ROEvember is Coming

Quote: rxwine

News is just talking about the issue of IVF. Once you declare a human being at that level, I don't know why they believe they can have a double standard and not treat it as a child since they are declaring it a child. You could suffer serious harm just from an accident where manslaughter is charged. Not to mention a costly civil lawsuit.

Imagine a pregnant woman has a minor injury from your negligence. Not medical, but just your average negligence where she suffers injury and then has a miscarriage. Is it really connected to the accident? Who knows, because miscarriage is relatively common. Could be a roll of the dice and you might lose the case in court. You might be in for years of mental trauma yourself, and costs, even if you win.

That's probably the idea; as much as they claim to like babies, I think they'd flat ban IVF if they thought they could get away with it.

Quote: rxwine

News is just talking about the issue of IVF. Once you declare a human being at that level, I don't know why they believe they can have a double standard and not treat it as a child since they are declaring it a child. You could suffer serious harm just from an accident where manslaughter is charged. Not to mention a costly civil lawsuit.

Imagine a pregnant woman has a minor injury from your negligence. Not medical, but just your average negligence where she suffers injury and then has a miscarriage. Is it really connected to the accident? Who knows, because miscarriage is relatively common. Could be a roll of the dice and you might lose the case in court. You might be in for years of mental trauma yourself, and costs, even if you win.

You didn’t answer my question. Frankly, neither have I!

Extreme examples….. man is going to be father to baby he doesn’t want. Isn’t interested in 18 years of child support. Day before due date he successfully stabs mother, killing baby in utero. Mother experiences only minor injuries. Misdemeanor battery? It seems more like murder to me? Don’t you agree?

Quote: SOOPOO

What crime would you say is committed if someone intentionally throws in the garbage the embryo of a couple that was in the process of in vitro fertilization?

It’s an interesting thought experiment. The putative parents would think it’s murder. Others may think it’s not even a crime worthy of imprisonment.

Substitute "embryo" with "semen sample" or "harvested oocyte" or "important piece of medical equipment, without which the procedure can't proceed". In those cases, laws regarding braking and entering and trespass and theft and destruction of property would be applicable, as the case may be. In my opinion, the same laws should apply if a person intentionally tosses an embryo. In my opinion, embryos aren't life, They are potential life.

Quote: SOOPOO

You didn’t answer my question. Frankly, neither have I!

Extreme examples….. man is going to be father to baby he doesn’t want. Isn’t interested in 18 years of child support. Day before due date he successfully stabs mother, killing baby in utero. Mother experiences only minor injuries. Misdemeanor battery? It seems more like murder to me? Don’t you agree?

That would be murder-child is capable of living outside the womb and therefore is considered a life.

Now, substitute in your example the same scenario, instead the gravida is only 2 or 3 weeks gravid and the goes on the rampage, ending the pregnancy but only causing recoverable injuries otherwise. Did he commit murder?

Quote: SOOPOO

You didn’t answer my question. Frankly, neither have I!

Extreme examples….. man is going to be father to baby he doesn’t want. Isn’t interested in 18 years of child support. Day before due date he successfully stabs mother, killing baby in utero. Mother experiences only minor injuries. Misdemeanor battery? It seems more like murder to me? Don’t you agree?

I think the state can take a reasonable position. Just like it guesses that a person of a certain age can do certain things on their 18th birthday, even if they are mature at 16, or still immature at 19.

There’s little difference between a full term before a birth, and the day after the birth as far as development. The state looks out for the soon to be born infant over the mother or the father wishes at this point. The mother is not going to be asked to stay pregnant for 9 months but she might be forced into a compromise with the father and father likewise forced into a compromise with the mother, and if they can’t agree on anything the state will force the decision in favor of the soon to be born.

So if he kills at that point, it’s murder, but there could also be assault charges. That depends on what the mother decides, or should be anyway.

There’s an old example of waking up attached to another individual. If the state forced you to stay attached for 9 months, the state is wrong. If you kill the individual the same day you wake up attached to him without giving some leeway to the individual’s rights and a reasonable effort to detach from him, I think you should be prosecuted.

Quote: ams288

Which member was it that gaslighted and pretended like the GOP isn’t coming for birth control next (maybe Duffman)?.

I can't actually remember ever talking to a pro-lifer who suggested that we just need to get abortion early enough to avoid sensory pain, or some other rationale. Which I suppose is a real clue that they are only trying to find what amount of ban the pro-choicers will accept at that moment, until they figure out how to get more of a ban. The only people arguing for compromise positions based upon some specific goal is among the pro-choicers themselves.

In other words, leaving it up to the states to decide is a ruse the anti-choice people only needed until they can push for overall ban in every state.

Quote: rxwine

I can't actually remember ever talking to a pro-lifer who suggested that we just need to get abortion early enough to avoid sensory pain, or some other rationale. Which I suppose is a real clue that they are only trying to find what amount of ban the pro-choicers will accept at that moment, until they figure out how to get more of a ban. The only people arguing for compromise positions based upon some specific goal is among the pro-choicers themselves.

In other words, leaving it up to the states to decide is a ruse the anti-choice people only needed until they can push for overall ban in every state.

That is the same play book as every 'anti-something' group. From guns, to gas appliances, to gasoline vehicles, to logging. Once you get a concession than push for more. Most people now seem to think their life choices fine but they need to change others life choices.

Quote: rxwine

In other words, leaving it up to the states to decide is a ruse the anti-choice people only needed until they can push for overall ban in every state.

Really? The pro -lifers think they will get a ban ‘in every state’? New York? California? Massachusetts? Need I list another 30+ that it JUST AIN’T happening? There are just a few states that have enough pro-lifers to elect like minded legislators. And there are fewer and fewer. (Good).

The Democrats should be HAPPY AS CAN BE about these actions and this issue. It’s a rare one that the Democrats can pound the Republicans on and ‘the middle’ will side predominantly with the Democrats.

Quote: SOOPOO

Really? The pro -lifers think they will get a ban ‘in every state’? New York? California? Massachusetts? Need I list another 30+ that it JUST AIN’T happening? There are just a few states that have enough pro-lifers to elect like minded legislators. And there are fewer and fewer. (Good).

The Democrats should be HAPPY AS CAN BE about these actions and this issue. It’s a rare one that the Democrats can pound the Republicans on and ‘the middle’ will side predominantly with the Democrats.

Won't stop them from trying, and won't stop the pro-life allies in Congress from trying to pass a national ban. There isn't a single Republican in office today that we can trust with reproductive freedom.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Won't stop them from trying, and won't stop the pro-life allies in Congress from trying to pass a national ban. There isn't a single Republican in office today that we can trust with reproductive freedom.

If you had actually paid attention to the SCOTUS ruling you would know that they said that the feds don't have jurisdiction that it is a state matter. They would overturn a prolife federal law the same as they overturned the pro abortion law. The current court has been actually ruling on law not politics unlike the previous liberal courts.