Is murdering a pregnant woman = double homicide?

[iquiring mind]

I just read an article of a pregnant woman who was murdered.....http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/17/grace.coldcase.nielsen/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

(CNN) -- Jenna Nielsen was 22 years old, 8½ months pregnant and looking forward to bringing her third child into the world when her life came to a violent and abrupt end on June 14, 2007.
Jenna Nielsen was driving her newspaper route when she was stabbed to death two years ago.

She was working her new job on a newspaper delivery route she'd taken to help her young family make ends meet. That's when police say she was stabbed to death in front of a convenience store in Raleigh, North Carolina -- a crime that has police and family members still looking for answers.

Near the end of the article....

The family also have been advocates for the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, state legislation that would create a fetal homicide law in North Carolina.

Currently, state law does not consider a killing a double homicide when an expectant mother is slain

Would you support this law?
If the attack only resulted in the death of the fetus (8 1/2 month) and not of the mother, should the attacker be charged with murder or battery?

[LostinVA]

1. No, but I do think there should be an added charge or something

Like how murder during a rape or burglary has a harsher charge in some states.

[Dogtown]

4. An 'aggravated offense', no doubt

but it requires language that does not artificially create humans from fetal tissue.

Just look at the mess corporate "person-hood" has caused. I can only imagine the anguished laments of the self-righteous if the get to sneak in a legal definition of a fetus as a person.

[LostinVA]

5. Exactly

[brendan120678]

6. But this fetal tissue was 8.5 months along...

certainly viable outside of the womb.

Not saying that I either agree or disagree that it should be a double-murder, just making that observation.

This woman had chosen to have a baby. She was looking forward to it. Another person violently took that choice away from her (i.e. - the pregnancy wasn't terminated either voluntarily, or by natural causes). If the woman had survived but her soon-to-be-baby had not, what charges (other than assault & battery) should be filed, if any?

[Dogtown]

17. That makes this case particularly troublesome.

If we call it "murder" because the fetus could have been viable outside the womb, then that doors been cracked and fundy-feet will wedge it open.

I don't disagree that the event should be characterized as an aggravating element of the crime, but I really hope our lawmakers don't lure us into the trap of legally defining *any* fetus as a person.

An aggravated qualifier is very potent legally. In some jurisdictions, for example, "assault" can be a misdemeanor, but "assault with intent to kill" and "assault with intent to maim" can bring sentences up to 20 years.

I'd have no problem with a law calling this act an "assault with intent to abort" and a mandatory life-sentence. Factual, no more difficult to prove than any other "intent" charge, and suitable to the awfulness of the crime.

In the reported crime, only one person was murdered.

[iverglas]

32. sorry, no

But this fetal tissue was 8.5 months along...
certainly viable outside of the womb.

NO fetus is EVER "certainly viable" outside the WOMAN.

The only proof of the viability of a fetus is the fact that it survives once it is delivered.

Some full-term, apparently non-defective fetuses do not survive delivery. Just the plain fact.

So any fetus that does not survive to delivery might be hypothetically viable, but it can only be described as certainly viable after delivery, when it demonstrates that it was viable.


This woman had chosen to have a baby. She was looking forward to it. Another person violently took that choice away from her (i.e. - the pregnancy wasn't terminated either voluntarily, or by natural causes).

There are many things that we have and that we look forward to.

Taking away what we have, or denying us the opportunity to have or do something we look forward to, does not constitute homicide.


If the woman had survived but her {fetus} had not, what charges (other than assault & battery) should be filed, if any?

Whatever the charge that reflects an assault causing serious physical injury is called in the jurisdiction in question.

There is also the option of adding pregnancy as an aggravating factor to be considered in sentencing someone convicted of that offence.

Canadian law, the law with which I am most familiar, contains a provision in the Criminal Code regarding aggravating factors to be considered in sentencing:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Fundamental principle

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Other sentencing principles

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, ...

and goes on to name others. Such a sentence could very well include "evidence that the victim was pregnant" (even if there was no damage to the fetus), if a society wished to particularly deter assaults on pregnant women.

While I ordinarily recognize that increasing the severity of sentences is not an especially good way to deter crimes (it just doesn't work), in the case of calculated crimes motivated by things like hate, it may well have a salutory effect.


typo fixed

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogtown]

2. A clumsy attempt by the anti-abortion crowd

to sneak 'personhood' into their abortion war.

They think they're so sly...

[jcarterhero]

44. Yep, another way for those anti-abortionists to push their agenda

Right down our throats

[Azalea]

45. Hopefully

laws like these will not pass. The only person who is murdered is the only person in the scenario, the pregnant woman. No matter how far along, only one person dies. The laws and protection of rights are exclusive to persons and a fetus is not one.

[MercutioATC]

3. If you're gonna be pro-choice, you're answer HAS to be "no".

...as does the answer as to whether a woman who knows she's pregnant and continues to drink/use drugs can be charged for damaging the baby in vitro.

[iquiring mind]

10. There should be some additional charge

If it's called murder, it would definitely be used to abolish pro-choice laws!

However, "if a woman knows she's pregnant and continues to drink/use drugs" and that directly causes irreparable harm to the child, she most definitely should be charged with something! How horrible to be so reckless to cause permanent damage to a baby!

A woman undertakes a HUGE responsibility when she chooses to have a baby and should act accordingly!

[MercutioATC]

11. No, because that "baby" isn't a baby yet....it's an unviable cluster of cells.

...and even if it's to the point where it's viable, what a woman does with HER body is HER choice and nobody else's.

[iquiring mind]

12. At which point is the fetus

no longer a just "cluster of cells"?
At what point does the mother become responsible for the health of her baby?

What recourse does a 'crack baby' have toward the person who has caused them harm?

[Iris]

15. the crack baby syndrome has pretty much turned out to be a myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27coca.html

"So far, these scientists say, the long-term effects of such exposure on children’s brain development and behavior appear relatively small."

[iquiring mind]

26. Long term development problems are not fully known

http://www.archrespite.org/archfs49.htm

Summary

Staff training, caregiver training, and parent education are all critical elements of any program that will be successful with these children. Physical elements of the environment (lighting, noise, and space) may need to be adjusted to accommodate their care. The inclusion of medical support, i.e., nurses and physicians who are familiar with the problems of these children, is essential. In summary, the care of alcohol and drug-exposed children is a team effort that requires coordination, case management, special care techniques, and education to be successful in any respite or crisis care situation. With these components in place, agencies and families can witness the positive growth and development of children who have been greatly at risk.

For arguments sake let's say these children grow up to be productive, successful members of society, though the research is still ongoing. However, what costs and what suffering has been been expended? It easily costs a million $$ to keep a premature baby in a neonatal intensive care unit for months. There is a lot of therapy and medical care that's required before they can become productive members of society. All this pain and suffering is directly related to the irresponsible actions of the mother.

I believe parental responsibility begins at conception. It appears you don't think it starts until birth. With that said, this thread is quickly moving from my original post to a side argument over parental responsibility.

[Iris]

27. so for argument's sake, we should subject women to treatment like this:

Since the Whitner decision:

* A pregnant woman in South Carolina was arrested because she was pregnant and used alcohol.
* When a thirteen-year-old girl experienced a stillbirth her parents were arrested: One charge was for unlawful conduct to a child because the girl's parents had allegedly "failed to get proper care for the fetus."
* At least two women who have experienced a stillbirth have been prosecuted at least one was charged with homicide, alleging her drug use caused the stillbirth in spite of the fact this cannot be proved to a medical certainty and several other factors the DO contribute to stillbirths were present in this case.
* The Whitner decision was sought out to use as authority for getting a court order to force a woman to have a cesarean section against her will - while getting a court order was under consideration the woman gave birth naturally.


http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/facts/whitner.htm

[iquiring mind]

30. I cannot argue against the fact that many prosecutors have no soul

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is by far worse than many other drug abused babies.

The nations drug laws need a complete overhaul. Treatment not punishment should be the priority.

As I've already said, this is moving off the original subject.

And no Dogtown #22, "I have not intentionally moved off target to pursue a personal agenda". Conversations typically have natural tangents. I was asked my personal belief and replied honestly. Is that not what this forum is for?

[MercutioATC]

18. It's not a person and has no legal status until it's born.

If you're pro-choice, any other stance is logically indefensible.

[rebecca_herman]

37. you might think so BUT

You won't find many of them on here, but there are actually people out there who think a fetus is a person from the moment of conception onward, but are still pro-choice and would not change the laws to remove the option of legal abortion. Their reasoning being, since the fetus resides in the woman's body, she has a right to a medical procedure on her body, as the fetus does not have the right to an additional person's body. However, a third party acting against the woman's wishes has no such right (as it is not his or her body to control) and thus it would be murder even if it happened long before the fetus became viable.

I do not share that stance, but I've met people with it, and it seems to logically work in their brain, for whatever reason. They want abortion to be legal, so I don't see the point of arguing with them. I do not know if it passed, but my state was working on a law which gave a fairly harsh penalty for killing a viable fetus against a pregnant woman's wishes (longer sentence than assault, but not as long as murder and no option for the death penalty) but the legal term for it was not murder but something else. Which I felt was a fair law.

[rebecca_herman]

38. nt

yeah, I checked and it did pass in my state. It is a Class A felony "Assault on pregnant women resulting in termination of the pregnancy." 10-25 years. In contrast, murder is 25-60 years, and capital murder is life imprisonment or the death penalty. Personally I think making it a class a felony is a fair punishment.

[Warpy]

35. It's not a baby until it's born

and those "crack babies" were found to have life long problems because of poverty, not because they were born with drugs in their systems.

Babies born with drug addictions who were adopted by middle class families did not go on to have serious problems later on.

I suppose that means no poor woman should ever be allowed to have a child unless she has a rich woman lined up to adopt it, right?

[Iris]

14. "act accordingly" according to whom?

Are you aware that not all of the research out there is necessarily true? The crack-babies of the 80s that were supposed to be destroying our country right about now? Turned out that theory didn't hold up.

Where are you going to draw the line? The supposed affects of caffeine during pregnancy are inconclusive and, judging from my peers, if a drink now and then during pregnancy was guarantees a damaged child, I'd know a lot more FAS kids than the 0 that I know now.

[iquiring mind]

16. Reckless endangerment or extreme disregard

I understand it is a slippery slope which is why an extreme act or extreme condition must exist.

My fiance' works at a children's hospital and witnesses many premature babies whose mothers drank/used drugs in the extreme. These children have no chance at a normal life. Many will never walk, many more will never have the mental capacity to live independently.

All the research out there may not be true but, most is undeniable. Your denial of this research is like saying "cigarettes don't cause cancer"

[Iris]

20. see my post #15.

You are prepared to make judgments based on your emotions and condemn these women to what? Hard labor? prison? That will really help the children in question.

[Dogtown]

22. You're playing "what if".

The topic under discussion is "Is murdering a pregnant woman = double homicide?".

It is not "Can we find some other back-door to pretending a fetus is human".


Your premise is so vague it would be impossible to set up any guidelines to enforce, not to mention the questionable morality that supports it.

I believe you've intentionally strayed off-topic to pursue a personal agenda.

[GoesTo11]

7. Are moral considerations different for crimes than for medical procedures

I can't see why someone who commits a crime of violence and ends the life of a fetus is any less guilty than someone who does the same to a newborn. This really is different than late-stage abortion ending a pregnancy to protect the health of the mother. There's no comparable situation where it would be necessary to end the life of a newborn to protect the health of the mother. In the murder case, the time between the event and when natural birth would occur doesn't present any unusual anticipated hazards so it's taking something away that shouldn't be. In the late-term abortion case, there would be hazards. Late-term abortion without medical need is another issue and would have to be justified differently - but it's hard to see a justification for elective abortion at 8 1/2 months that that doesn't also justify infanticide. With earlier abortions - in the extreme, consider the morning after pill - involve no feeling on the part of the baby. The feelings involved are the hopes and dreams of the parents. In an unwanted pregnancy, they elect to give up the pregnancy and don't lose that as parents. Much different than if it results from an act of violence in which they still lose all their hopes no less than parents of a newborn.

[sailor65]

8. Absolutely yes..........

"If the attack only resulted in the death of the fetus (8 1/2 month) and not of the mother, should the attacker be charged with murder or battery?"

Murder

And before the usual idiots start screaming about how "Anti-choice" this position is, go back and read (Or have your smarter sibling read to you) the fact that this was a CHOSEN life TAKEN by the homicide. To the family, this was a child just as dead as if he or she had been shot in the street after birth.

[Dogtown]

24. Criminal penalties are not,

and should not be, levied to revenge the victims. The penalties are there to protect society.

I'm not an idiot, neither "usual" nor "unusual". If I wanted to be equally inflammatory, I could characterizer you as one of the "usual idiots" that aren't interested in justice, but merely use inflammatory rhetoric to press a political agenda.

I don't know if that is your stance, or you merely don't understand the concept of legal justice and thirst for revenge for this proto-child.

I agree that some elevated "punishment" is called for in this particularly case. Perhaps the charge should be "Unlawful abortion, w/o the mother's consent".

It is absolutely not a murder.

[iverglas]

33. beg pardon?

And before the usual idiots start screaming about how "Anti-choice" this position is, go back and read (Or have your smarter sibling read to you) the fact that this was a CHOSEN life TAKEN by the homicide. To the family, this was a child just as dead as if he or she had been shot in the street after birth.


"The usual idiots"? My my.


What funny language you use.

"A chosen life"? What in the fucking fuck does that mean??

The woman chose to continue her pregnancy and hoped it would continue until delivery and result in a live infant. That means something.

Do families normally decide what the law is and how it is applied? Do families on your planet, for instance, get to decide what the sentence for this crime will be? "Off with their head"?

If someone steals my favourite penny, the one my great-grandma gave me for my fifth birthday, the only memento I have of my great-grandma, they have still committed a minor theft, no matter how much the penny meant to me, and no matter how much I think they should be locked up for life.

Society's laws reflect society's values, not individuals' or families' whims.

An assault on a pregnant woman that terminates her pregnancy is a very serious offence.

It is not homicide.

[xchrom]

9. for me the answer is no -- but i understand when the fetus is

81/2 moths along and viable outside of the womb -- neither can you{the law} ignore it.

[jbnow]

13. If I were a man who lost his 8 1/2 months pregnant wife I lost my wife and child

Or if it was my daughter I lost her and a grandchild.

"If the attack only resulted in the death of the fetus (8 1/2 month) and not of the mother, should the attacker be charged with murder or battery?"
If I were 8 1/2 months pregnant and someone directly caused the death of the fetus...someone murdered my baby. I'd already have the crib and clothes, that fetus would be my real baby, not an incidental. A few months in jail wouldn't be punishment enough.

Law probably should reflect this but the problem is these laws are often written to declare fetus a person to be able to mess with abortion and would certainly mess with late term abortion even more.

I am guessing I would not support this law because I sure suspect the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" in North Carolina would be trying to do that very thing...limit abortion.

But a carefully worded law...might have a place. After 7 months a baby can live outside of the mother...I want to say they are people. But I don't want a woman that pregnant with a fetus who can't survive after birth or with some medical emergency of her own to be limited by that.

So I don't have an answer...I just admit there is a question.

[iquiring mind]

19. I agree the law would have to be very carefully worded

Before viability, some extra criminal charge should be allowed.

After viability this should definitely be considered murder. An exception for the health of the mother should be allowed to avoid the possibility of this law limiting abortion.

[MercutioATC]

21. So you'd advocate outlawing abortion after a certain point unless the mother's health was at risk?

...and what would constitute a "danger" to the mother's health?

[Dogtown]

25. But, how to determine viability?

Should the prosecution be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fetus in question was viable?

Or should we just accept an average age as a limit? Who gets to decide?

Again, it should be a crime. Call it what you will, as long as you don't falsely label it "murder".

[iquiring mind]

28. Medical decision

"Danger" to a woman's health would be decided by the physician. The medical community is the only entity qualified to make the determination of viability or mother's health.

I believe there are already limits on when abortions can be performed. Yes, I agree that if the fetus has been declared viable then abortion should be illegal. If it's viable, why not give birth and give the baby up for adoption? There are 10,000's of people who cannot have a baby that would love to adopt.

[Dogtown]

29. You're misquoting me

and you're not as subtle as you think.

I said that in the case of a pregnant woman being murdered, I would accept that the resulting "un-viability" of the fetus should be a separate crime, such as "Unlawful abortion without the mother's consent". It is not, nor should it be, called "murder".

I do *not* believe there should be *any* laws concerning abortions with consent. The law should not impose itself IN ANY WAY with a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps you're further obfuscating or merely confused, but I asked you to define "viability" in regards to your assertion that it should be a murder charge if the fetus is "viable". You can re-read my post and respond to it honestly, if you wish. I see no reason to repeat myself.

I'm not interested in any more dishonest replies. I won't try to have a reasonable discussion with anyone harboring a hidden agenda.

[iquiring mind]

31. It took me a while to see where I misquoted you

When I said "Yes, I agree that if the fetus has been declared viable then abortion should be illegal." I did not intend to imply that I was agreeing with you. I was agreeing with the position. Sorry for the writing style.

I did answer with my definition of "viability", I said the medical community is the only ones qualified to determine the viability of a fetus.

Why such hostilities? Why the accusations? Why the paranoia?

"I have not intentionally moved off target to pursue a personal agenda". Conversations typically have natural tangents. I was asked my personal belief and replied honestly. Is that not what this forum is for?

I started this thread to see how others thought and to get their perspective. Abortion, like religion, is a topic where you will not change somebody's mind. All you can do is discuss it and understand the other person's perspective. Over time somebody may alter their view but, it won't happen immediately. Especially, in a message board.

[Dogtown]

34. A fair reply

Perhaps you'll understand my guarded reply after you've acquired more experience here (assuming you are a new member and not a recycled poster who has lost his post count).

We're beset with "trolls' at times. Some just like disrupting discussion by playing word-combat, some are RW interlopers trying to ninja into our discussions.

It's legitimate to post a complex situation and elicit comments. Often, however, we find it's an ambush. It's best to starve trolls, they feed on our outrage; hence, I terminate any discussion when a troll rustles the bushes.

I over-react sometimes, but your position *could* have been a prelude to an anti-abortion rant.

Your original premise is thought provoking and worthy of discussion. If I mistook your intent, I apologize. Get used to animosity though, it's common here and sometimes extremely unreasonable.

As to allowing the "medical community" to determine the definition of viability, I foresee many difficulties.

Who is the "medical community"? Do you mean the AMA? If so, they have a very bad reputation for infusing politics and self-interest into their announcements. Many physicians are politically or religiously opposed to abortion and can't be trusted not to impose their personal views. The AMA doesn't represent doctors anymore than AARP represents seniors.

I don't think you could ever reach a consensus on what group represents all physicians or even "medical science".

You'll find some very resolute opposition to any legal definition that suggests that a fetus is a human being. To accept such a definition plays into the gambit of unscrupulous anti-abortion groups who hope to spring-board. If a fetus can be described as human, then any termination can be deemed "murder". The issue is so politicized that any attempt to enact changes, surreptitiously or openly, will be met with such venom that it will be hopelessly entangled.

BTW, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[iquiring mind]

36. Thank you

:fistbump:

Your replies were not the first where I've experienced accusations. As you wrote, "Get used to animosity though, it's common here and sometimes extremely unreasonable." You can even see a few on this thread.

It's not just the "trolls" who like to play word-combat. Many regulars engage in the policy of personal destruction, grammar and spelling lessons, attacking the typo of my user name, etc. They rant and provide no worthwhile feedback. One reason I don't restart with a new (correctly spelled) name is it allows me to quickly identify these individual and avoid wasting my time.

I am still learning exactly when to cease discussion with those who would rather rant than discuss.
It is tough, it's easy to get sucked into a pointless argument.

Thanks for your welcome.

Ever since I read my signature quote, I've tried hard to practice its meaning. Doing so allows for learning, understanding and even for disagreement without animosity.

[rocktivity]

23. No. Homicide can only happen to a person

and personhood can only happen to someone who lives after being born.

A charge such as "destruction of a fetus" I could live with. But even then there would have to be differentiation between murdering someone who happens to be pregnant (whether you know it or not) and murdering someone with the intention of ending the pregnancy--a much more serious charge, of course.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Quantess]

39. Since an 8.5 month old fetus is viable outside the womb,

then yes, I would call that a double homicide.

[colinmom71]

40. Constitutional scholars have examined this issue over the last decade...

And have essentially come to the consensus that a Fetal Murder law can only be considered Constitutionally valid IF it can be legally proven that:

1) The fetus has been determined to have been viable according to current medical norms. Gestational age alone is *not* the sole determining factor, but for developmentally normal fetuses it's generally a strong indicator for viability.

2) The fetus was killed by their injuries during the assault/violent incident that killed or maimed the pregnant woman. This is to be determined by autopsy results garnered by the professional opinion of the medical examiner.

3) Evidence provides overwhelming support for the notion that the intent of the crime was to kill the woman *and* the viable fetus.

Remember, for a charge to be considered a legal Murder, there must be shown a malicious intent to kill the purported victim through planned violent action. Without proof of intent to kill, the charge is considered a Homicide, not Murder. The majority of crimes that result in the death of a valid fetus are crimes where the intention was to harm the pregnant woman, not the fetus. It's pretty difficult to show that the crime's intention was also to kill the baby, because usually it's not.

The potential use of Felony Murder charges though may be applicable for the fetus, but the DA would have to seriously examine if they are willing to risk the verdict being overturned upon appeal. Most DAs tend to be more cautious and probably would not be willing to forgo an easier conviction of assault or murder of the pregnant woman if they do not pursue felony murder charges in regards to the fetus.

But an example of a potentially valid Fetal *Homicide* count would be to accept the first two above listed conditions as valid and evidentially proven, in absence of the third. Still, prosecutors must prove the first two conditions conclusively via forensic and circumstantial evidence. That can be very costly and tedious to prove. It's why those states that actually have Fetal Homicide laws see very few convictions under those laws. They don't happen often, it's difficult to prove, and it can usually cost the public far more to prosecute than other standard homicide or murder trials - only to see the conviction overturned via even more expensive appeals processes.


As to my own personal stance, I'm actually against any statutory laws against abortion. It's a medical issue, not a legal one. However...

I'm willing to tolerate Fetal Homicide laws, so long as they are *strictly* defined to cover only cases where the fetus is indeed fully viable (developmentally normal and past 26 weeks gestation) AND it is proven the fetal demise occurred as a result of the alleged assault/homicide against the pregnant woman. Showing intent to kill the fetus as a result of the crime just helps prove the homicide count is justified, as far as I'm concerned. Trying an assailant for Fetal Homicide before viability can be difficult even with good forensic evidence, especially if the assailant didn't actually know the woman was pregnant at the time of the purported crime.

Not all women show a pregnancy as obviously as others. Heck, when I went into labor with my son at 24 weeks, the security guard in the ER asked why we were waiting for a nurse escort to the OB wing since I "don't look pregnant". Admittedly, I was wearing my favorite black t-shirt and stretchy shorts (at the time) so it may have been hard to appreciate the fact that I was pregnant and in pre-term labor. But I'd really only just started "to show" about three weeks before and when I wore loose clothing I had before the pregnancy, it was hard to tell that I was actually pregnant.

Sometimes an assault against a pregnant woman happens where the assailant did not know there was a potential other victim. But statistics seem to show that visibly pregnant women are more endangered by familiar parties (spouse, significant other, jealous infertile -nutcase- acquaintance, etc.) than from a random assault by a stranger. Women who are pregnant with viable fetuses are more likely to be harmed or killed in a car accident than by purposeful assault. Even each US state's laws reflect the difference between a murder and a vehicular homicide, with the difference being the intention behind the crime.

Sorry this has gotten so long, but this is an area of abortion law that interests me. While I'm not big on Fetal Homicide laws, I certainly respect the rights of the spouse and family members who have lost two significant persons within their lives through a cruel assault. This is the only reason I am willing to tolerate Fetal Homicide laws that meed the criteria I've mentioned above (#1 & 2).

[iverglas]

41. Would that be *some* constitutional scholars?

Very certainly not all agree.


I'm willing to tolerate Fetal Homicide laws, so long as they are *strictly* defined to cover only cases where the fetus is indeed fully viable (developmentally normal and past 26 weeks gestation) AND it is proven the fetal demise occurred as a result of the alleged assault/homicide against the pregnant woman. Showing intent to kill the fetus as a result of the crime just helps prove the homicide count is justified, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm afraid that what any individual is "willing to tolerate" or how any individual is "concerned" never cuts any ice with me.

There's a bit of a bottom line here -- apart from the fact that NO fetus can ever be proved to be viable except by proving it is viable, i.e. by being born/delivered alive and surviving. All else is conjecture.

A physician who performs an elective abortion is not charged with homicide.

A non-physician who performs an act that results in the termination of a pregnancy is charged with homicide. (And this has included at least one case I am aware of where the act was performed at the request of the pregnant woman.)

There's a bit in the US Constitution that guarantees the equal protection of the law.

It is very much not equal protection if two individuals are treated that differently based on the outcome of two acts performed with the same intent that have the same outcome.

[uppityperson]

42. No. And regarding your last question, battery, not murder

[Azalea]

43. No

So long as abortion is legal killing a pregnant woman's baby can never be legally justified as homicide. It opens the doors to granting personhood to fetuses and making all abortion murder.

If you murder a woman's pregnant sister even if she were 9 months pregnant and due THAT day, the only legally considered person who has been murdered is the sister, not the viable fetus. Wanting your fetus doesn't give it more protection under the law than one that is going to be aborted.

[kaylynwright]

46. I've never thought about this.

That's a tricky question. I think if the murderer's intent was to kill the mother and the baby, it should be considered a double homicide. If the intent was only to kill the mother, I think it should be a homicide with an additional charge.

[iverglas]

47. well, here's your chance

You might want to start by reading what's already been said in the thread.

Blobbing an unconsidered opinion into an ongoing discussion, without offering so much as a word of fact or argument as basis for that opinion ... well, one really might as well talk to one's mirror. It might be more impressed.

By the way, just in case this hadn't occurred to you either: women are normally referred to as women, and fetuses as fetuses. Not "mothers" and "babies". Unless maybe they actually are.

[musette_sf]

49. + 1

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

50. Other than your language (mothers vs women, baby vs fetus), at what point

would it become "double homicide"? Would the woman have to know she was pregnant (thinking right after fertilization or implantation)? First trimester? "Viability"?

What about a woman who drank or did drugs or did something to harm the fetus? Should she be held legally liable for any resulting defects or for "child abuse"?

By the way, I have very strong opinions, but am asking you to get your opinion. I don't usually insult people, but do like to talk with all sorts. So, take me seriously, please.

[GodlyDemocrat]

51. Yes, it is, the choice to abort is the woman's and the woman's alone

[iverglas]

52. hmm

Non sequitur much?

If the choice to abort is the woman's alone, then perhaps the charge should be "procuring an abortion without consent"?

Where does homicide come into it?


Did you come here to join the discussion, or just tell us your opinion?

If you came to join the discussion, any chance you read it before posting?

[GodlyDemocrat]

53. It is not a non sequitir ... A fetus is a life

An expectant mother who intends to have a baby most probably agrees that her fetus is a life.

The main reason why abortions are legal and a constitutional right is that a fetus cannot survive on its own without the mother. A woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term that she doesn't want to unless the fetus can survive on its own.

If the pro-choice movement starts defending murderers of pregnant women on some mistaken reasoning that the murdered woman's baby is somehow not a life, this will damage the pro-choice cause considerably.

[uppityperson]

54. I SERIOUSLY doubt the the pro-choice movement will defend murderers of pregnant women

And no, that is not the reason abortions are legal. That is not what Roe v Wade was based on at all.

"A woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term that she doesn't want to unless the fetus can survive on its own."

What the heck is that about?

[GodlyDemocrat]

55. Read Roe V Wade, it never says a fetus is not a life

Roe V Wade acknowledges the special circumstance that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and this is why a woman has a right to make the decision to abort. Roe V Wade never challenged the premise that life began at conception.

[iverglas]

56. grow up

YOU read Roe v. Wade.

This isn't Sunday school. If you want to cite it, quote it. It's easily found on the internet.

The Court in Roe v. Wade expressly stated that the question of "when life begins" is not for courts to decide.

Here. Just this once, I'll do your homework for you.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

... In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

"Life begins at conception" isn't a "premise", it's a nonsense.

Life began in the primeval swamp. An individual human being begins to develop when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm. In just exactly the same way as a building begins to develop when pen is put to paper.

The development of the fertilized ovum INTO a human being can and very often is interrupted. Since the development was not completed, the human being did not exist. No more than the building existed if the developer went bankrupt after the foundation was dug. This whole single timeline thing is so hard to get your head around, isn't it?

The thing is that the Court not only didn't say what you claim, it said the pretty much precise opposite:

we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake

Does your church let its Sunday school students get away with this?


I hold no brief for your Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. I actually think it's an abomination.

The Court stated that the state "has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life" as if that had somehow been proved - as if it had become a premise, when, in fact, not only had it never been proved that the interest exists, the very nature of that interest was never even addressed. How an interest that has not been proved or even identified could ever become "compelling", I have never been able to grasp. Why virtually no one in the US ever addresses this ... well, don't rock the boat, I guess.

[GodlyDemocrat]

59. Did you realize you just proved my point?

You said:

The Court in Roe v. Wade expressly stated that the question of "when life begins" is not for courts to decide.

I said:

Read Roe V Wade, it never says a fetus is not a life

Score 1

You then said:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

... In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

I then say:

Roe V Wade acknowledges the special circumstance that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and this is why a woman has a right to
make the decision to abort. Roe V Wade never challenged the premise that life began at conception.

The second bolded statement supports the first sentence. The first bolded statement supports the second sentence.

Score 2

Don't be intellectually dishonest and twist my words to imply that I said that the court defined life as beginning at conception in Roe V. Wade. I said that the courts never challenged that (specific) premise. There are many other reasons, outside of a decision to have an abortion, that a state would define a life as beginning at conception, including punishing violent crimes against pregnant women affecting the fetus or guaranteeing government health care for pregnant women.

[iverglas]

64. no, but I'm realizing other things

You said:
The Court in Roe v. Wade expressly stated that the question of "when life begins" is not for courts to decide.
I said:
"Read Roe V Wade, it never says a fetus is not a life"

I believe uppityperson, borrowing one of my favourite ripostes, has riposted that one. ;)


Score 1

You really don't understand. You don't "score" by repeating what you already said and completely refusing to address what was said in reply/rebuttal.


I then say:
"Roe V Wade never challenged the premise that life began at conception."

So I say again:

"life begins at conception" is not a premise.

You can probably find some Easy Logic For You lessons on the net.

The particular lesson you're looking for will be called: petitio principii.

Since your Latin doesn't seem to be really good: begging the question. You are making a claim and claiming it as a premise.

Here are your problems:

(a) You have not proved your claim; only if you do, can it become the premise for proving another claim.
(b) Your claim is irrelevant; it cannot be used as the premise for any other claim you are making.

Here's a suggestion, for addressing both of those problems.

Define your terms, for starters.

"Life begins at conception."
"A fetus is a life."

Provide us with the definition(s) of the word "life" in those two claims.
And then demonstrate how your claims are relevant to an issue here.

You will find the lesson on "equivocation" useful.


There are many other reasons, outside of a decision to have an abortion, that a state would define a life as beginning at conception, including punishing violent crimes against pregnant women affecting the fetus or guaranteeing government health care for pregnant women.

Evidently, pregnant woman are not just not equal in importance to a fetus, they are lesser in importance than a fetus.

I guess there is a reason why you aren't just calling for severe treatment of men who assault pregnant women, and the provision of health care for pregnant women. Can't think of one, myself.

[Tess I Guess]

69. I think you're making some good points there

and I think some prochoicers look faintly ridiculous saying "poor pregnant women need government help with prenatal care because the fetus will suffer if we don't," but when the fetus REALLY suffers, as in being killed when the woman didn't want it to be, we're supposed to fall in place and say, ah, that's no more egregious than the usual assault. We're letting the antichoicers define us.

I have no trouble saying we can make the distinction between a woman who gets terminates a pregnancy to undo her pregnant state and someone who kills a wanted fetus, who wasn't pregnant. If it sounds like technicalities and splitting the split hair--hell, thats what the law is !

[iverglas]

72. please

I think some prochoicers look faintly ridiculous saying "poor pregnant women need government help with prenatal care because the fetus will suffer if we don't,"

Will you put a name to your quotation?

Myself, I say that pregnant women should receive health care on the same basis as everyone else should receive health care -- they should have ready access to medically necessary services, free of charge, as a right that is theirs as a member of my society. And hey, in my society, they do. Pregnant women receive prenatal and delivery care, and abortions, at their option.

In a society where care is not available on that basis, providing health care to pregnant women makes it more likely that the child once born is healthy. Does it really matter to a society whether a fetus is healthy? Not much, eh? Once it is born, it becomes society's concern. Then and only then. And society is wise to reduce the risks of problems after birth by attempting to avert them before birth.


but when the fetus REALLY suffers, as in being killed when the woman didn't want it to be, ...

I am just not getting this bit, and I want you to answer.

What effect does the WOMAN's wishes have on the "suffering" of the FETUS? Does the fetus know it is wanted, and in its dying moments think something like oh, poor mummy, this is going to devastate her, my grief for her is overwhelming? This is greater suffering than a fetus that, in its dying moments, thinks how horrible, my mummy didn't want me, my grief for myself is overwhelming?

What in the bleeding hell are you talking about?

... we're supposed to fall in place and say, ah, that's no more egregious than the usual assault.

WHO IS THIS FUCKING 'WE'????

Who is giving 'US' these instructions?

Why are you spewing this vomit in this forum?


I have no trouble saying we can make the distinction between a woman who gets terminates a pregnancy to undo her pregnant state and someone who kills a wanted fetus, who wasn't pregnant.

Neither do I, and neither does anyone with an IQ over 22, I would imagine. Why are you insulting my intelligence by implying that I do?

I can tell the difference between a termination of a pregnancy at a woman's request and a termination of a pregnancy against her wishes.

The difference is CONSENT. That is what makes the first case a matter of no concern to the law, and the second case AN ASSAULT.

What trouble are you having grasping this very obvious thing?


If it sounds like technicalities and splitting the split hair--hell, thats what the law is !

And this is what they told you at law school, is it?

Sure not what they told me. What they told me was that a criminal offence has two elements:

mens rea - the intent to commit the act
actus reus - the act

Since terminating a pregnancy IS NOT HOMICIDE, you're missing one of the two biggies there.


You can respond to this, or you can burble some more insulting nonsense and spew some more ignorant vomit.

[Tess I Guess]

112. We shouldn't be extremists, either

""""There are many other reasons, outside of a decision to have an abortion, that a state would define a life as beginning at conception, including punishing violent crimes against pregnant women affecting the fetus or guaranteeing government health care for pregnant women.""

That was very well said. What's it coming to, when we're so askeert of the antichoicers, that we dare not even acknowledge the humanity of a 8 1/2 month fetus that was wanted by its mother?

I swear prochoicers act like we're defending such a house of cards, that we can't allow the least concession or it all falls down. They're afraid we have to "run amok" and therefore charge women aborting in the 1st trimesters with murder too, as if we can't make gradations and delineations and distinctions.

[iverglas]

120. what idiots are these of whom you speak?

we dare not even acknowledge the humanity of a 8 1/2 month fetus that was wanted by its mother

Do you belong to some secret club that has, as one of its tenets, the felinity of fetuses? Caninity? Amphibity? Who on earth doesn't acknowledge that a fetus - nay, a blastocyst - is human?

Not moi. Next thing you know, I'd be denying that my big toe was human ...

[uppityperson]

122. The only way a pregnant woman is guarenteed health care is if "life begins @ conception"?

No. Pregnant women, even now, get health care if they are pregnant because they are pregnant. Not because "life begins at conception".

[uppityperson]

58. Roe v Wade never says the moon isn't made of cheese either.

No, Roe v Wade does not say "The main reason why abortions are legal and a constitutional right is that a fetus cannot survive on its own without the mother."

[iverglas]

57. such hand-wringing

If the pro-choice movement starts defending murderers of pregnant women on some mistaken reasoning that the murdered woman's baby is somehow not a life, this will damage the pro-choice cause considerably.

Such sincere concern.

I know it's hard when one has been spoken to in infantile language all one's life, but one must make the effort.

You refer to an "expectant mother" when you mean a pregnant woman.

This one is actually interesting, though. A childless woman who is pregnant is indeed an expectant mother, in the same way that a blueprint is a prospective house.

A blueprint isn't a house, and calling it a prospective house doesn't mean it is.

A pregnant woman isn't a mother, and calling her an expectant mother doesn't mean she is.


But when it comes to "the murdered woman's baby", nope. It's a fetus. Or an embryo, or whatever.

And "not a life"? Ah, how I've missed this codespeak; haven't seen it hereabouts for a while.

I have a life. I am not a life. I am a human being.

A fetus is not a human being. It is a fetus. A developing human being, if you like, in the same sense as that developing house that is so far just an excavated basement.

Why do you need to use nonsense words to argue your point? Because you know that you can't truthfully say that a fetus is a human being, which is what matters? Given how murder is the killing of a human being, and absolutely nothing else?

The definition of murder is not "the killing of a life". See how ridiculous that looks?

You might take my life. But you would kill ME. Not my life. Not a life. Me.


So on to your point.

Had I practised criminal law, and had Canada decided to enact the piece of crap bill that the rightest-wing piece of crap in the House of Commons introduced last year, seeking to make "fetal homicide" a crime -- yes indeed, I would have defended anyone against that charge.

Charging and trying and convicting and sentencing and punishing someone for homicide, when no homicide was committed, is the height of a constitutional violation. It is punishing someone for committing the most serious offence in the criminal law, when no such offence was committed. It is a violation of so many constitutional / human / fundamental rights that I could spend an hour explaining it all.

And I wouldn't give any more of a crap about damaging the pro-choice cause that I suspect you do. Reproductive rights are fundamental human rights, and the cause of ensuring that women are able to exercise those rights is not damaged by defending anyone else's ability to do the same.

[GodlyDemocrat]

60. How insecure do you have to be in your beliefs to get so outraged over verbiage?

Yes, I believe a fetus is a life. Yes, I even call a fetus a baby and I have no problem with the words unborn child. Yes, I call a pregnant woman who is excited to bear her child (oh no, I said child again) an expectant mother or mother to be. And I have no qualms about this.

No, I do not oppose, either constitutionally or morally (based upon my interpretation of the Bible), a woman's right to have control over her body and have an abortion. I don't feel any inconsistency at all in these two positions. Namely, while I believe that a fetus is a life, I also believe that while a fetus is dependent on the mother (oh no, I said mother, should I call it its host? :eyes:) for survival, the involved female (there maybe I'm politically correct in your eyes now) has the right to terminate the pregnancy.

I'll tell you why words that personify a fetus or describe a pregnant woman as a mother don't bother me. It's because many pregnant women I have known feel that way personally about a child they are intending to carry to term. I have had family members (strongly Democratic and pro-choice family members) miscarry. It was emotional and devestating for them. Try telling them that their child was not a life and they should just get over it. Then try telling a woman in the hospital who was just beat by her abusive boyfriend and thus miscarried that the best the legal system can do is charge the bastard for simple assault.

By the way, I have female friends who have had abortions. But I'm personally able to draw the distinction between a woman exercising her right to choose to have an abortion and a woman exercising her right to have a child. This is what reproductive freedom is. The law needs to protect both classes.

I'm generally against the death penalty, but when I hear about monsters like Scott Peterson who murdered his nine month pregnant wife rather than just get a divorce, I wholly support him being convicted for a double murder. Yikes, Connor Peterson (yes, that was his name that his mother gave him) was born alive during the assault. You have every right to defend these type of scum, but if you ever practiced in the United States don't expect to get very far on an argument that a murder of a pregnant woman cannot be tried as a double murder. (I was born in Canada, but I will not profess I am an expert on Canadian law.) But this argument has nothing to do with choice and everything to do with letting vicious monsters off the hook.

[uppityperson]

61. Let's see how outraged you are at "verbiage". You are an argumentative asshole.

[iverglas]

62. if I may just edit your post ...

Let's see how outraged you are at "verbiage": "You are an argumentative asshole".

That was your intent, am I right? ;)

[uppityperson]

65. Thank you, that is what I meant indeed. It was late and I missed the

quotation marks. Thank you for clarifying since I would never think of actually calling someone an argumentative asshole. Just using it as an example.

:pals:

[iverglas]

63. ladidah, bladiblah

Yes, I believe a fetus is a life.

I didn't actually ask for a statement of belief from you. I addressed this nonsense already, and you have failed to address anything I said.

That's not how it works, you know? If you just plan to say the same thing over and over and over, why would anyone want to waste time talking to you?


Yes, I even call a fetus a baby and I have no problem with the words unborn child.

Hey, good for you! It's all about you! Let's have a hand for the person in the back there! She has an opinion!


No, I do not oppose, either constitutionally or morally (based upon my interpretation of the Bible), a woman's right to have control over her body and have an abortion.

And doesn't that just make you look clever. I believe it's homicide, but it's okay by me!

Namely, while I believe that a fetus is a life, ...

Oh, wait. Is killing a life (assuming it's a human life, assuming that's what you're saying) homicide?

I know that killing a human being is homicide. That's just definitional. If you've ever studied Latin, you'll know that. Is "killing a life" homicide? I'm not recalling the word "vivicide" from my high school Latin classes on English derivatives. I'm not seeing how it would make sense.

If it isn't ... can you maybe explain what you're talking about, and why?

Are there other instances in which "killing a life" is not homicide, if this one isn't homicide?


Namely, while I believe that a fetus is a life, I also believe that while a fetus is dependent on the mother (oh no, I said mother, should I call it its host? :eyes:) for survival, the involved female (there maybe I'm politically correct in your eyes now) has the right to terminate the pregnancy.

First: no, you aren't politically correct. You're insufferably rude.

Funny how the word "woman" doesn't appear anywhere in that verbiage.

I'll tell you why words that personify a fetus or describe a pregnant woman as a mother don't bother me.

Do I need to explain in smaller words why I don't care?


I have had family members (strongly Democratic and pro-choice family members) miscarry. It was emotional and devestating for them. Try telling them that their child was not a life and they should just get over it.

Why would you instruct me to utter such utterly moronic and rude words to another person? Because that's the sort of thing you would do?

When a miscarriage occurs, prospective parents hoping for a birth and a child suffer the loss of their fetus and the hopes and dreams they had invested in it. Very often it is a tragedy. (Truth be told, it is sometimes a relief - very often, for women throughout history and geography who have had no way of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. And yet the event is exactly the same.)


Then try telling a woman in the hospital who was just beat by her abusive boyfriend and thus miscarried that the best the legal system can do is charge the bastard for simple assault.

Again, why would I do such a profoundly stupid thing?

Here's how my law deals with these things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html

Assault

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; ...

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

... (b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Aggravated assault

268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

I can't imagine why you would suggest that I characterize an assault that terminates a pregnancy as "simple assault".

You do know why it is so important - apart altogether from the fundamental issue of human rights involved - that abortion be legal, right? Because terminating a pregnancy without proper medical care carries all manner of health risks for the woman?


But I'm personally able to draw the distinction between a woman exercising her right to choose to have an abortion and a woman exercising her right to have a child. This is what reproductive freedom is. The law needs to protect both classes.

Actually, I think you're identifying the likeness between the two women: they are both exercising their rights.

The law needs to refrain from punishing women who exercise the right to terminate their own pregnancy, and punish people who commit violent crimes, including assaults on pregnant women. Amazingly, I think you'll find the law does that.

I completely fail to see how calling the termination of a pregnancy without a woman's consent "homicide" has anything to do with protecting a woman's exercise of her right to have a child.

I have a right to eat pizza for breakfast. If you steal my pizza off my table, as I am about to exercise that right, shall we charge you with homicide? I mean, assuming that *I* don't die of starvation as a result of your theft.


I'm generally against the death penalty, but when I hear about monsters like Scott Peterson who murdered his nine month pregnant wife rather than just get a divorce, I wholly support him being convicted for a double murder.

Whew, a non sequitur and two irrelevant opinions all wrapped up in one. Oh, I get it. Does two murders get you the death penalty while one only gets you life? Yes, that's what the law is all about. Making shit up to punish someone for something they didn't do, up to and including killing that person.

However --

Yikes, Connor Peterson (yes, that was his name that his mother gave him) was born alive during the assault.

I think you will find that most legal systems (mine, anyhow) treat an assault prior to delivery that results in the death of an infant that was born alive is treated as homicide. This is a very grey area -- life is about drawing lines, and that's one that is extremely debatable; and life is a process, and things we do often affect people not yet born. But it is actually easy to distinguish this from a non-consensual termination of a pregnancy, i.e. causing an abortion/stillbirth.

By the way, Juanita (yes, that was the name my best friend gave her car) was totalled when some asshole sideswiped her. Homicide?

You have every right to defend these type of scum, but if you ever practiced in the United States don't expect to get very far on an argument that a murder of a pregnant woman cannot be tried as a double murder.

Hey, I wouldn't expect to get far in 1990s Afghanistan on the argument that the murder of a pregnant woman was a single murder.

Your point was?


Riddle me this. If your position is all about protecting pregnant women and securing the exercise of their rights, how could a man who was asked by a woman to strike her in order to cause an abortion, and not just asked, but urged, be charged with "fetal homicide"?

Since it has happened, and since you support these laws, you seem to need to explain this.

[Tess I Guess]

66. I could agree with that

I draw a distinction between a woman killing a fetus to undo her pregnant state and someone killing the fetus in a rage attacking a pregnant woman. The intent is not the same. It's logical to treat different things differently.

As someone said, in a crime, intent can make all the difference in the world. Two killings which look just alike on their face can be charged very differently. Intent can make the difference between someone getting the death penalty or freedom.

[iverglas]

67. congratulations, we have another winner!

Someone with an opinion! Let's all give her a hand!

Any chance you feel like joining the discussion -- i.e. READING what has been said in it, and seeing how soundly your opinion has been trounced already, and addressing some of the things that have been said in that regard?


Intent can make the difference between someone getting the death penalty or freedom.

Indeed. The distinction in this instance would be "consent".

A pregnant woman who goes to a clinic and obtains an abortion consents to her pregnancy being terminated.
A pregnant woman who is beaten by her partner and miscarries does not consent to her pregnancy being terminated.

"Assault" is touching without consent. Assaults can be defined, and punished, differently, depending on the force with which it is committed and the harm that results.


Now ... where did homicide come into this?

[Tess I Guess]

68. I wouldn't knock opinions, that's what we all have

especially people on juries. That's the power of opinion and why trials for the same crimes have different outcomes.

"depending on the force with which it is committed and the harm that results""

Harm as in "dead fetus"? Wouldn't we say a pregnant gal punched in the stomach who lost the baby suffered more harm than a sore gut with NOTHING in it? But we don't want the law to reflect that coz we're so terrified they'll take away the right to choose?



"Where's the homicide"

The fetus is dead, that's the homicide. Homicide doesn't always mean murder. The fetus was alive, that's why we have to kill it! There is such a word as feticide.

Prochoicers have no trouble looking as ridiculous as the proloofas sometimes, when we say things like"a pregnant woman's child who was killed--bah, nothing special happened," or "we're opposed to sonograms being shown--we don't want you to see what you're doing."

[iverglas]

70. oh look -- blahblahblah

This really does have to take pride of place here:

a pregnant gal

I mean, that said, what's left to say?


Wouldn't we say a pregnant gal punched in the stomach who lost the baby suffered more harm than a sore gut with NOTHING in it?

Well, I know that a pregnant woman punched in the abdomen who lost her fetus suffered more harm than someone punched in the abdomen who suffered no injury other than a bruise. Mind you, I might consider losing a kidney more serious than losing a fetus.

So I ask again: where does "homicide" come into this? If someone punches me in the gut and I lose a kidney *and* my spleen, is that homicide?


But we don't want the law to reflect that coz we're so terrified they'll take away the right to choose?

As Redd Foxx speaking as Tonto said: Who 'we', white man?

Where did I or anyone else say that we did not want the law to reflect the seriousness of an assault on a pregnant woman that causes a miscarriage? Where would you get the notion that the law does not do that, if that's the notion you have?


The fetus is dead, that's the homicide. Homicide doesn't always mean murder.

Homicide means the killing of a human being. See, if you had read the thread, you would know this. Of course, most people over the age of 10 already know it. It's what you call A DEFINITION.


The fetus was alive, that's why we have to kill it!

Are you self-medicating?


There is such a word as feticide.

Indeed. And there is such a word as antidisestablishmentarianism. Neither of them means "homicide".


Prochoicers have no trouble looking as ridiculous as the proloofas sometimes, when we say things like"a pregnant woman's child who was killed--bah, nothing special happened," or "we're opposed to sonograms being shown--we don't want you to see what you're doing."

And Redd Foxx asks again: WHO 'WE', WHITE MAN?

If you say that an assault causing a miscarriage is "nothing special", you're despicable. I would never think of saying such a thing.

If YOU say you're opposed to women being forced to view sonograms, and doctors being forced to require that women view sonograms, because such coercion is a violation of (in the US) the first amendment to the US Constitution, just for starters, you're an intelligent person with a decent concern for others. If YOU say that anyone else has said what you put in quotation marks above, you are either not an an intelligent person or you have no decent concern for anyone or anything.


I would have to say you have made it quite clear what you are.

[Tess I Guess]

71. LOL im as used to adolescents on the prochoice side as

on the antichoicers.

"assault causing a miscarriage is "nothing special... I would never say such a thing."

Okay, I'll bite. Tell us why you WOULDN'T say it. Coz the wanted fetus is MORE than losing a kidney or a spleen, right?


"are you self medicating"


LOL you don't have a better answer than an insult? Tell us what distinction you make between the fetus in the woman and the fetus outside of her. The distinction is LIFE and DEATH.

'"i know what you are.."

I know what you are too. You're a little wimp that's apparently going to crumple up in a fetal position because someone said "gal." Hell, I thought and hoped women were stronger than that.

[Tess I Guess]

73. Hell we passed a law in our state that they have to be shown

the sonograms before the abortion. This was apparently the point at which the prochoicers were to descend en masse down here and scream about how women are now living under tyranny.
They put up a feeble effort, but it was nothing special.

I didn't bitch and moan. This law doesn't upset me. If the woman still wants her abortion, she can still get one. Hell I won't even get upset if Roe V Wade falls and abortion is legal in only half the states. Abortion is still freely available, generally available.

[iverglas]

78. you really are getting over-enthusiastic, aren't you?

Tess I Guess (27 posts)
<where's the ??>

Sun Aug-16-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #71

73. Hell we passed a law in our state that they have to be shown

the sonograms before the abortion. This was apparently the point at which the prochoicers were to descend en masse down here and scream about how women are now living under tyranny.
They put up a feeble effort, but it was nothing special.

I didn't bitch and moan. This law doesn't upset me. If the woman still wants her abortion, she can still get one. Hell I won't even get upset if Roe V Wade falls and abortion is legal in only half the states. Abortion is still freely available, generally available.

Yes, your state (whatever that is) passed a law that is in clear violation of your Constitution and the rulings of your Supreme Court, in multiple ways.

Here's the first amendment to that Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and here's Blackmun J. in Roe v. Wade:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

The legislators in your state plainly know that their actions are unconstitutional and don't care, and the scummy voters who elected them plainly place their own opinions about things that are none of their business above the rights and welfare of other human beings, and any courts that uphold these actions are handmaidens of the right wing and no more.


You don't bitch and moan. The law doesn't upset you.

You may see something in this post that might fit your foot if you tried it on.

[uppityperson]

81. Obviously you don't care if access to abortions becomes more difficult

Hell I won't even get upset if Roe V Wade falls and abortion is legal in only half the states. Abortion is still freely available, generally available.

You have no clue what Roe v Wade was about, or what pro-CHOICE is about. And you obviously don't care.

[Tess I Guess]

106. No, not particularly.

I care that abortion is freely available and thats as much as I care. I don't want to see women prosecuted for murder. But Im not gonna weep if there's not a clinic on every corner, paid for with taxpayers money. If the next state outlawed it, I don't plan on suffering from "abortion's-illegal-one-state over and I simply-can't-stand-it!" syndrome.

[uppityperson]

114. I grew up in a central state, had to travel to CA or NY for a legal abortion unless I was rich enoug

rich enough or famous enough (and rich enough) to pay my own private doctor to have one. I grew up in a time when women could not travel 1600 miles for an abortion.

It was "freely available" if you were nearby. I now see that I can add you do not understand how limiting it can be to have to find the funds, vehicle, time off work, to travel to get an abortion.

You are not pro-Choice.

[uppityperson]

116. You don't care. I get that. Here is an article and a picture (graphic)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html

BEREGA, Tanzania — A handwritten ledger at the hospital tells a grim story. For the month of January, 17 of the 31 minor surgical procedures here were done to repair the results of “incomplete abortions.” A few may have been miscarriages, but most were botched operations by untrained, clumsy hands.
(clip)Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean....

Here is a picture of someone you don't care about. It is just another DUer's mom. Too bad she didn't just hope over to the next state, right? Edited to give just the link. Put the 2 lines below together and you can see what happens. RIP mom.

http://fast.womenonweb.org/f/zzvq/image/
803/565-260-166.jpg

[Tess I Guess]

143. Well, hell, if youre going to compare us to friggin TANZANIA!

Tess I guess doesnt propose that we be like Tanzania, good grief. I said I support abortion in early trimesters! I seriously doubt legal states will be 10,000 miles apart, not more than a day's trip. It's doable.

Nice stealing from the proloofas. They think bloody pics make their point, too.

[uppityperson]

157. Thankyou for offering to transport women for abortions. Really appreciate the good will

especially since it can be costly to travel as far as they may have to, and to have to stay in a hotel during the "waiting period" which you like. Thank you for offering to help.

[Tess I Guess]

160. Whats wrong with that?

Where is it written we have to make abortion as easy as a pedicure? Hell if it makes women consider that birth control is a LOT cheaper than a $500 abortion, and travel to the nearest legal state and a hotel room, Im all for it! I thought we WANTED to reduce abortions.

[iverglas]

164. and again: Who 'WE', white man?

I thought we WANTED to reduce abortions.

Not me, and I doubt you. I don't think you give a shit about anything under discussion here. Most especially women, of course.

I don't give a flying fuck how many abortions women get, except to the extent that preventable medical services burden my healthcare system, but if I want to fret about that, 100,000 cheap procedures isn't going to be where I'd start.

As a human being who takes an interest in the welfare of other human beings, I'd be happy to see as many of those others as possible having access to means that reduce their risk of unwanted pregnancy. In their own interests, as they define those interests. Nothing to do with what I "want".

You're batting about zero here, aren't you?

[Tess I Guess]

170. oh please, you guys ar e the ones batting zero

Abortion legal in the 1st trimester makes the most sense, with restrictions on everything else.
Not this loopy idea that " an 8 1/2 month old fetus halfway out of the vagina has a human body and
a kidney head, and don't you dare suggest it's fully human!"

The prochoice position is losing ground because of the extremists and screeching harridans. Its time for the reasonable people who can make reasonable compromises to take the case to the now majority pro life country. Because if they ever realize how strong they are, they could take away ALL rights to choose.

[uppityperson]

172. Who has that loopy idea? Here is a picture for your argument

[iverglas]

175. can't see your picture

but will mine in 174 do?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

174. damn

That's twice in one week I've been called a harridan. The other one did better; that one made me a vituperative harridan. Far classier insult than screeching harridan.

Of course, I can't give directions to that one. It gone.


Its time for the reasonable people who can make reasonable compromises to take the case to the now majority pro life country.

Well, I told you that you could figure things out if you paid attention.

I don't live in the country you refer to. I'm not a citizen of that country.

I am a citizen of, and live in, Canada.

And y'know what?

We don't have any laws about abortion. Not a single damned one.

Oh, except for the one that says that if a province doesn't fully cover the cost of abortion services under its universal health insurance plan, it will lose its federal healthcare contributions. (Unfortunately we've had spotty enforcement of that one in the case of one or two tiny backwater provinces, but overall things are working well.)

And the one that makes it a crime for anyone other than a qualified medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy.

Of course, that law doesn't call an assault on a pregnant woman "homicide" if she miscarries. Not that the ugliest nastiest filthiest right-wing asshole in the House of Commons hasn't tried to have such legislation passed. And failed.

So how do you like them apples?

A big old



to you!

[Tess I Guess]

179. Your Canadian opinion is worth what I paid you for it--zip, zero zilch!

Canadians don't count. America eats countries like Canada for breakfast. Who gives a shit about what they think on AMERICAN issues. As someone said if its not up to courts to make these decisions, then it goes to a vote of the people. The prochoicers HERE are losing ground, especially after people got a load of the sonograms of fetuses in that last trimester. It aint helping our cause, equating them with kidneys and saying "you can't look at what youre doing"

Well maybe you can be good for something--if the prolickers manage to outlaw it here, you can keep abortion legal so our women can travel up there to get one.

[iverglas]

181. I come to inform and advise my fellow human beings

of the USAmerican persuasion.

Things like you give me excellent opportunities. ;)

[uppityperson]

167. Nothing is wrong with helping women get the abortions they need. Thank you for helping.

Women don't "consider that birth control is a LOT cheaper than a $500 abortion"? Oh. So not only are women sluts, but stupid sluts. Gotcha.

I'm off to promote my next Abortion Party. It was going to be in Sept, but I didn't get around to getting the notices out soon enough and not enough of my friends can get pregnant by then, so have to put it off until Oct. Send my your address and I'll invite you also! However, if you aren't pregnant and don't get an abortion, you won't be eligible for the door prize.

[Tess I Guess]

183. you called em sluts, not me.

I only call em dames, broads and gals.

[iverglas]

162. you WHAT, now??

I said I support abortion in early trimesters!

For, like, everybody??

[uppityperson]

169. How many "early trimesters" are there I wonder. nt

[Tess I Guess]

184. What part about "she can STILL get an abortion" dont you get?

[uppityperson]

185. What part of not necessarily don't you get? Just because an abortion is legal in 1 state

does not mean a woman states away is able to get there.

[Tess I Guess]

187. Hell, how upset are you that that's what happening NOW?

The prolickers have run the doctors off in a lot of states, some of them are down to just one abortion doctor, and women have to travel NOW. And a lot of them can't afford it. We should help them right? lol I mean if that's a great concern of yours, its happening as we speak, and what are you doing about it?

Or you would only get off your butt and help em travel when abortion's illegal in half the states?

[uppityperson]

188. What makes you think I haven't and don't? And I will continue to fight for Choice

unlike you who think restrictions are fine. You obviously have no idea and are just a keyboard warrior.

[Tess I Guess]

189. I would help them too, if I ever come across somebody like that.

I know darn sure I can't force doctors to perform abortions in those states if they don't want to.

[iverglas]

74. interesting that you have no profile, eh?

Okay, I'll bite. Tell us why you WOULDN'T say it. Coz the wanted fetus is MORE than losing a kidney or a spleen, right?

Nope. I actually didn't say that, did I? In fact, I said something very different.

You might think it worse to lose your fetus than to lose your kidney.
I might think it worse to lose my kidney than to lose my fetus.

Not right or wrong, either one. Personal reactions to personal situations, and none of my damned business either way. And I will not presume to tell anyone what is "worse" for them. I'm not like you.

An assault that causes someone to lose a kidney could alter the course of the rest of that person's life in the most devastating and horrible ways. And IT WOULD STILL NOT BE HOMICIDE.

So we've about disposed of this utterly moronic and illiberal idea that anyone's personal conceptions of anything are a proper basis for law.

I may need my trusty CCW bicycle, which was purchased for $20 used and has a market value of nil, as much as you need your Yukon SUV. We both need them to get to work. I may be more emotionally attached to my bike than you are to your SUV. It may have been my dear deceased grandfather's. You may detest your SUV, which has given you nothing but trouble since you bought it new. But the person who steals it has still committed a minor theft, while the person who steals your SUV has committed a major theft.

A person who causes the termination of a pregnancy without the pregnant woman's consent has committed a major assault.

Why do you have so much trouble acknowledging this simple truth? Doesn't advance the agenda?


LOL you don't have a better answer than an insult? Tell us what distinction you make between the fetus in the woman and the fetus outside of her. The distinction is LIFE and DEATH.

My dear, what you said was:

The fetus was alive, that's why we have to kill it!

Went just a little too far in your enthusiasm there for your subject, did you? "Self-medicating" was my politest possible response.

The fetus in a woman's uterus is alive. The fetus outside the woman's uterus after a spontaneous abortion is dead.

In both instances, the fetus is a fetus. That is the distinction I make between a fetus and a human being. Like ... they are not the same thing. They are different things. Do you need this expressed more simply? I can try, but I'm not sure whether I can do that.

If a fetus were a human being, causing an abortion would be homicide. Period. No "if"s, no "except if"s. Period. No human beings are more equal than other human beings. The law must protect all human beings equally. It cannot be legal to kill your father-in-law if he irritates you by burping loudly, but not legal to kill the person at the next table in the restaurant if she irritates you by burping loudly. If a fetus were a human being, causing an abortion would be homicide. Any fetus. Any abortion.


You're a little wimp that's apparently going to crumple up in a fetal position because someone said "gal." Hell, I thought and hoped women were stronger than that.

:rofl:

[Tess I Guess]

75. LOL, listen you're not gonna believe this.

We have categories of killing human beings, that are not unlawful. You can take human beings off life support, kill people in war, put people in the electric chair. Hell even the antichoicers say they're for legally killing a fetus, if it threatens the womans life.

In short, declaring the fetus a person doesn't mean abortion becomes a crime just because its a category of killing. There's categories of killing people we KNOW are human and alive, and it's not murder. Abortion will just join the club, girlie.

[iverglas]

87. it's an amazement, isn't it!

We have categories of killing human beings, that are not unlawful. You can take human beings off life support, kill people in war, put people in the electric chair.

And yet ... those actually are all human beings.

Btw, you put people in the electric chair. We don't. We eliminated that barbaric practice (hanging, actually), in practice over 40 years ago, and in law about 40 years ago.

You can take human beings off life support if they are legally dead, generally meaning "brain dead". Not if they are on a ventilator while recovering from smoke inhalation. That there is homicide.

Killing people in war? Generally regarded, in international law (which of course is what governs, to the extent that anything does) as an exercise of collective self-defence. Just as killing somebody who assaults or attempts to assault you with great violence, or whom you reasonably believe is about to do so, in the belief that you no alternative course of action (as long as you do not intend to kill, in civilized jurisdictions), is regarded, in domestic law, as an exercise of self-defence. Both of which must be permitted in order not to violate the collective right to autonomy and the individual right to life.

Okay, done and dusted.

Do any of them apply to terminating a pregnancy? Even if capital punishment is regarded as not violating the right to life without due process, because the person killed has committed a heinous crime, is that relevant to abortion?

Is terminating a pregnancy acting in individual or collective self-defence? Remember -- the individual or group acted against must have committed or be committing or be about to commit an act of violence that s/he intends to commit.

Are fetuses legally dead?

No answers? No point.


In short, declaring the fetus a person doesn't mean abortion becomes a crime just because its a category of killing.

That isn't "short", that's crap.

If a fetus were a human being, killing a fetus would be homicide. The law could decide to treat it as non-culpable homicide.

But then the law would be an ass. An ass on a very slippery slope. Treating the killing of one human being as non-culpable homicide because the human being killed is ... how does that go? ... inconvenient opens those legal floodgates. If you can kill your fetus because it irritates you, I can kill my father-in-law because he irritates me. Really. Yes. I'm right.



There's categories of killing people we KNOW are human and alive, and it's not murder.

And there are sound legal and philosophical bases for any exceptions, and of course there are sound legal and philosophical bases for objections to them as well.

The analogy you advance is just moronic.


Abortion will just join the club, girlie.

Funny. My profile doesn't indicate my sex.

But then, I guess it doesn't matter. "Girlie" would be a good insult no matter what sex I am.


Is your work done? You have done a very fine job, WE have to agree!

[Tess I Guess]

94. Are you a male? LOL is it hard to tell in person too?

I wouldn't prosecute a woman who killed a fetus in the unviable stages, just like I wouldn't prosecute a guy who killed an intruder breaking into the house. Because its our principle to guarantee great leeway to individuals even to the point of killing human beings. Not that we support the killing, or think it's a great thing, just that we arent' going to prosecute if they were in exercise of their rights.

[iverglas]

98. please tell me, I'm such a dizzy girlie

we arent' going to prosecute if they were in exercise of their rights

What right is a pregnant woman exercising when she commits homicide against her fetus?

I think I've already asked this ...

[musette_sf]

"Are you a male? LOL is it hard to tell in person too?"

your Jockeys are showing, "Tess".

[Tess I Guess]

77. LOL because we all know that internet profiles are

bastions of truth. I'm a really famous person writing incognito, that's why I have no profile.
Nah, I'll take the prochoice position--my personal life is none of your business.

[iverglas]

82. actually, I know that internet profiles are a source of absolute truth

when it comes, in this instance, to the date when a poster joined the website.

Just something it's interesting to know.

For instance, in my case, I believe it says "before 2003". It was 2002, as I recall. Unless I was really very precocious, it's unlikely I'm an adolescent. So by clicking, you might have saved yourself some embarrassment. You won't know my age or sex or location unless you pay attention.

All I have to go on is the quality of the discourse.

:rofl:

[Tess I Guess]

86. I could care less about internet profiles

I don't click on em, and I don't care about anyone's start date. I don't think seniority matters here like it was a friggin labor union or something.

[Tess I Guess]

88. LOL i wanna hear more about this situation where you'd be more

upset you lost a kidney than a baby. Now that would take some talent.

[Tess I Guess]

96. You got offended because of the word "gal", and youre

not even a gal? Thanks for the outrage by proxy !

[uppityperson]

142. You seriously cannot figure out how losing a kidney would be worse than having an abortion?

How about someone with only 1 functioning kidney, or enough damage to both that losing 1 would kill them. How about a pregnant woman who would die if she were to remain pregnant.

Let's compare. Lose a kidney and die, or have an abortion rather than dying. Hmmm. Which would be more upsetting.

[Tess I Guess]

151. losing kidney worse than an abortion?

""""Lose a kidney and die, or have an abortion rather than dying. Hmmm. Which would be more upsetting.""


LOL are we still talking about a stranger doing it to you against your will, as opposed to a doctor in a clinic with your consent? That would be upsetting methinks.

Well, I guess thats settled. Because some people apparently DO take abortion lightly and the fetus is no more than a kidney, no need for consideration for pregnant women like prenatal care, theyre just FAT, thats all.

[uppityperson]

153. No, that wasn't what you asked "stranger against will" but a situation.

I gave you a situation, you give back another strawman rather than address the situation.

Again.

[iverglas]

165. friends, neighbours ... not countrywomen ... ;)

Is it long enough yet?



After all, the death penalty is perfecty acceptable, I gather.

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

168. Well, I'm off to masturbate in private since am tired of it here.

Carry on iverglas and Scout!

[Scout]

154. are you new to debate dear?

Well, I guess thats settled. Because some people apparently DO take abortion lightly and the fetus is no more than a kidney, no need for consideration for pregnant women like prenatal care, theyre just FAT, thats all.

else where would you come up with crap like this?

having a kidney removed is a much more serious procedure than an abortion.

[Tess I Guess]

163. "are you new to debate dear"

Not at all, I just cant figure out the prochoicers who crumple up in fright at the mere prospect of acknowledging the humanity of an 8 1/2 month old fetus that the mother wanted and going after some guy who kills one--some weird theory about how the minute we do that, women who get abortions in the 1st trimester will be in danger of being arrested too, when that didnt happen in Texas.

[Tess I Guess]

173. LOL I'd rather not be one of those prochoicers

who twist themselves into pretzel shapes trying to decide at which point ( if it's not at conception) at which point a fetus DOES become human enough to merit some basic respect. Geez, even a mother wanting some legal regard for her 8 1/2 month fetus is just too much for some people.

[iverglas]

176. hey, how 'bout some legal regard?

Geez, even a mother wanting some legal regard for her 8 1/2 month fetus is just too much for some people.

Whenever a woman suffers an unintentional termination of pregnancy, a death certificate will be issued.

(I see no reason why 8-1/2 months gestational age should be a cut-off. The little beggars are all human, aren't they?)

Death certificates require a statment of cause of death, if it can be determined. That calls for an investigation.

Investigate 'em all. You never know when some pregnant gal may have induced her boyfriend to thump her in the belly, and just not bothered to mention it. We do not want any of these incidents going unnoticed, and any of those perps going unpunished. Thorough investigations are called for. I insist.

[Tess I Guess]

178. 8 1/2 months are all human, arent they

nope, I don't have a cut off based on age. Hell, how would we even know when 8 1/2 months is, really. But we can certainly see just how human the baby is. We know the sonograms have put prochoicers on the defensive.

"investigate em all"""

LOL, you're from the "run amok" wing of the prochoicers I see. The least little restriction and the whole foundation crumbles, thats just how fragile our position is.

We know how to restrict. I give the American people a lot of credit for favoring reasonable restrictions and the right to choose at the same time. Hell that was the majority opinion until
the extremists started screeching a little louder.

[iverglas]

180. nope

LOL, you're from the "run amok" wing of the prochoicers I see.

I'm from the NO HUMAN BEING IS MORE EQUAL THAN ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING school of human rights thought.

Equal protection. A must. No way around it.


I give the American people a lot of credit for favoring reasonable restrictions and the right to choose at the same time. Hell that was the majority opinion until the extremists started screeching a little louder.

Yes, it probably was. You let the misogynist right wing wedge abortion into elections, and you get screeching extremists demanding that candidates pronounce their love of fetuses and contempt for women if they want to get elected.

With a little help from charmers like you, they should have taken the inches they get every few months and stretched them into a field goal.

There are no "reasonable restrictions" on reproductive choice. At least ... not until somebody proves one reasonable. Or, as we say in the rights biz: justified.

Nobody's ever managed to do that for me yet.

[Tess I Guess]

186. LOL I hope this guy never finds out that we have tons of restrictions

on the right to choose, he might have a spazz.

Oh, sure, the proloofas get greedy try to press their luck with stunts like trying to make pregnant women report their home miscarriages to the police or face a year in jail. But when theyre too extreme, they dont succeed. We won't either.

[Scout]

191. "favoring reasonable restrictions"

yuh huh ... those silly, uneducated women just don't know what they are doing unless we tell 'em and make 'em watch movies, and look at pictures. then they have to go home and think about for 24 hours. and maybe get daddy's permission, or discuss it with the sperm donor and get his permission.

and you call yourself pro-choice. you're obviously not.

[uppityperson]

89. user # 190735 shows joined either late 07 or early 08

hover over the icon and it will show the number. Then compare with other numbers. Yours is 2001

[iverglas]

92. I forgot about that

You can always find a couple on either side of the one in question.

And yet so few posts ...

Are you missing any socks this week??

[uppityperson]

95. It's not mine, and how dare you be hostile at me

:rofl:

[iverglas]

97. well for a minute I thought ...

My firefox is in need of rebooting, and when I try to change urls, it stalls on me.

So I went to yours, and I *thought* I had changed it to 109734, and I looked over at my other monitor to play a few cards of solitaire, and I looked back and saw "uppityperson" with 109734 in the address bar ... !! ... and then I realized that when I'd clicked the arrow it hadn't taken ...

June 13, 2006.

My, my.

Now far be it from me to remark on somebody's newbie status ... but oldie status? Admiring noises at the seniority of it all, I guess.

(Btw, for anyone unaware: seniority isn't in a union, it's with an employer.)

[uppityperson]

99. bwahahahahahahahaha

you are going to get both of me in trouble if you keep this up

[uppityperson]

79. you don't have a better answer than an insult?

"You're a little wimp"

[iverglas]

80. yes, but

a really very funny one!

Not something I've been called in these parts much, you have to agree. ;)

[Tess I Guess]

85. Ah, the hostile smiley face. I've NEVER seen that before /sneer.

IIRC, abortion was legal in all 50 states before Roe, when it was to save the mother's life.
What changed? The right to kill it in those early stages, when it wasn't viable anyway. Because it was believed women were in exercise of a right, the right to determine her own reproductive course.
I also don't believe a guy who kills an intruder breaking into the house should be prosecuted. I support that killing in exercise of his right, to defend his property against threats. I believe the constitution guarantees great liberty to individuals, even to the point of killing human beings.

[iverglas]

90. me, hostile to uppityperson??

I think not! Me, slyly winking at uppityperson, maybe so.

From here on, I think your words pretty much speak for themselves, and speak very clearly of you!


I also don't believe a guy who kills an intruder breaking into the house should be prosecuted. I support that killing in exercise of his right, to defend his property against threats. I believe the constitution guarantees great liberty to individuals, even to the point of killing human beings.

They need you over in the Guns forum. It needs a constant fresh supply of people with no regard for human life or human rights, and especially of real old-time misogynists, given how short the stays of many are.

Tell 'em I sent you!

[uppityperson]

93. He has been there also. Wink

sorry for being hostile by winking at you. tiny tear

[iverglas]

100. well I really am a dizzy girlie

I'm supposed to remember who they all, uh, are. The fact that one stalked me here last week shouldn't have been my first clue.

I'll bet they think they have more fun than me!

<pointing and jeering sillyface>

[uppityperson]

91. a wink is a "hostile smiley face" that you've "never seen/sneer". Good grief

You don't know what Roe v Wad was about.
You don't know what Pro-Choice is about.

Now you show you don't know what a Wink is about.

[Tess I Guess]

83. LOL that's STILL not an answer

Yep, I said that, and my point still stands, you didnt answer.


I'm still trying to understand you thinking a fetus isn't alive and taking the suction machine to it isn't killing it. If you have to kill it, it was alive.
I have no trouble saying it's killing, because I know we have categories of killing that aren't murder.

[uppityperson]

84. Where did you ask me anything? you are refusing to answer me though

Perhaps you are confused

[iverglas]

102. won't you answer mine?? -- third time now!

I have no trouble saying it's killing, because I know we have categories of killing that aren't murder.

Yeah. Like killing salmon, killing cows, killing tomatoes, killing human tissue (you know, like amputating a toe), ...

Or those other ones we've been chatting about.

Now, if killing a fetus is like killing a salmon, how does that become "fetal homicide"? Is it homicide if *I* kill *YOUR* pet salmon?

If killing a fetus is like any of those other ones, what offence is the fetus committing? or has the fetus committed? or is the fetus about to commit? Is the fetus brain-dead? If it's homicide, what is the excuse/justification?

Easy questions. Shirley.

[Tess I Guess]

109. My fourth answer to your 3rd time:

I said we have categories of killing HUMANS that arent murder. Not killing salmons, tomatoes,
cows.

[iverglas]

111. chirp, chirp

I said we have categories of killing HUMANS that arent murder.

Indeed.

And I suggested that this new category of yours must be "killing human beings who are inconvenient".

Only one I can think of.

You ready to tell me what it is yet?

[Tess I Guess]

113. nope

Nope, not judging what was killed-- judging the act. Taking a human life with malice aforethought, premeditation and planning. Don't see no reasons why a fetus can't join the club.

[iverglas]

117. oh dear, somebody else who needs a law degree

Taking a human life with malice aforethought, premeditation and planning. Don't see no reasons why a fetus can't join the club.

And I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. You're damned irritating, after all.

:rofl:

At least you already qualify, where fetuses don't, given that the club consists entirely of human beings, and they ain't.

[Tess I Guess]

126. Yep the truth hurts and is irritating.

Fetuses are human, that's why we'd be really pissed if a right wing lunatic punched a liberal woman in the stomach and killed her fetus, and said "What's the big deal? It's just an assault!"

But I still wanna hear your assertion that there's times youd be more upset at losing a kidney than a baby, and the logic behind that. I think you can get even more unintentionally funny.

[iverglas]

138. well, here's one for you

But I still wanna hear your assertion that there's times youd be more upset at losing a kidney than a baby, and the logic behind that. I think you can get even more unintentionally funny.

You heard the assertion, which wasn't quite as you say. Whatever.

How about this time?

I'm a person with one kidney.

Believe me, a person with one kidney is going to be pretty upset at losing that kidney.

Shall we charge the person who punched that person and caused them to lose a kidney with homicide? Even if they didn't die, and in fact got a kidney transplant?

Imagine that, being upset at what could be a fatal assault, if you hadn't happened to be living in a time and place where there is a kidney just waiting for you to get it, and where there are all those lovely drugs you now get to take for the rest of your life. You don't think maybe your life expectancy might still go down a tad?

I think that even if you have two kidneys and just lose one, your life expectancy is going to be reduced somewhat.

Now, conversely, maybe I was quite prepared to forego that kidney: maybe I was getting ready to donate that kidney to my kid sister. With it gone, and me having only one left, she's probably doing to die.

Those are things I'd be damned upset about, myself. If I were a woman with an unintended and not particularly wanted pregnancy, but I'd decided to continue it to term anyhow, I think I'd be a lot more upset about losing the kidney, even absent any of those circumstances, than about losing the FETUS, and probably, if offered a choice by my assailant, I'd go for keeping the kidney.

Any other questions?

[Tess I Guess]

147. nope because a kidney isnt a person, a fetus is

LOL that cracks me up, I dont think even the most unapologetic, abortion on demand woman thinks her kidney is something more to be upset over than getting an abortion.

We defend women by saying they don't take abortion lightly, that they give
"this serious matter their serious deliberation." Why do we say that? Where would the logic be in saying that, if a fetus is no more than a kidney?

I guess youre from the prochoice wing that says Nah! We DO take it lightly!

[uppityperson]

150. Clueless. Or intentionally dense?

[musette_sf]

193. the latter

and it's not a woman, either

[iverglas]

161. again: WHO 'WE', WHITE MAN?

We defend women by saying they don't take abortion lightly, that they give "this serious matter their serious deliberation." Why do we say that? Where would the logic be in saying that, if a fetus is no more than a kidney?

(a) Whoever this "we" is, I am under no illusion that it includes you.

(b) Whoever this "we" is, you should be under no illustion that it includes me.

I don't defend women who get abortions. Women who get abortions don't need defending. Unless somebody comes along calling them ugly names like "murderer", which is basically what you are doing. In that case, I "defend" them with the truth.

I don't care how women take their own abortions. They could take them with sugar and lemon, in between shoe shopping trips, for all I care. It is NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS how any woman "takes" HER abortion.


I guess youre from the prochoice wing that says Nah! We DO take it lightly!

I'm from the real and only pro-choice "wing", the one that says IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS -- OR YOURS.

[Tess I Guess]

177. """its none of my business or yours""

lol HELL, that's what IM trying to tell YOU! We can make the killing of an 8 1/2 month old fetus against her will, a murder charge, and NOT LAY A GLOVE on the women who get them in the 1st trimester. It can STILL be none of our business.

Believe it or not, its actually happening in Texas as we speak.. If that upsets you THAT bad, you don't need to be here, you should be down there with your big sign THIS WILL NOT STAND!

[iverglas]

182. been to Texas

... been to Texas twice ... not goin' back.

Happy to offer any human beings in Texas my knowledge and advice, though!

[uppityperson]

141. Of course there are times to be more upset @ losing a kidney than having an abortion.

Losing a kidney might kill a person, dialysis is a stop-gap thing that works better than nothing but still not very well. I would rather have an abortion rather than giving birth to a baby with life threatening birth defects. I would be less upset having an abortion to save my life than losing a kidney and dying.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

155. Strawman combined with a personal insult. How classy.

[Tess I Guess]

158. LOL, well, as you said, it's no more important than a kidney

[uppityperson]

159. This from one of those who considers a fetus sacred until it is born.

Indeed, there are times when a kidney is more important. It is really sad that you wish women to die. Does your mama sing you to sleep at night with "every sperm is sacred"?

[Tess I Guess]

166. LOL nope wrong again

I would still favor, on the oft chance you actually valued your fetus and wanted it, that if some guy came along and bashed you in the stomach and killed it, that'd he suffer some societal sanction than mere assault charges. Even if I didnt think much of you or your fetus.

Thats the prolickers tactic, "you want (x) to DIE! " Nope I want them to get the safe legal ones in the early trimesters, and restrictions in America arent the same as women who cant get them in Tanzania.
Restrictions means exactly that.

[iverglas]

110. you perchance in Texas?

I hear they have really big ones there.



Canadians even go to study them ...

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~sbertram/people/index.html

She plans to investigate eavesdropping and audience effects, and the relationship between calling effort and aggressiveness, in the Texas field cricket. Eavesdropping is defined as the use of information in signals by individuals other than the primary target, and an audience effect is a change in the signaling behaviour during an interaction between individuals caused by the mere presence of an audience. Fights between male crickets most often progress through a stereotyped suite of behaviours. Essentially, she is interested in finding out if fighting males change their behaviour in front of an audience compared to when they are not being watched, and if male and female bystanders are able to gain information by watching males fight.

[uppityperson]

76. "proloofas"?wtf?Do you seriously believe a woman getting an abortions doesn't know what she's doing?

Prochoicers have no trouble looking as ridiculous as the proloofas sometimes, when we say things like"a pregnant woman's child who was killed--bah, nothing special happened," or "we're opposed to sonograms being shown--we don't want you to see what you're doing.

Showing you have no clue what Pro-Choice means.

[Tess I Guess]

140. "You don't have any idea what Pro choice means"

To an extremist, Im sure I don't. Im in favor of showing sonograms, parental restrictions, and outlawing those late term elective ones. I don't mind the prolickers showing up at the clinics and offering pregnant women help, that's what they SHOULD be doing, walking the walk. I don't mind the waiting periods for women, and notifying the spouse. I don't mind any of this stuff, if at the end of the day it means abortion in the early trimesters is still legal. And it is.

[uppityperson]

144. "prolickers". Indeed, you have idea what pro-Choice means. Thank you for clarigying that

You don't mind people screaming at and harassing pregnant women on the way to get an abortion. You don't mind measures in place that will limit the ability of women to get a hygienic legal abortion. Gotcha.

[Tess I Guess]

171. Why would a little screaming bother a woman who thinks she's doing nothing more than

getting rid of a bothersome kidney? Sticks and stones, right? I wouldnt let a few screaming prolickers get to me.

[Tess I Guess]

101. Im prochoice and I SHOOT!

""""It needs a constant fresh supply of people with no regard for human life or human rights, and especially of real old-time misogynists, given how short the stays of many are.""""


LOL! Not this stuff, too! I support the right to own guns just like Im prochoice. I trust the American people with liberty. Americans have shown they can handle guns responsibly. Hell in a nation of 300 million people,and 200 million guns, with all our social tensions, to only have 80 people shot dead at the end of a day--that's pretty good.

Gun nuts think they're going to get it down to zero or something with gun control? -- HAHAH--snort--heeeeheee! Hell, they'd have to outlaw anger, impulsiveness and temper . LOL i'd like to see em try.

[iverglas]

103. like I did say

Gwawn over to Guns. Tell 'em I sent you. I don't imagine that iquiring mind is much interested in your display of ... well, what would one call this?? --

Gun nuts think they're going to get it down to zero or something with gun control?

I wouldn't be saying that to a "gun nut". They might decide you're crazy and trying to take their stereo.

[uppityperson]

104. Are you sure you answered this OP as your reply seems rather....odd?

[Tess I Guess]

105. I said we have categories of killing HUMAN BEINGS that arent murder

You can kill full fledged human beings that we KNOW are human and alive and under some circumstances its not murder, and based on some pretty arbitrary factors too.

I simply don't understand this prochoice hysteria that says if we declare fetuses human beings all women getting an abortion are now subject to murder charges. It can be a category of killing where no one is prosecuted, like we do with the intruder shootings and taking people off life support now.

Hell, even human beings who we know were murdered, don't get charges lodged on their behalf. Tim McVeigh was charged with killing 8 people, even though we all know he killed 168. 171 if you count the unborn ones, which I would have no trouble with because McVeigh was not in exercise of any right.

[Tess I Guess]

108. MY bad, I mean gun control nuts

Thanks for correcting my posts. I see you took the job of Democratic Underground Anal Spellchecker Schoolmarm, I didn't want it, it didn't pay anything.

[uppityperson]

115. You do realize you are calling yourself Anal Spellchecker Schoolmarm, right?

Tess I Guess (43 posts) Sun Aug-16-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
101. Im prochoice and I SHOOT!

----------------------
Sun Aug-16-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #101
108. MY bad, I mean gun control nuts



Thanks for correcting my posts. I see you took the job of Democratic Underground Anal Spellchecker Schoolmarm, I didn't want it, it didn't pay anything.
Groucho said he didn't tell jokes, he told the truth..and that's whats REALLY funny

[iverglas]

118. it was that excess of enthusiasm

cause one of those circuit faults, I suspect.

[Tess I Guess]

121. Oh, wow, does my tagline say that? I hadn't noticed!

[Tess I Guess]

107. Don't be ASKEERT, guns are your friend!

My gun mostly just sits in the closet gathering dust. But I like knowing I have the right to use it in certain circumstances. Just like my right to choose, I know I'm never gonna avail myself of it, I just like knowing it's there.

[Tess I Guess]

119. Why, what's wrong with Texas ? I heard a vicious rumor they have abortions there too.

Hey, girlie man, dig this. A gal in Texas asked her boyfriend to stomp on her stomach and kill her fetuses. He was prosecuted for 1st degree murder and sentence to life.

Yet, women can still get abortions down there! That didnt change their right to choose one whit.
Because as I said ad nauseum, we're not judging the victim, we're judging the perp. We CAN make the distinction.

[iverglas]

123. have you gone quite mad?

The poster to whom you have replied here said nothing about Texas, and I can't think why you would have chosen to address that poster as "Hey, girlie man".

I can't think why you'd choose to address anyone that way. I get a funny feeling that you are addressing me, though. Not that I can think of any reason why you would choose to address me that way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=7052&mesg_id=7567

Wherein I address the case to which you refer, and got no reply.


Hey, girlie man, dig this. A gal in Texas asked her boyfriend to stomp on her stomach and kill her fetuses. He was prosecuted for 1st degree murder and sentence to life.

And he was thus a victim of an atrocious violation of his rights under the US Constitution. Compounded by the fact that his "accomplice" in this "crime" was not prosecuted at all, as I recall.

Is that what you're saying? You don't appear to be saying anything at all, but maybe that's what you meant to say.


Because as I said ad nauseum, we're not judging the victim, we're judging the perp. We CAN make the distinction.

Aha. So consensual sadomachistic activities are to be prohibited and their perps punished, in your book. After all: consent to the act is irrelevant.

You're gonna have the wrath of the "sex-positive feminists" raining down on your head any minute now.

[Tess I Guess]

124. The GUY'S rights were violated?

What right would that be, the right to practice unlicensed medicine? LOL!

[uppityperson]

125. Now you show you are incapable of distinguishing between a question and a statement

"Is that what you're saying?"

[Tess I Guess]

127. Lame response again

Again, what was wrong with what they did in Texas? They got the perp for killing two fetuses and gave him life in prison, and women STILL have the right to choose in Texas, when you get them in the early trimesters in a clinic.

Wheres the fear and scaremongering in that scenario that was supposed to happen if we acknowledged the killing of a fetus under circumstances is a crime?

[uppityperson]

128. Incapable of distinguishing different posters again

and again showing you have no clue what pro-Choice is.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tess I Guess]

129. LOL usual tactic of attacking everything but my point

Hell, Im sure theres prochoicers out there who could make my point better with more style and panache. I don't live at DU, I just visit once in awhile.
But Im still wondering-- how can Texas women still have the right to choose, when they are putting people away for life for killing fetuses?

[uppityperson]

131. Why do you continue to reply to yourself? PUI is a sad thing

[Tess I Guess]

132. Why what's wrong with that?

Why can't you reply to yourself? LOL who makes these rules and who enforces them?

[uppityperson]

133. Too funny where you complain that all you do is attack yourself, never answer yourself

All it does is makes you look like you are. PUI

[Tess I Guess]

134. lol insult me all you like I don't even feel it.

And I dont have "insult outrage by proxy" when someone gets one by mistake.

What looms largest to me, is that you cannot provide a response to why Texas women can still choose to abort, even though they are locking people in prison for life for killing fetuses there.

In your scaremongering scenario, the minute we regarded fetuses as human beings who could be murdered like anyone else--POOF! there goes the right to choose and women are enslaved back in the 19th century. That didnt happen. Because JUST LIKE I SAID, we can make the distinction.

[uppityperson]

135. Good lord Tess, if you really don't like Tess insulting Tess, just stop.

[Tess I Guess]

136. Tess knows that Tess has you on the run

I mean when Tess keeps asking you to make your point,
but you run from the question I posed and try every diversion and tactic, well LOL Tess can only chuckle to herself.

Im still asking -- how can Texas DO that? I mean, you must have a witty rejoinder to that, since
youre so much better at this than Tess.

[iverglas]

196. I give

Im still asking -- how can Texas DO that?

How could a society have institutionalized, legal slavery?? ... and yet still have punished enslaved individuals for crimes ...

Because its laws are internally incoherent, and some of them are inconsistent with things like recognized fundamental human rights?

Yeah. I think that must be it.

Kinda like how some jurisdictions still don't allow for legal marriage between individuals of the same sex ...

[Tess I Guess]

137. LOL and Tess didnt get an answer ref the "guy's rights"

What rights of the guy's were violated again? You really want guys to have the right to stomp on a girls stomach even if she asked him to ? I don't have a problem with them going after him, even though I thought the sentence was excessive. We want girls getting abortions in clinics.

[iverglas]

139. yes indeed

The right not to be punished for a crime he did not commit.

He did not commit homicide.

He committed an assault on another human being, WITH HER CONSENT.

Just like those sadomasochists do.

You want to keep pretending I didn't ask you that question?

If Person A may be punished for homicide for the act of striking another person, why may Person B not be punished for homicide for doing the same thing?

[Tess I Guess]

145. Because she didnt do the same thing

They are able to make the distinction down there in Tejas. Im sure they worded it a lot more elegantly than Tess , since im not a lawyer and dont spend a lot of time on these things, but it didnt effect women getting abortions because theyre not doing the same thing.

And I know what youre gonna ask next, should a woman be charged for sticking knitting needles up her snatch to kill a vaible fetus. I don't particularly care if a state wants to do that, because that too is different from a woman getting an abortion in the early trimesters in a clinic.

[uppityperson]

146. "should a woman be charged for sticking knitting needles up her snatch"

[Tess I Guess]

148. You may be too fainthearted for internet chat.

[uppityperson]

149. Perhaps not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Tess I Guess]

156. lol you gonna report me ?

Im not gonna go running to the moderators, I can take all kinds of posts. I don't report people,I am
anti-reportion.

[musette_sf]

192. unbelievable

and it wants us to think it's a female

riiight.

[musette_sf]

194. enjoy the rest of your stay

:popcorn:

[iverglas]

195. well you're a little late with that popcorn!

An audience would have had more fun watching the proceedings as they unfolded. ;)

They don't seem to have reached dénouement yet. Has nobody called for curtain call?

[musette_sf]

197. i have called

most specifically on the knitting needle comment. :mad:

it's obviously NOT a female

[iverglas]

198. having been a willing participant

I always kinda think it isn't my place.

Volenti non fit iniuria and all that. Where you consent, you can't complain. ;)

Huh. Kinda like where a pregnant woman consents to being struck in the abdomen, the state kinda doesn't have a victim ...

[uppityperson]

199. me too on that comment

sometimes they let nasty comments stay so we can see what nasty stuff someone writes. To let them leave a record.

It's obviously not a female.

[iverglas]

200. I like that policy

... but it's not the comments I'm curious about ...

[Tess I Guess]

201. "sometimes they let nasty comments stay

so we can see what nasty stuff someone writes to leave a record.""""

Or maybe it’s “if no offense happened, no punishment is called for,” right? :)

I see they deleted one of my earlier comments, but let this one stand. Even I think this one’s worse, LOL!

""it's obviously not a female.""

You absolutely KNOW I’m a guy without ever seeing me in person. Like wow, man. Hell if I had that kind of godlike power to see through time and space I wouldn’t be HERE. I’d USE it—like on the world! I’d be dangerous !

[Tess I Guess]

190. The prochoicers are going to have to learn to live with less

The sonograms were a boon to the prolife side, not ours. We're losing the battle to keep fetuses unhuman blobs of tissue. And doctors wanting to get out of this distasteful, unpalatable (even deadly to them ) business is a fact of life.

Im glad I'll be able to handle it when we're down to restricting abortions to the 1st trimester. Europe seems to be doing okay.

[HockeyMom]

207. Maybe but embroys

certainly aren't and they have taken this all the way down to CONCEPTION. As someone who saw my EXPLODED fallopian tube with a 5 week old embryo, I can tell you there was NOTHING to see; no little head, no little legs, bla, bla, bla. To be perfectly blunt, if there was, why didn't the catholic hospital ask me if I wanted to bury it??????

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

204. do you ever just refer to us as "women" or a woman?

"a gal"
"a pregnant dame"

:puke:

yeah, that's how women who are pro-choice Democrats/progressives talk about women :eyes:

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SimonPhoenix]

206. No

It's not homicide. It's just a clump of cells. People in this thread are dead wrong. I don't care how far along the pregnancy is. As long as abortion is legal, killing a fetus cannot be termed a homicide. Are you people going to then charge a woman who drinks and smokes and causes a miscarriage with homicide? I didn't think so.