Why are Americans so obsessed with abortion

Because the laws are different, and enforced.

Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967[edit]
In England and Wales and Scotland, section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 now reads: [1]

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Subsections (a) to (d) were substituted for the former subsections (a) and (b) by section 37(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

See also www.homehealth-uk.com/medical/abortion.htm and news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4350259.stm.

"The law relating to abortion"

In England and Wales, this means sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and any rule of law relating to the procurement of abortion.[2]

In Scotland, this means any rule of law relating to the procurement of abortion.[2]

"Terminated by a registered medical practitioner"

See Royal College of Nursing of the UK v DHSS [1981] AC 800, [1981] 2 WLR 279, [1981] 1 All ER 545, [1981] Crim LR 322, HL.

Place where termination must be carried out

See sections 1(3) to (4).

The opinion of two registered medical practitioners

See section 1(4).

"Good faith"

See R v Smith (John Anthony James), 58 Cr App R 106, CA.

Determining the risk of injury in ss. (a) & (b)

See section 1(2)

"Risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman", s. 1(1)(a)

In R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance, Lord Justice Laws said:

There is some evidence that many doctors maintain that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion, a state of affairs which is said to allow a situation of de facto abortion on demand to prevail.[3]

England and Wales[edit]
Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861[edit]
Section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 provides:

58. Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude for life . . .[4]
Section 59 of that Act provides:

59. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude . . .[5]
"Unlawfully"

For the purposes of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and any rule of law relating to the procurement of abortion, anything done with intent to procure a woman's miscarriage (or in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, her miscarriage of any foetus) is unlawfully done unless authorised by section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 and, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, anything done with intent to procure her miscarriage of any foetus is authorised by the said section 1 if the ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in subsection (1)(d) of the said section 1 applies in relation to any foetus and the thing is done for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of that foetus, or any of the other ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in the said section 1 applies.[6]

"Felony" and "misdemeanor"

See the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Mode of trial[edit]
The offences under section 58 and 59 are indictable-only offences.

Sentence[edit]
An offence under section 58 is punishable with imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.[7]

An offence under section 59 is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.[8]

The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929[edit]
Child destruction and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929
Homicide[edit]
A death, of a person in being, which is caused by an unlawful attempt to procure an abortion is at least manslaughter.[9][10]

Broadcasting[edit]
As to the effect of section 6(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 in relation to broadcasting pictures of an abortion, see R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance [2003] UKHL 23, [2004] 1 AC 185, [2003] 2 WLR 1403, [2003] 2 All ER 977, [2003] UKHRR 758, [2003] HRLR 26, [2003] ACD 65, [2003] EMLR 23, reversing R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance [2002] EWCA Civ 297, [2002] 3 WLR 1080, [2002] 2 All ER 756, CA. That section was repealed by the Communications Act 2003.

 

Perfect entity for misogynist control freaks to ply their trade, religion.

 

Cady is misrepresenting what jimmy carter said. carter was not talking about pro lifers.

 

Then why the H are you posting to ME ?????? Post to Cady !

Carter was talking about religious leaders .....it's a direct quote , it is NOT misrepresented.

 

did I say they were, no I did not, your comprehension is letting you down again.

Do you know what based means?

Really, I suppose that is why I use sites for non-political views, like peer reviewed articles and actual court decisions, where as you post nothing but pro-life sound bites.

I am now more than ever convinced that you don't even bother to look at the links I provide you just assume they are from pro-choice sites.

So now it is a personal insult to agree with a comment you made

 

Yes it is. Insulting yourself isn't that big of a deal, but insulting other people is. For example, if people use an ethnic slur about their own ethnicity, it's not viewed as the equivalent of saying an ethnic slur about somebody else's ethnicity.

 

what pure BS.

I have not insulted you, or can you please point to the actual insult used .. if you think agreeing with a comment you made is an insult then you are deluded.

If someone uses an ethnic slur against themselves and I agree with what they say I am not insulting them I am agreeing with them.

and as usual it is noted that you ignore all the other aspects of my reply, especially when it shows your lack of comprehension.

 

I don't understand this obsession in America.