Oklahoma lawmakers have passed a bill that makes performing an abortion a felony.

a reply to: mOjOm

It ends with the same result

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
An abotion does affect someone other than the woman; it affects the child.

Except it's not a child yet. It's also not capable or recognized as being an independent being that can speak for itself. It's not legally able to give consent about anything. In fact all it's decisions even after it's born and actually is a child are made by the parent.

So it would seem that what the mother chooses is also what the unborn fetus chooses too. Both legally and logically speaking.

Except that it is a child. One doesn't have to be independent to be a person. One doesn't have to be able to speak. Under your criteria, someone mentally challenged wouldn't count as a person.

Parents can't legally kill a child that's already born, however, and should not be able to do so. Not the best argument in favor of abortion.

a reply to: shooterbrody

At least 38 of the 50 US states have introduced “fetal homicide laws.” Backers of these laws have claimed that they are intended to protect women and their unborn children from attack by an abusive partner or other third parties, but state prosecutors have seized upon the legislation to attack the rights of pregnant mothers.

According to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, prosecutors in South Carolina, one of the first states to introduce a fetal homicide law, have only charged one man under the legislation, and his case was subsequently dismissed. By contrast, as many as 300 South Carolina women have been arrested for their alleged actions against their unborn children during pregnancy.

www.wsws.org...

it seems that those laws are being used against women who happen to miscarry more than men who go around attacking pregnant women... more than likely that was the intention of the laws all along.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Only if you don't consider the unborn child to be a person.

An unborn fetus isn't a person.

Sometimes it's not even much more than a clump of cells.

At this point we're really just deciding upon where to draw the line though. So I would assume some differences of opinion would be evident. I don't consider a tadpole to be a frog or a maggot to be a fly either. But they will be eventually if nothing stops that process. Likewise I don't consider a Zygote or Fetus to be a child either.

Things are what they are at that moment regardless of what they may become. Taken to extremes, using your method you could say that a child is an Old man too. Not because he is but because he will be eventually if nothing stops that process.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

and a pregnancy effects more than just the fetus!!

"when the mother's life is in imminent danger."
ya know women who miscarry, even when the fetus would be unable to survive outside the womb, the catholic hospitals will send them home multiple times claiming that there is nothing they can do, even giving the women false hope that the they'll be able to carry the fetus full term. sometimes these women will end up becoming septic before the fetus doesn't have a heartbeat and the catholic hospital will step in. some of these women will end up in ICU units for extended stays. unfortunately many times, by the time the "immininent danger" to the life of the mother occurs, the mother has gone through hours possibly days of needless suffering, and quite possibly irreparable damage has already occurred.
I guess we have to put up with the catholics constitutionally protected religious beliefs causing this kind of pain and suffering, but do we really want who states when it's the norm?

In a miscarriage, the baby s already gone. No heartbeat, no development. No doubt. I KNOW what that's like. Been there. First miscarriage, there was some uncertainty, and we waited a few days to be SURE before agreeing to a D&C, because the miscarriage didn't complete. The baby was already gone, though. An abortion takes a living baby, not one that's died in the womb of some internal cause. I'd have died before risking killing a living baby, just because someone had a date wrong, and that was in question at the time.

It isn't a miscarriage if the baby's heart is beating.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am using the wrong terminology... but is there a federal law that gives women the legal right to abortion? I might be wrong, but I kind of think that there might not be. it was a supreme court decision that made it a legal right.. and they used the rights granted to us via the constitution as justification for it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

I am using the wrong terminology... but is there a federal law that gives women the legal right to abortion? I might be wrong, but I kind of think that there might not be. it was a supreme court decision that made it a legal right.. and they used the rights granted to us via the constitution as justification for it.

My understanding is that the SCOTUS ruled that the States could not ban abortion if the mother's life was at risk and the child would not be viable outside of the womb, even on life support. They set that second part at the first trimester. There was also something about 'right to privacy' 'penumbras' and 'emanations'.

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't think those laws should be used to punish women who miscarriage.
Do you think if someone causes a woman to lose an unborn child a murder charge should be levied?

It is confusing to me.

a reply to: dawnstar

States determine rights, apparently.

In some, you have a right to smoke pot. In others, you don't.

In some states, you have a right to stay in the country if you came here illegally. In others, you don't.

Rights are often arbitrary, it seems.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

It ends with the same result

I suppose it's not the result but the actions taken to get there that makes one a crime and the other not a crime then.

It's a crime to kill a person but not if you've been given permission by the Government to do so in battle. But the result is the same.

It's a crime to kill your pet dog but not if you do it humanely at the Vet.

We have justifications for all sorts of things that are sometimes legal and other times not legal.

It's illegal to steal but not if you're on Wall Street.

See how that works?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

you can't give a few cells the same rights as the body that harbors them. they cannot be considered equal under the law since sometimes, they are at odds with each other.
like for instance, what if the mother has cancer? do we deny her the drugs that will slow the growth of the cancer, or do we deny her those drugs for the sake of the fetus within her and just hope and pray that she lasts long enough to deliver a healthy baby?

A baby isn't a "few cells" though, even early on. It's simply a human being at a very early stage of development. At 5-6 weeks, you can see the heart beating. At 10-12, you can see a lot more - hands, feet, fingers, toes. At 11.5 weeks, for my number 3, we could see her face, along with all of that.

If and when the only cases of abortion are of that sort, then we can discuss those. That isn't the case most of the time.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dawnstar

I don't think those laws should be used to punish women who miscarriage.
Do you think if someone causes a woman to lose an unborn child a murder charge should be levied?

It is confusing to me.

It might be directed at women who knowingly take an abortifacient. Since I haven't read the bills, I can't say for certain. But I would imagine natural miscarriage would be out of scope.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

In the complaint, Tamesha Means of Muskegon, Mich. alleges that area hospital Mercy Health Partners acted negligently when it refused to recognize her imperiled 18-week-old fetus as a miscarriage warranting surgical intervention. When Means’ water broke roughly halfway through her term, the religious hospital reportedly sent her home without any treatment. When she returned the following day with bleeding, painful contractions, and signs of infections, she was once again turned away by hospital staff. It wasn’t until her third visit, when she suddenly began to deliver the baby, that doctors finally intervened.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

sorry, but sometimes it can take days before the fetus passes...

Praveen Halappanavar repeated his claim that a doctor, named at the inquest in Galway as Dr Katherine Astbury, told him that a termination could not be performed because "this is a Catholic country".

His 31-year-old wife, Savita, died at University College hospital in Galway on 28 October last year, eight days after being admitted. She had been 17 weeks pregnant. Her case has become the focus of international debate and protests over Ireland's strict laws on abortion.

Halappanavar told the inquest that he and his wife had been sent home from the hospital on Sunday 21 October, but returned a couple of hours later because she was in severe pain. He was later told that his wife was miscarrying.

"Savita was crying loudly," Halappanavar told the court. He said a doctor told him: "'You have to be brave' – he said the baby won't arrive. Both of us were shattered – we didn't know what to do."

The following Tuesday when they returned to the hospital, Halappanavar said, they both asked the medical team to perform a termination. In total the couple made three requests for an emergency termination, he said.

"Savita asked for a termination two times. Savita was in tears. She said she could not take it. The doctor did not come back that day," Halappanavar said. "Savita asked a doctor when she could plan the next pregnancy. She was told she had to get well first. She wanted a termination; she wanted it before her parents arrived back in India and started telling people she was pregnant."

Halapannavar said his wife then asked Astbury on the Tuesday for the termination. He claimed that the couple were told: "This is a Catholic country – we cannot terminate because the foetus is still alive."

www.theguardian.com...

there's two cases right there, I can find more, where no, the fetal heartbeat can last days after a micarriage has begun.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

one woman was thrown into jail for falling down the stairs!

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: shooterbrody

It ends with the same result

I suppose it's not the result but the actions taken to get there that makes one a crime and the other not a crime then.

It's a crime to kill a person but not if you've been given permission by the Government to do so in battle. But the result is the same.

It's a crime to kill your pet dog but not if you do it humanely at the Vet.

We have justifications for all sorts of things that are sometimes legal and other times not legal.

It's illegal to steal but not if you're on Wall Street.

See how that works?

You would compare abortion to war to justify it?
A vet would not put down a healthy dog.

Look I am not here to push my opinion on anyone else.
I have reservations about the crime/not a crime and also the feds only enforcing laws that the current administration chooses to.

I still think this will be in court for years.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
How do the legislators of the state of Oklahoma expect to get this past the supreme Court? Didn't Roe v Wade settle this?
I guess the state has so much money they can afford to pass bills designed to be in court for years.

They don't. But it won't get settled until after the election. In the mean time they get to stop abortions for awhile and they get to give their local and state politicians something to run on.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So everyone against this is also against "sanctuary cities" for illegals because these localities are violating federal immigration laws.

Completely different things, but yes I'm against sanctuary cities as well.

a reply to: shooterbrody

You would compare abortion to war to justify it?

I have...
why did we go to war against Iraq, Afghanistan?
they had weapons of mass destruction? they were out to kill us? they were out to destroy our way of life?? just what is the justification they give us for wars usually??

we got to kill them before they kill us....
okay, but then there are many women who are aborting their babies because they perceive a threat to their lives..
they want to destroy our way of life.... okay, but then we live in a society where even having a child decreases the earning potential for a women!
we need to protect the poor abused and oppressed people of the country.... okay, but gee, ya know what, women have living breathing children they have to consider also. children who just might be depending on her bringing home that paycheck, or being able to lift them up and carry them out of danger.

only, when it comes to war, we seem to react to trumped up threats made up by politician who only want to increase the profits of select companies whereas, the women just might be reacting to real threats that aren't halfway around the globe but rather inside them, or around them...

64% involve coercion. A study published in a major international medical journal found that 64% of American women who had abortions felt pressured by others. Coercion can include loss of home, job or family, and even violent assault.

Up to 83% wanted to have the baby. In a survey of women who sought help after abortion, 83% said they would have carried to term if they had received support from the baby’s father, their family, or other important people in their lives.

In 95% of cases, men play a central role in the decision to abort according to a survey of women at abortion clinics.

Husbands and boyfriends threaten women at the clinic. A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and abused by the husbands and boyfriends who took them to the clinics to make sure they had abortions.

prolifemen.publishpath.com...

but, oh, ya, such evil, evil women!!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

You would compare abortion to war to justify it?

I have...
why did we go to war against Iraq, Afghanistan?
they had weapons of mass destruction? they were out to kill us? they were out to destroy our way of life?? just what is the justification they give us for wars usually??

we got to kill them before they kill us....
okay, but then there are many women who are aborting their babies because they perceive a threat to their lives..
they want to destroy our way of life.... okay, but then we live in a society where even having a child decreases the earning potential for a women!
we need to protect the poor abused and oppressed people of the country.... okay, but gee, ya know what, women have living breathing children they have to consider also. children who just might be depending on her bringing home that paycheck, or being able to lift them up and carry them out of danger.

only, when it comes to war, we seem to react to trumped up threats made up by politician who only want to increase the profits of select companies whereas, the women just might be reacting to real threats that aren't halfway around the globe but rather inside them, or around them...

64% involve coercion. A study published in a major international medical journal found that 64% of American women who had abortions felt pressured by others. Coercion can include loss of home, job or family, and even violent assault.

Up to 83% wanted to have the baby. In a survey of women who sought help after abortion, 83% said they would have carried to term if they had received support from the baby’s father, their family, or other important people in their lives.

In 95% of cases, men play a central role in the decision to abort according to a survey of women at abortion clinics.

Husbands and boyfriends threaten women at the clinic. A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and abused by the husbands and boyfriends who took them to the clinics to make sure they had abortions.

prolifemen.publishpath.com...

but, oh, ya, such evil, evil women!!!!

I have not refered to any women in this discussion as evil.

Do you think it is a crime to cause a woman to lose an unborn child?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Do you think it is a crime to cause a woman to lose an unborn child?

If it's done intentionally and against her will and consent then yes.

Anything harmful done intentionally to another person against their will and consent I would think would qualify as a crime.

I would say for sure but who knows. There may be some strange situation that I can't think of just yet that would be an exception to that.