It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Here's my question... where has the author of this change been in terms of improving education, making birth control easy to get and so on?
Originally posted by Jinglelord
Do I believe more in the sanctity of a humans right to choose what to do with their body or more in the sanctity of the unborn. Not an easy question to answer, which is why once answered people usually get very adamant about it.
Originally posted by Jinglelord
This is a confusing law with some vague language. Perhaps they should clean up their language a bit. I do think the goal is to establish legal precedent towards outlawing abortion.
Do I believe more in the sanctity of a humans right to choose what to do with their body or more in the sanctity of the unborn. Not an easy question to answer, which is why once answered people usually get very adamant about it.
22-16-1.1. Fetal homicide--Felony--Application.
Homicide is fetal homicide if the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification and if the person:
(1) Intended to cause the death of or do serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or the unborn child; or
(2) Knew that the acts taken would cause death or serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) If perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony.
Fetal homicide is a Class B felony.
This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.
22-16-34. Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Originally posted by Gradius Maximus
reply to post by Jinglelord
Its just what the wacko's need though - to boot down the door and pump the Doc full of lead.
As the above poster mentioned. This bill is an act of terrorism.
To make Doctors fearful of even doing their job, regardless of what individuals think is right.
They are being threatened with death, by an extremist party, who may soon have the legal right to kill him in a nation that claims to be the land of the free. Even though the woman is consenting to the abortion.
Hmm...Its just so insane - It hardly seems real.
Are we sure this isnt just a bad scene from a bad movie?
*Checks the link*
Nope...Its real...
Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by hippomchippo
Thank you for showing us that this horrifying future world in which vigilante justice is the norm, is something that people in the present are actively demanding.
Originally posted by TexasChem
Your above post is nothing but liberal political rhetoric attacking what you refer to as an "extremist party".
Drivel in other words.
A Doctors job is to save lives not discard lost lives in a bloody bin! Any time a "Doctor" performs an abortion he breaks his Hippocratic oath to practice medicine ethically. Abortion by definition can be described as the taking of a human life. Another definition of this act is murder.
Unless abortion is absolutely necessary to save the live of the mother due to some serious medical issue, what logical premise can one have for justifying the taking of a life already created?
We all know that sex is an act which creates life. That is its' ultimate goal you know.
Personal responsibility should come into play when considering the social ramifications of giving so little consideration to human life, as to allow the destruction of life for the convenience of abortion to be used as a means of birth control. What is your moral justification of violence against a non-violent entity?
The root problem associated with the abortion debate is not the rights of an entity to life as all life has a morally justifiable right to life unless another entities right supercedes it. Exempli gratia: The lion and gazelle. The root problem is lack of moral personal responsibility to life.
It simply amazes that those of you that viciously attack a person defending life could possibly look at yourselves in the mirror with any sense of ethical honor.
Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by infolurker
What about Jim Jones, Dave Koresh, McVey and the many others you never hear about.