The woman should still have the right to make her own choice, you seem to forget prgnancy can also cause harm and even death to the mother, there are always risks, inform then of the risks and let them descide.
So how is investigating an unexplained death infringing on someone's rights? There would still have to be probable cause before anyone's rights could be suspended! pro aborts have long stated emphatically that abortion rates did not increase after it was legalized, now you are saying you have no idea whether they did or not because nobody kept records? Well? Which one is it?
"Pro-lifer" "logic"- Giving women the right to control their own reproduction?....."anti-women" Seriously discussing arresting and incarcerating women who control their own reproduction (as Whaler has)?....."pro-women"
You still don't get it do you? how to you go about establishing probable cause in the case of a miscarriage, there is no medical way that a natural miscarriage can be distinguished from an induced one .. so that rules out the "body" examination in order to establish probable cause. So you either assume that all miscarriages are natural, or you investigate the woman .. even though you have no evidence or reason to. In order to investigate the woman you would have to suspend some of her rights .. even though you have no evidence or reason to. The only starting point you would have is that she was pregnant and now she isn't. Others may have, I have never made that assumption .. though the estimates prior to roe would suggest that the abortion rates didn't increase as dramatically as you assume, though that is pretty irrelevant to the question asked which was how can you compare something when you have nothing to compare it to?
Ahh so now you want to talk about a fetus instead of the woman which is what the topic of the thread is about, you started the thread I figure you would know what it is about.
following where you people are leading. Abortion is about the fetus, that fact is unavoidable. - - - Updated - - - I think outsiders reading your posts can easily make the right call on their validity.
You are clearly confused. If there is no probable cause to beleive an abortion was committed, there would be no prosecution. Evidence that she was in an abortion death shop right before she was suddenly not pregnant, records found in one of the death shops, you know thetre are ways that probable cause could legitimately e established. Would this result in 100% conviction rate? Hell no, but no other homicide laws have that either!!!
"Survey says" Ohhhhh. "Dumb as a pile of wet laundry." Well, you didn't win the big money but we do have this lovely parting gift To keep all your important stuff.
Ok, so any woman then who didn't use an illegal abortion place but an item got through the internet or even from naturally occurring items would never have to worry about being investigated .. pretty much makes the making of abortion illegal irrelevant. Also even if a woman did use, a now illegal, abortion clinic do you really think they are going to keep records and accounts?
Abortion is a medical procedure and is risky. I see many reasons besides ethical or moral ones to not do it. Thats why it is a choice.
To boil down your comments "criminals will be criminals no matter what the law says", yeah that is true. Should that drive whether or not we condone the activities we make illegal?
Yes its so safe that clinics are written up all the time on unsafe sanitary conditions. And yes Gosnells clinic was so so safe wasn't it? LOL - - - Updated - - - That is why statistics don't reveal the truth...late term abortions go on all the time and they are hidden....for all the obvious reasons.
DUHHHHHHH, if they're hidden how do you "know" about them? Show the proof of these "hidden" things that only YOU seem to "know" about even though they're hidden....
The statistics are true in spite of undetected unsanitary conditions in some clinics. So that must mean that abortion is really really really safe OR that there are very few unsanitary clinics. IF you are correct and late term abortions are happening "all the time" in spite of the illegality of them, why do you think MORE LAWS would reduce the number of early abortions?
You people? I only addressed the OP and the topic it discussed, you know the topic, the one YOU posted. Reply to my posts not others, I have no control of what others may inject into the discussion.
Apart from laughing there is only one reply to this ... please provide proof to your assumption. - - - Updated - - - Again you miss the point which is that laws act as a deterrent, there would be no deterrent for a woman wishing to end her pregnancy.
Actually YOu missed the point. A law against abortion would deter some, just not all. Like any other criminal law on the books. - - - Updated - - - 99% of them don't, but you already know that!
BEcause when they are exposed....they make the headlines. LOL If nothing undercover happened...nothing would be reported now would it? And I showed that it is happening all over the country. Not hard to find out the clinics that have been written up.
Well even rich women don't want to go to jail...and might not take the chance. If states make it impossible to get....then less women will get them. And we are well on that road to socialism...so with Obama and his henchmen leading us towards a one world-everything....the rich will get poorer...and poorer. Oh it will make it very difficult to get.
I disagree, as you have already admitted it would be pretty much impossible to investigate a woman as to whether her pregnancy ended naturally or not, making abortion illegal would hold no threat to any female what-so-ever, also even if it did pose as a deterrent (which I don't think it would) it would only be for those who are the poorest and least able to support a new baby .. this law would quite probably lead to an increase in welfare requirements and as such more money from your pocket via tax.
