Israel’s abortion law now among world’s most liberal

This is funny - because you claim that the child is not a child and therefore can't be a murder victim.... but if their killer goes free, you seem to think they are getting away with murder.

You need to make up your mind.

 

not really when you actually see my response for what it is and that is the murderer of the woman will go free, which I suspect you knew all along anyway .. but as usual post what you want others to think.

 

Even if the court dropped the charge of murder for the crime against her child - why do you expect the charge would also be dropped for the crime against the mother?

 

1-By your logic, something being detrimental to society should determined whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal, not morality. Explain exactly why abortion is not detrimental to society.

2-That's not really relevant to what I was trying to argue.

 

I think adultery is detrimental to society and in maintaining a strong and steady family unit, however I do not believe that adultery should be illegal.

That's freedom of choice right there, to make a bad decision of your own free will or not. Same with abortion, if you believe it is a bad decision you may choose not to make it.

 

Nope, your logic is that if you feel something is immoral it should be illegal regardless of the effect it has on society, and my answer is already contained in the very comment you responded to . .though it has not gone unnoticed that you consistently cherry pick parts of a post in order to try and 'prove' something. In case you missed it here it is again

just because some people do not see something as the right decision does not mean they can force that opinion onto others .. that is the basic point of freedom of choice, you chose whether you want to smoke, you chose whether you want to drink and as such a woman should be able to chose whether to remain pregnant. for you it may not be the right decision, for someone else it is. Even the god you worship allows for freedom of choice, who are you to try and over ride god's will.

Which is why my comment was structured as it was.

 

If someone is charged with a crime and the conviction of that crime is found, for what ever reason, to be unsound can the be charged with the same crime again or not?

 

I can respect another persons opinion or belief.....but THERE IS NO WAY....that the Supreme Court would overturn Rowe vs.Wade.

No chance in HELL!

Overturning this would be upon the same level as the passing of Prohibition!!

Even the most CONSERVATIVE members of the Supreme Court understand that Rowe vs. Wade cannot be overturned.

I am sure there are way's that certain laws could be passed to prevent Late Term Abortions when there is no issues of Health to Fetus or Mother and no issues of rape or incest....but the total percentage such late term abortions of this type are SO EXTREMELY SMALL....it would have very little effect upon the total number of abortions.

Education and the drugs...Morning After and Plan B...are the best course of action.

AboveAlpha

 

and that is what the majority of pro-choice people keep saying, but it is like talking to a brick wall .. prevent the pregnancy taking place at all and I guarantee abortions will reduce.

Problem is the majority of pro-lifers here don't care about that, the don't want to see how well it works in other countries, they don't want to see how their abstinence only education has failed their own children, the don't want to see that those states with abstinence only education also have some of the highest teenage birth rates in the whole of the USA (7 of the top 10 states) .. The stock response is "I/We don't care what other countries do"

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html

 

Might work is not equivalent to does work.

 

The ones that insist that Obama wasn't born in the USA are the ones that care. And this thread doesn't have anything to do with where you are born, but it does have to do with when you are considered a person, since it is about abortion, and the Constitution says "when you are born".

 

constitution says nothing resembling when you are born you become a person. SCOTUS wrongly interpreted to say that. Prove me wrong

 

Well, the doctors know more about when it is a birth and when it is a miscarriage than some misinformed women, so why would I want to ask them.

 

You have to be "born" to be considered a citizen, and if I have to draw you a picture....then you are beyond comprehension.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

If you haven't been born, you are not a citizen, and rights of the Constitution are only afforded to persons.

"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process.
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

 

Someone needs to familiarize themself with Yick Wo v Hopkins.

 

I know what a citizen is. A person and a citizen are completely different. If I have to draw you a picture, then you are the one who need comprehension classes. It even says it in the little blurb below your little rant about citizens

 

I have no intentions to start an argument...I am only posting the FACTS.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the over all final and total authority that determines what EXACTLY constitutes a Peron or Baby or Human Being....and what DOES NOT.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court....and these specific definitions have been re-approached and looked at several times in 2012 and multiple times in 2013....so it is not like the court has not looked at these defined criteria for a long time.....the U.S. Supreme Court has defined a Child or Human Being or Person as such.

A Child is a FORMER FETUS...that has been birthed naturally or removed by C-section and has had it's umbilical cord cut and can live outside and unconnected to the Mother with out or with mechanic life support....but a CHILD cannot be a Child in Utero....only a Fetus can exist in Utero.

AboveAlpha

 

further information;


Children's rights
children's rights: an overview

A child is a person and not a subperson over whom the parent has an absolute possessory interest. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution. See Civil Rights of Children. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of child-rights law. - http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/childrens_rights

 

Interestingly enough the actual report also states the following;

We also found significant effects of the 8- and 12-hour comprehensive interventions on important HIV/STD risk–related behavior. Both comprehensive interventions significantly reduced the incidence of multiple sexual partners compared with the health control group. In addition, the 12-hour comprehensive intervention marginally significantly (P = .06) reduced the incidence of recent sexual intercourse compared with the health control group. - http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=382798

and if you read the report you also find their method was NOT the standard method for teaching abstinence only education -

The 8-hour abstinence-only intervention encouraged abstinence to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STIs including HIV. It was designed to (1) increase HIV/STI knowledge, (2) strengthen behavioral beliefs supporting abstinence including the belief that abstinence can prevent pregnancy, STIs, and HIV, and that abstinence can foster attainment of future goals, and (3) increase skills to negotiate abstinence and resist pressure to have sex. It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected

The method used was more in line with how abstinence is taught as part of a comprehensive sex education program.

 

I didn't mention child. And SCOTUS does not determine what anything is outside the language of the constitution. And in the case we have argued about for so long in this country, I believe they got it wrong in their interpretation of person.

 

SCOTUS examined the history of this country searching for examples of "person" applying to the pre-born. They could not find in the history of this country any instance of "person" applying legally to the pre-born. We understand that you believe the pre-born are persons, but you cannot provide any evidence that they were ever treated as such legally. Furthermore, the only reason you can provide for why the pre-born should be treated as persons, is to remove rights from actual existing persons.

Just be practical for a moment. Government simply does not have the power to stop abortions. It's been tried, and failed. There are too many avenues women can pursue to have an abortion in private and therefore outside the reach of government.

 

No constitutional rights are removed when you stop abortion. An unconstitutional interpretation does not change that.
So you are saying since it can not be stopped why make it illegal? I don't like that way of thinking

 

TLDR.....and don't care....take that case to your Congressman and suggest he use it when he writes up the next anti-abortion law.

 

And besides, if the Supreme Court ever became totally conservative and overturned Roe v Wade, all that would happen is that the states would now be able to make their own laws. There would be many states that would allow it....and women can then travel to those states and continue to get abortions....the problem with that is that it will favor the rich, as so many other laws passed by Republicans do, because the poor woman may not be able to afford going to another state. That's what we had before Roe v Wade was passed.