what's your source for this?



won't stop women aborting, it'll just kill them.



1) abortion is responsible 2) this doesn't apply to rape and incest victims so you must be ok with them aborting.

I disagree, prior to roe v wade the number of deaths from illegal abortion was dropping dramtically and continued at the same rate after roe v wade.. It wasnt the legality of abortion that made it safe it was advances in technology, medication and cleanliness.

Most abortions before roe v wade were not done in some back ally slaughter house by (as I have read on here much to my amusement) "actual" butchers but the majority were done in private clinics and hospitals. The number of women having abortion prior to roe v wade was a lot smaller than today...Statistics show that women dont regard have abortions as a option when its against the law.

The number of women who die from abortion or abortion related deaths is much the same percentage as it was prior to roe v wade.

This is not actual percentage just an example of what I mean so if there were 10 abortions and 1 woman died today there maybe 1,000,000 legal abortions then the death toll of women would be 100,000. Besides death there is a huge increase in abortion related health issues...Compaired to prior to roe v wade.... Abortion hurts women!

I agree with you btrflydrm63.

To site a case moira...Scott peterson!!

I think abortion should be legal only for life ending circumstances! Even then I am iffy.

I personally just don't agree with it b/c to me it is playing god. I feel if we were indeed meant to have this right then we could always decide wether or not we become pregnant or spontanesouly abort by thought or feeling! I my opinion is mostly based on morality and religion but then again so am i. I am not perfect as I am sure no one else is.

I did not chose to be pregnant but I did chose to have sex. I will live with the consequences of my actions as will every other woman! I am not judging anyone b/c it is not my place. There is only one true judge and it's god and he will decide if it was right or wrong and when life begins.

do they now? "just about every state"? That aside, these laws have yet to be tested for their constitutionality, which is why scott peterson eventually will be let free.
please document this. You are making a claim as to factuality, so I am sure you can back this up.
the problem with your argument is that the us constitution (perhaps you have heard about it) doesn't recognize the unborn as a person (see roe vs wade, section ix for details).
ah, pregnancy is punishment for not being "responsible" ( an euphemism for them not following what *you* think is appropriate moral behavior).

So now we can legislate morality and force it on other people. How nice of you to accept to live per my moral code. Are you ready for it?

Are you for the death penalty newmommy?

and you do indeed have the right to that opinion. I disagree with you, but so what, we have a difference of opinion, that's all.
that's fine as long as you don't try to legislate it, as it would violate the 1st amendment to the us constitution (the establishment clause)
quite. But then, impacts beyond the immediate result of one's action are not consented to. Smoking is not the consent to lung cancer. Driving is not the consent to a head injury. Eating steaks is not consent to a heart attack. Sex is not consent to pregnancy.
indeed, and she then has the choice of how to act on this.
pascal's wager really isn't that convincing to anybody.

My source for this.... Its a law. You have a computer, do some research on the word fetal homicide. I am sure the hippies had views like yours, about how drugs were a choice, and it didnt hurt anyone else, and it shouldnt be outlawed, but it was. It may be a hundred years from now, but if laws like these are made one small step at a time it will eventually be stopped altogether. I am not against abortion. It is at this time a right, and even though I wouldnt do it, whatever floats your boat.
But I am making the point that people are taking advantage of this right, and I just dont see it lasting. Like slavery... All things like this will at some point in time end.

really. So you're claiming that a medical procedure carried out legally is just as safe as one carried out illegally? Surely you're not that foolish izzy.



prove it.



really. Perhaps you could run along to south america and tell the 4 million women who self abort each year (world health organisation estimate) that they're not actually regarding it as an option. Or tell the 11000 portuguese women (health ministry figures) that were hospitalised after an illegal abortion last year that again, they don't "regard it as an option".

Izzy, you're wrong about this. Go to any country where abortion is illegal and you'll see that women do it whether it's illegal or not.

The number of women who die from abortion or abortion related deaths is much the same percentage as it was prior to roe v wade.



uh-huh. And what are these "abortion related issues"? Do tell.

and what is the name of this law? And which states does it apply in? I've heard of various fetal homicide laws but certainly not that "...Just about every state has the fetal homicide law where if a mother is killed and she is pregnant, the killer will be charged with two counts of manslaughter. This starts at about 10 days after conception." i'd be veyr grateful if you could be more specific.



you made the claim, please back it up.



and?



taking advantage how? By having tops that don't fit in with your moral view?



i hope not, because women will die. Look at any country where abortion is illegal and you'll see that it doesn't stop women aborting.

I'm not trying to start anything. I found this online. One of many sites saying this:

history/facts:


historically, a fetus was not recognized as a legal entity separate from the pregnant woman. In fact, abortion was generally not illegal until the latter half of the 1800s, when many states enacted laws criminalizing the procedure.

Many states have recently enacted fetal homicide laws, which create a separate crime for actions taken against a woman that result in the death of - or harm to - her fetus. These laws treat the fetus as an individual, apart from the woman. Some of these laws do not contain exceptions for the woman or her doctor, which could possibly allow criminal proceedings for measures taken as a course of treatment (radiation treatment for cancer or antibiotics) or for abortion.


On the federal level, in 1999 the unborn victims of violence act (which does contain exceptions for the woman, her doctor, and abortion) was proposed and passed the house of representatives.

These states have fetal homicide laws where fetuses are victims at any stage of development:


az
id
il
la
mi
mn
mo
nd
ne
nd
oh
pa
sd
ut
wi

these states have fetal homicide laws where fetuses are victims at only specific stages in development:


ar
ca
fl
ga
ma
ms
nv
ok
ri
sc
tn
wa

the following states criminalize certain conduct that terminates pregnancies or causes miscarriages:


ia
in
ks
nc
nh
nm
va

argument for fetal homicide laws:


fetal homicide laws have been described as supporting and protecting women who decide to carry their babies to term. Sponsored links
those supporting these acts, most often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They declare that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize cases and provide the opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers. Some pro-lifers hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the u.S. Supreme court's 1973 roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
Argument against fetal homicide laws:


those against fetal homicide laws fear that laws to protect a fetus could infringe on a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice leaders say these laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. Those against these laws are also concerned as to whether they could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy, such as smoking, drinking or using illegal drugs. Instead, they prefer to criminalize an assault on a pregnant woman and recognize her as the only victim.
Current status:


the most recent case involving fetal homicide laws is that of the laci peterson homicide. Her husband, scott peterson was convicted in november, 2004 by a california jury. Peterson could get the death penalty for the count of first-degree homicide for killing his wife and the count of second-degree homicide for killing their unborn child. Lacy peterson was in her 8th month of pregnancy when she disappeared. Under california law, homicide charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks. To convict peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors had to prove that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of his wife's death.

There has been debate on both sides of this issue. "if this is homicide, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it homicide," morris county now president mavra stark told reporters. Marie tasy, public and legislative affairs director for new jersey right to life, counters that a double-homicide charge against scott peterson is appropriate.

You can check out:http://www.Nrlc.Org/unborn_victims/sta tehomicidelaws092302.Html it gives laws for each state.