41% of Pregnancies End in Abortion in NYC

Mrs.Lucysnow said:
How would you know John you went to 'answerbag' to come up with an example that has little to do with the point being made but just to enlighten you double murder is a multiplier which amounts to killing someone with special circumstances which is in this case her pregnancy, it doesn't legally arrive at killing two individual people that being the case my statement is still true.
Click to expand...

I already knew they do have legal rights and just linked to the first google link. Which makes no difference because that is the LAW.

Lucy, it shows that your statement was wrong. An unborn child does have legal protection and consideration under the law.

Lucy:has no rights under the law and isn't protected under the law.
 
John99 said:
Lucy, PEOPLE cannot be charged for ingesting drugs or alcohol themselves.

When they are pregnant it is a little different though.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html
Click to expand...

Read the articles you post Ferguson v. City of Charleston was contested at the supreme court because it violates the fourth amendment, in other words the women brought charges AGAINST the city of Charleston. The women were secretly tested and then the women were charged with simple possession NOT child abuse.
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
I already knew they do have legal rights and just linked to the first google link. Which makes no difference because that is the LAW.

Lucy, it shows that your statement was wrong. An unborn child does have legal protection and consideration under the law.

Lucy:has no rights under the law and isn't protected under the law.
Click to expand...

Again you simply don't understand the law or what you read about the law. I've already blown your little google attempt out of the water. You haven't shown one instance where an unborn fetus is granted the same status as one that comes to term.

So an unborn fetus has no rights under the law which is why you cannot sue the mother on behalf of her fetus.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Listen dumb dumb, read the articles you post Ferguson v. City of Charleston is being contested because it violates the fourth amendment. The women were secretly tested. The women were charged with simple possession NOT child abuse.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the link? I dont think you have because possession isnt mentioned.

Normally there is no "secret" testing in any clinic or hospital in the U.S. Sounds like some crafty wording there.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Again you simply don't understand the law or what you read about the law. I've already blown your little google attempt out of the water.
Click to expand...

I went to law school, Lucy.

You haven't shown one instance where an unborn fetus is granted the same status as one that comes to term.
Click to expand...

Being charged with TWO murders where one is an unborn child inside a pregant mother is granting the unborn child the same status. There are numerous instances, do i need to go look for them? I really dont think that is necessary.

So an unborn fetus has no rights under the law which is why you cannot sue the mother on behalf of her fetus.
Click to expand...

WTH does that mean?:shrug:
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
Did you even read the link? I dont think you have because possession isnt mentioned.

Normally there is no "secret" testing in any clinic or hospital in the U.S. Sounds like some crafty wording there.
Click to expand...

No which is why you should go and read what the outcome of the cases and not just a link that gets into dealing with the legality which concerned the fourth amendment and not rights of the unborn to which the ruling was not based.

Crafty wording? Its the wording used in the bloody link you provided "The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, a case brought by 10 women who were secretly tested for cocaine use while seeking routine prenatal care at a South Carolina public hospital."

Any woman who tested positive that was under 28 weeks was held for possession. Any woman who had tested positive but were more than four months pregnant (abortions generally take place in the first trimester) were charged with distribution to a child underage. Why? Because a child under 28 weeks isn't considered viable. The legal outcome turned out like this:

"The reasonable expectation of privacy enjoyed by the typical patient undergoing diagnostic tests in a hospital is that the results of those tests will not be shared with nonmedical personnel without her consent." By turning over the results of these medical tests to the police without the women's consent, the MUSC violated this reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, unless the special needs doctrine applied, this intrusion upon the women's expectation of privacy would amount to a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

If you read The Guttmacher Report a second time you will see that the case of child endangerment in most states still is legally untenable. It says:

'While no state has enacted a law specifically criminalizing drug use during pregnancy, prosecutors have relied on a host of criminal laws already on the books to attack prenatal substance abuse.'

So no state has enacted a law SPECIFICALLY criminalizing drug use during pregnancy.
 
John99 said:
I went to law school, Lucy.
Click to expand...

Don't lie John its painful to watch.

As for your other statement:


'Laws that treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double murder arguably affirm fetal rights in a statutory manner. Because the attacker has no right to terminate the woman's pregnancy against her will, it could be argued that the state's interest in protecting potential life is unrestricted in cases of fetal homicide. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter of whether fetal homicide, on its own, may constitute grounds for capital punishment.'

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm

What does it mean when they say an attacker has no right to terminate THE WOMAN'S pregnancy against her will? What difference does it make what the woman wants or doesn't want if the unborn has equal rights? This is an approach that basically deems the unwitting death of the woman's child is grievance against the woman herself not an hostile act against the child as an individual person.
 
LOL...Lucy you are obviously a layperson in terms of criminal law. How does anyone get charged for possession if they test positive for drugs? Answer: They dont. I dont know where you are getting this from. Possession means physically possessing something on your person, not ingested or testing positive for a substance.

to be honest i am not sure if it is even illegal to take drugs. what would you charge a person with? What if they were in a room full of pot smokers and they inhaled?

The paper i linked to cites a case that was upheld:

the state supreme court, in the 1997 case Whitner v. South Carolina, upheld the conviction of a woman charged with criminal child abuse for using cocaine during pregnancy. In that case, the court held that a viable fetus is a "person" under the state's criminal child endangerment statute, and that "maternal acts endangering or likely to endanger the life, comfort, or health of a viable fetus" could constitute child abuse.
Click to expand...

Also, from the same article:

Meanwhile, several states have expanded their child welfare laws to address prenatal drug exposure (treating the issue as a matter of civil rather than criminal law). These laws vary considerably in their scope and approach.
Click to expand...

Obviously you were wrong when you made the statement that an unborn child has no legal rights.
 
John99 said:
LOL...Lucy you are obviously a layperson in terms of criminal law. How does anyone get charged for possession if they test positive for drugs? Answer: They dont. I dont know where you are getting this from.

The paper i linked to cites a case that was upheld:



Also, from the same article:



Obviously you were wrong when you made the statement that an unborn child has no legal rights.
Click to expand...

Read it for yourself: "If the positive test occurred prior to the 28th week of pregnancy, the woman would be charged with simple possession. If she tested positive in the 28th week or later, she would be charged with possession and distribution to a person under age 18—to wit, the fetus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_v._City_of_Charleston

Did you go on to read from that same report that?

'Women who have appealed their convictions to their state supreme court have prevailed in all but one instance. Typically, courts have overturned these convictions on the grounds that a fetus could not be considered a child or person under criminal child abuse statutes, or that the legislature did not intend for an existing criminal statute to apply to a pregnant woman and her fetus.'
 
I didnt know about the possession charges. I went to law school (for one year) before that law.

Still even more proof that they do give unborn children rights though.
 
John99 said:
I didnt know about the possession charges. I went to law school (for one year) before that law.

Still even more proof that they do give unborn children rights though.
Click to expand...

If the unborn have rights then why is abortion legal in the US? The cases you cite are in regards to the unborn where the mother intends to have the child. What is the case of child abuse against a woman who uses drugs for example if she doesn't intend to go to term? Women who go to pre-natal care are doing so because they intend to have a child regardless of their drug habit. These attempts were deemed necessary so that the child would be born healthy. This has nothing to do with abortion.

Abortion essentially hinges on reproductive rights, whether she has a right to decide what goes on in her womb, her body. It also hinges on whether a woman has a right to decide her future which is always impeded upon in one way or another if forced to go through with a pregnancy. This is why we abortion rights are deemed a protection for women and is largely a woman's issue. Note there has never been a case held up in court where a man who's fathered an unborn child is able to block an abortion. It cannot hold up because the fetus is still considered a part of the woman's body, within her physical domain and in no way independent of it.

I don't mind that there are people who feel abortion morally wrong, I just don't think they have the right to pass that judgement on to other people. For men I think the issue is their feeling of having no control, meaning a man cannot decide whether a woman should keep a child or not, he has no say that's why I think there are so many men who take on the issue personally when literally they never have to carry the burden of being pregnant whether they want it or not.
 
Last edited:
Fetuses feel no pain til the 24th week:


The human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks, according to a major review of scientific evidence published today.

The connections in the foetal brain are not fully formed in that time, nor is the foetus conscious, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The findings of two reports commissioned by the Department of Health strike a blow to those seeking to reduce the upper time limit for having an abortion, currently at 24 weeks.

The studies suggest that late abortions, permitted for serious abnormalities or risks to a woman's health, do not result in foetal suffering because of increasing evidence that the chemical environment in the uterus induces "a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks
 
It matters not if the fetus feels pain or not. If it were born, it would feel way more pain during his/her lifetime...
 
Well madam

We are carrying the financial burden of others is call globalization. Or you think globalization is only to travel to South Africa without a passport, well yes that's part of globalization business, but we are going to spread around the economical wealth... get ready. in Europe they had a ton of problems just bringing Greece Infrastructure to the 20 century and guess who pick up the bill???

The false notion that an unborn child's right to life depends on someone else "wanting" it has been relentlessly proclaimed by the pro abortion mainstream media and the "progressive" opinion makers. and I quote, this statement was made by Wanda Franz PHD and President of NRLC.org now I call that a very intelligent woman...

Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Well a fetus is completely dependent on its host the mother and not a viable human being that can exist in its own right which is why it dies when not attached to the host and as such has no rights under the law and isn't protected under the law. This is why you cannot prosecute a woman for assault if she smokes, drinks and does drugs when she's pregnant. That being said the needs of the woman, who is a living human being, outweighs that of the unborn which is why when a doctor has to choose between the live of a mother and that of the unborn in a medical emergency he chooses that of the mother. Adoption is always an option if the woman wants to be pregnant to begin with, if a woman doesn't want to carry to term then abortion isn't an option.
When we want a fetus we called a baby and when we dont want a fetus we called a fetus. ALL women I know do one or another thing not allowed during pregnancy and guess what we are all here....

You didn't answer this question: Since we are all interconnected are you willing to carry the financial burden to care for these unwanted children that will be in society or would you rather that the West resemble Bangladesh?
Click to expand...
Read my first statement, have a nice weekend....
 
greenboy said:
NO a woman has not the right to kill another human being, I have not the right to kill my mother because she has ALZ. IS a SAD day just because my mother doesnt wnat me is enough to kill me. A very Sad day indeed..Once the woman got pregnant she has not the right to destroy that child. She has the right to avoid getting pregnant Yes she does. But once she got pregnant that baby is a human being protected by law. And adoption is always an option. ALways Adoption is an option...

WELL
Click to expand...

wrong. the fetus is not yet a being. she can off that sucker like any other parasite in her body
 
greenboy said:
We are carrying the financial burden of others is call globalization. Or you think globalization is only to travel to South Africa without a passport, well yes that's part of globalization business, but we are going to spread around the economical wealth... get ready. in Europe they had a ton of problems just bringing Greece Infrastructure to the 20 century and guess who pick up the bill???

The false notion that an unborn child's right to life depends on someone else "wanting" it has been relentlessly proclaimed by the pro abortion mainstream media and the "progressive" opinion makers. and I quote, this statement was made by Wanda Franz PHD and President of NRLC.org now I call that a very intelligent woman...

Read my first statement, have a nice weekend....
Click to expand...

the only false notion is that the fetus has a right to life it doesn't. it is parasite and all parasite can be terminated at the discression of host.
 
wow

The dichotomy of the situation is amazing, yes is the media brainwashing people for the Industry of abortion to keep making money.
We already killed 50 millions of children in this country, since Roe Vs Wade 50millions, Not even Adolf Hitler killed so many people.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/nearly-50-million-abortions-have-been-pe

Adolf killed 11-17 millions WOW we already killed 50 millions, those pro-choice people are worst than Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust


John99 said:
I went to law school, Lucy.



Being charged with TWO murders where one is an unborn child inside a pregant mother is granting the unborn child the same status. There are numerous instances, do i need to go look for them? I really dont think that is necessary.



WTH does that mean?:shrug:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
greenboy said:
an abortion is allowed on fetus/child up to 30 weeks old in his/her mother womb is known as late term abortion, and we are doing intrauterine surgery in fetuses around 26 weeks old in the mother's womb, to save their lives. How about that?

http://www.drhern.com/?gclid=CJvZko2xlKcCFQJN4AodPWtSdA

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1266529-overview
Click to expand...

More anti-choice exaggerations:

52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

How about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top