes will be needed to support all these thousands of investigations which will never end abortions..... a merry-go-round like it was when idiots banned alcohol....or idiots thought making pot illegal would end it's use.....a tremendous waste of taxes....and you approve?

 

Abortion (after the implantation) is formally illegal in Germany (cf. BVerfGE 39, 1) and I, myself, am also pretty much pro life.

Under the usual preconditions (professionally conducted abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy), abortion is not a punishable offense in Germany, though, if the mother had conducted a pregnancy consulting prior to the abortion.
§ 218a StGB states:

Pregnancy counceling is elaborated in § 219 StGB:

102,802 abortions were carried out in Germany in 2013, but the number is constantly decreasing [1]. The abortion rate is around 16% (USA: 22% [2]). Most probably, the reason for lower abortion rates in Germany don't lie primarily in the formal legal status, though, but in better social services (an unemployed person in Germany is being paid the rent for her apartment, health insurance plus the equivalent of around 400 USD per month for every person in the household and every child from the first year is legally entitled for a place in a daycare/kindergarden).

After all, abortion is a matter of moral uncertainty. The beginning of life is a philosophical question without definite answer. Therefore we have to give all involved parties the benefit of the doubt. Giving the unborn life the benefit of the doubt, we can not legalize abortion, but giving the mother the benefit of the doubt, we can not criminalize her. More than that, this concept is both pro life and pro choice. It is pro life because it undertakes all non-invasive steps in order to convince the mother of not undertaking an abortion and it is pro-choice because, ultimately, it leaves the decision to the mother.

My opinion is that the government could do more to prevent people from conducting abortions, though, give more support to the women in a conflict situation, and provide better services, especially during the pregnancy itself. Some pro life organizations try to provide services, such as baby hatches. More can and must be done. It is still in many cases, for example, that women are encouraged and persuaded by their male partners to undertake an abortion. I am quite confident, however, that in the course of social, emancipatory and civilisatory progress, abortion will more and more become a marginal phenomenon.

 

Evidence would be gathered and presented to a judge and jury who would then render a verdict.

Why would it be any different from the thousands of other potentially illegal behaviors that these same arguments are never applied to by anyone?

 

I think abortion is wrong however if a woman wants one that should be between her and her doctor (the father if consensual). Other than that let God be the judge for all shall be judged.

 

No. Society punishes people it finds guilty of wrongdoing right here on Earth. No god needed. It happens every day in courts. Explain, if you would, why abortion should be treated differently from any other wrong act. Set aside the perfectly valid point that perhaps society does not consider abortion wrong. That should be easy since you just said you think it is wrong.

It seems to me that most people think it is wrong but are somehow convinced that there can't be laws against it. Why not? There are tons of laws.

 

One fundamental problem.

CHILD =/= FETUS

Childhood begins at birth and not at conception.​

The belief that a fetus and a child are the same is based upon BS propaganda by Anti-Abortionists. Childhood has always been established at birth and not before.