Abortion Contrariety: Can we find a balance?

RickeyD

There is no compromise with the crime of abortion - it's the taking of human life void due process and is therefore a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution and is therefore murder. How does one compromise with the act of murdering children in the womb?

ZeusAres42

@RickeyD I was also going to do a debate about radicals and if they can be changed. thanks for reminding me via your radical posts.

RickeyD

@ZeusAres42 ; It is very telling that you find my love for life, justice, due process, protection of innocence, obedience to God's Law, as "radical."

ZeusAres42

RickeyD said:

@ZeusAres42 ; It is very telling that you find my love for life, justice, due process, protection of innocence, obedience to God's Law, as "radical."

You see another religious preaching post. Who radicalized you @RickeyD?

RickeyD

@ZeusAres42 ; I find it interesting that you perceive my Love for righteousness, my Love for God, my Love for God's words, my Love for Truth and Goodness, as being radicalized. Murdering babies in the womb is demonically radical...who demonized you?

Happy_Killbot

I can argue both sides of this debate, and that's why I disagree with both of them.

Morality:

• pro-life: "killing babies is murder"
• pro-choice: "forcing a woman to do something with her body is rape"

score 0-0

Values:

• pro-life: "We value the life of everyone and that includes potential life"
• pro-choice: "We value individual freedom and that includes the right to do what one wants with their body"

score: 0-0

Science:

• pro-life: "It is proven that a fetus has different DNA and is a different person"
• pro-choice: "A fetus can not feel any pain and has no developed brain, therefore it is just a mass of cells"

score: 0-0

Society & ethics:

• pro-life: "if we allow abortion, then how will we sustain a population?"
• pro-choice: "we need to allow abortion, or else population will get out of control"

score: 0-0

Future generations:

• pro-life: "No one wants to grow up knowing they could have been aborted"
• pro-choice: "Any fetus that is aborted will not have to grow up a burden to the mother and society"

score: 0-0

What is thought about the other side:

• pro-life: "They just want an excuse to not take responsibility"
• pro-choice: "They just want to force us to make babies as a form of subjugation of women"

score: 0-0

The absurdity of if they get their way:

• pro-life: If assumed right, then it implies that everyday you kill yourself and others millions of times by inhaling cells and via your own immune system.
• pro-choice: If assumed right, it implies that anyone who is dependent on another is completely at their mercy should they choose not to deal with them.

score: (-100) - (-100)

The way I see it, Both sides of this debate are completely ridiculous and unjustified. We can solve the abortion problem, and I mean problem not "issue" because I don't see it as some simple matter of making a decision one way or the other, but rather as problem to be solved, like math. To come to possible solutions, we must study the issue from first principals, which is most intuitive if we work backwards from the problem by asking simple questions about it.

Why do women want abortions?
Because they are pregnant and do not want to be, either for financial, or personal reasons.

How did they get pregnant?
There are many possible ways for this to occur, but the most common is because they had sex.

Does having sex or any of the other possibilities always lead to pregnancy?
No, there are many barriers to getting pregnant, in particular contraceptive birth control and impotency can lead to a decreased or inability for pregnancy to occur.

What can be done to minimize the potential for sex to lead to pregnancy?
Use of contraceptive drugs for females, use of condoms, vasectomy. Use of any one is considered effective, but use of multiple types compounds effect.

What methods do not exist that could further minimize the potential for sex to lead to pregnancy?
Development of male equivalent birth control, mandatory mass sterilization, genetic gene blockers.

Which if any of these methods would be considered practical and acceptable for possible development and implementation?
Male equivalent birth control

There is the answer to abortion, male equivalent birth control. Technological development is the way forward.

MayCaesar

A solution is very simple: think before you act and take reasonable precautions while doing so. Then you do not have to worry about whether abortions are legal or not.

As for finding a balance, there is no balance to look for: bodily autonomy principle is the foundation of human rights. Either you respect it, and then there is nothing more to discuss: abortions must be legal. Or you disrespect it, and then you have a much larger discussion in front of you than just abortions; you are questioning the most basic human rights and the findings of the Enlightenment movement - which is perfectly fine, but abortions are not the focal point of that questioning, and you are distracting yourself from things that really matter by partaking in such discussions.

The abortion debate barely happens in most developed countries and even in many developing countries, including such notorious human rights abusers as Russia and China. On the West it seems to be a purely religious thing, barely taken seriously anywhere except for countries like the US or Belgium, heavy on religion.

YeshuaBought

My views on abortion have changed. I understand that if the mother was raped, something is wrong with the baby, or the mother has medical problems, she can abort the baby, but I will not be supporting abortion, anymore. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, or have your tubes removed.

ZeusAres42

YeshuaBought said:

My views on abortion have changed. I understand that if the mother was raped, something is wrong with the baby, or the mother has medical problems, she can abort the baby, but I will not be supporting abortion, anymore. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, or have your tubes removed.

@YeshuaBought I would actually say you're taking a more balanced view on this. For several people who have held firm beliefs for so long this is quite hard to do but very commendable when they do it.

ZeusAres42

Happy_Killbot said:

I can argue both sides of this debate, and that's why I disagree with both of them.

Morality:

• pro-life: "killing babies is murder"
• pro-choice: "forcing a woman to do something with her body is rape"

score 0-0

Values:

• pro-life: "We value the life of everyone and that includes potential life"
• pro-choice: "We value individual freedom and that includes the right to do what one wants with their body"

score: 0-0

Science:

• pro-life: "It is proven that a fetus has different DNA and is a different person"
• pro-choice: "A fetus can not feel any pain and has no developed brain, therefore it is just a mass of cells"

score: 0-0

Society & ethics:

• pro-life: "if we allow abortion, then how will we sustain a population?"
• pro-choice: "we need to allow abortion, or else population will get out of control"

score: 0-0

Future generations:

• pro-life: "No one wants to grow up knowing they could have been aborted"
• pro-choice: "Any fetus that is aborted will not have to grow up a burden to the mother and society"

score: 0-0

What is thought about the other side:

• pro-life: "They just want an excuse to not take responsibility"
• pro-choice: "They just want to force us to make babies as a form of subjugation of women"

score: 0-0

The absurdity of if they get their way:

• pro-life: If assumed right, then it implies that everyday you kill yourself and others millions of times by inhaling cells and via your own immune system.
• pro-choice: If assumed right, it implies that anyone who is dependent on another is completely at their mercy should they choose not to deal with them.

score: (-100) - (-100)

The way I see it, Both sides of this debate are completely ridiculous and unjustified. We can solve the abortion problem, and I mean problem not "issue" because I don't see it as some simple matter of making a decision one way or the other, but rather as problem to be solved, like math. To come to possible solutions, we must study the issue from first principals, which is most intuitive if we work backwards from the problem by asking simple questions about it.

Why do women want abortions?
Because they are pregnant and do not want to be, either for financial, or personal reasons.

How did they get pregnant?
There are many possible ways for this to occur, but the most common is because they had sex.

Does having sex or any of the other possibilities always lead to pregnancy?
No, there are many barriers to getting pregnant, in particular contraceptive birth control and impotency can lead to a decreased or inability for pregnancy to occur.

What can be done to minimize the potential for sex to lead to pregnancy?
Use of contraceptive drugs for females, use of condoms, vasectomy. Use of any one is considered effective, but use of multiple types compounds effect.

What methods do not exist that could further minimize the potential for sex to lead to pregnancy?
Development of male equivalent birth control, mandatory mass sterilization, genetic gene blockers.

Which if any of these methods would be considered practical and acceptable for possible development and implementation?
Male equivalent birth control

There is the answer to abortion, male equivalent birth control. Technological development is the way forward.

@Happy_Killbot You made some great points and I agree with everything except for the most latter part of your argument. I mean I am all for male equivalent birth control and think it's a great concept. However, let's just say that a couple wants to have a baby and so decide not to take any birth control measure and then a couple of weeks later after being confirmed pregnant the woman changes her mind? We are now back to an abortion problem. Male equivalent birth control is an answer but I can't agree it's the only answer. 

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar Human rights are not the same thing as license. The right to do with whatever one wants with their body does not equate to one being able to do whatever they like with their body at the expense of others. If this was the case then before you know it suicidal terrorists could use this exact same argument and start claiming they should be able to blow themselves up anywhere they like because it's their body.

Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAres42 There actually is another technological development that could potentially eliminate this as a problem I didn't include in that original post because it is not something that will be developed for another few decades, unlike male birth control which could have been developed since Roe v. Wade should the right funding have been made available, and could still feasibly be developed inside of a typical term or two for any politicians crazy enough to capitalize on actual solutions.

This technology would be the artificial womb. This technology is already being developed to help premature births, and human testing should begin in less than 5 years. Eventually it may be possible for a fetus to be grow either completely independently of the mother or for early term abortions to still develop into a child.

The availability of this type of technology would just totally eviscerates the abortion debate, I predict that about mid way through the century that we will look back on all this as a bunch of primitive nonsense, the same way that being unable to speak or move would have made you useless in the past, but in modern times technology can allow you to be a top physicist.

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

Human rights are what they are. When rights of two individuals are in conflict, then the rights of the victim triumph the rights of the aggressor. In case of abortions, the adult woman is the victim, because the child sustains itself at the expense of her health and not vice-versa; from the rights-based point of view, the situation is equivalent to a starving cannibal eating another human being against their will.

It is a pretty simple concept, and nobody seems confused with it when it comes to any other related matter. But for some reason, unborn children cause more sympathy from some people, than born people, and preferential treatment. The ridiculousness of this is hard to describe with words.

Then, again, some also treat the dead people with more respect than the living ones, paying thousands dollars for memorial events which they would never do for living ones. There is a lot of religious and traditionalist absurdities in humanity.

Dee

It’s an unwinnable argument and I couldn’t care less what a woman does regarding abortion it’s none of my business , women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies .It’s  simple really a woman wanting an abortion is doing it for a reason she doesn’t want a baby so why should she be forced into doing so against her will?

YeshuaBought

ZeusAres42 said:

YeshuaBought said:

My views on abortion have changed. I understand that if the mother was raped, something is wrong with the baby, or the mother has medical problems, she can abort the baby, but I will not be supporting abortion, anymore. If you don't want a baby, use birth control, or have your tubes removed.

@YeshuaBought I would actually say you're taking a more balanced view on this. For several people who have held firm beliefs for so long this is quite hard to do but very commendable when they do it.

Thank you. I wish people could learn from each other.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

It’s an unwinnable argument and I couldn’t care less what a woman does regarding abortion it’s none of my business , women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies .It’s  simple really a woman wanting an abortion is doing it for a reason she doesn’t want a baby so why should she be forced into doing so against her will?

@Dee, as I pointed out to another user rights, are not the same thing as licence. The right for a woman to do what they want with their body does not mean they can do as they please with whom they please. Just as the right to free speech is not licence. If a woman had complete bodily choice rights then she could run naked through public places, force herself on minors, be a suicidal terrorist that tries to blow themselves up. The appeal to rights whether it's coming from a polarized pro-choice view or a polarized pro-life view are not strong arguments. You can see how week these arguments are when you break them down into standard form such as:

Example 1:

Premise 1 "It is my right to do what I like with my body."

Premise 2 "Abortion is to do with me doing something with my body."

Conclusion "Therefore, I say abortion all the way."

What this argument fails to consider as well as being a mere appeal to human rights (a conflation of human rights with licence to be more precise) is that there are a multitude of different individual cases and circumstances. It also ignores anything about the unborn and also implies that the one making this argument is also for infanticide because that is exactly what it is after the point of complete viability. If a violent man kicks a pregnant woman a short while before birth and kills the baby they would be charged with infanticide. This is no different than a woman deciding to do away with the baby when it's birth is very near. I am in half agreement with the UK's legislation on abortion which is as follows:

What is the abortion law in England, Scotland and Wales?

Abortions can take place in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales. However, they have to be approved by two doctors. They must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than a termination.Abortions were illegal before the the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act, which initially allowed them to take place up to 28 weeks. This was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:the woman's life is in dangerthere is a severe fetal abnormalitythe woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injuryhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19856314

 The thing here that is questionable is whether the 24-week rule is too long. Everything else though I say is fine. And the reason why abortion becomes more complicated after a certain period is because of the consensus on when an unborn is now completely viable.                                                                                                                                                                                        

Example 2:

Premise 1 "Abortion is to do with terminating a pregnancy."

Premise 2 "Terminating pregnancy is an act of  killing the potential life of an unborn."

Conclusion "Therefore, abortion is murder all the way and needs to forbidden under any circumstances."

This is basically an argument that frames abortion as murder and fails to take into account other issues such as medical issues for example. It also fails to take into account that murder is actually classed as the intentional homicidal person. Furthermore, the idea that something has the potential to life also isn't a very strong point since every cell in the human body has the potential for life.

Both arguments on either side are weak.

ZeusAres42

Happy_Killbot said:

@ZeusAres42 There actually is another technological development that could potentially eliminate this as a problem I didn't include in that original post because it is not something that will be developed for another few decades, unlike male birth control which could have been developed since Roe v. Wade should the right funding have been made available, and could still feasibly be developed inside of a typical term or two for any politicians crazy enough to capitalize on actual solutions.

This technology would be the artificial womb. This technology is already being developed to help premature births, and human testing should begin in less than 5 years. Eventually it may be possible for a fetus to be grow either completely independently of the mother or for early term abortions to still develop into a child.

The availability of this type of technology would just totally eviscerates the abortion debate, I predict that about mid way through the century that we will look back on all this as a bunch of primitive nonsense, the same way that being unable to speak or move would have made you useless in the past, but in modern times technology can allow you to be a top physicist.

@Happy_Killbot ; you are the only one in this thread so far that has been able to talk of a solution where both sides of the abortion debate come out winning. That was pretty much the whole point of this debate and you nailed it.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Yes , the argument always comes down to this and normally I say “ A women has a moral right to decide what to do with her body when it comes to abortion” I get your broader points so if I word my argument like this would you have an objection to such?

If so then you’re granting the unborn an implied right which trumps any right the woman may have 

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

Yes , the argument always comes down to this and normally I say “ A women has a moral right to decide what to do with her body when it comes to abortion” I get your broader points so if I word my argument like this would you have an objection to such?

If so then you’re granting the unborn an implied right which trumps any right the woman may have 

@Dee Sorry but I don't really understand this question you're asking me. Perhaps you could rephrase differently? I just don't want to assume anything then base my reply on a mere assumption.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Apologies let me clarify......

I think it unjust to grant a fetus a “right” to life yet deny a woman a right to abort , if a woman does not want to give birth what society is saying is that she must be made do so against her will thus granting the unborn a “right” while denying the born a right to choice 

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

Apologies let me clarify......

I think it unjust to grant a fetus a “right” to life yet deny a woman a right to abort , if a woman does not want to give birth what society is saying is that she must be made do so against her will thus granting the unborn a “right” while denying the born a right to choice 

@Dee my assertion was not that woman should be denied rights and fetuses granted rights. What I stated was this:

"rights, are not the same thing as licence. The right for a woman to do what they want with their body does not mean they can do as they please with whom they please. Just as the right to free speech is not licence. If a woman had complete bodily choice rights then she could run naked through public places, force herself on minors, be a suicidal terrorist that tries to blow themselves up, and more. The appeal to rights whether it's coming from a polarized pro-choice view or a polarized pro-life view are not strong arguments."

When the unborn reaches the stage of viability it is now known as a fully developed baby completely viable of personhood. At this point, the rights are and should be the same as they are for any other living human person.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

***** When the unborn reaches the stage of viability it is now known as a fully developed baby completely viable of personhood. At this point, the rights are and should be the same as they are for any other living human person. 

Yes I know what you stated that’s why I re-worded .  That’s 24 - 28 weeks personally I’ve no problem with that but it’s not my choice to make , so you’re ok prior to that then , so am I 

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

***** When the unborn reaches the stage of viability it is now known as a fully developed baby completely viable of personhood. At this point, the rights are and should be the same as they are for any other living human person. 

Yes I know what you stated that’s why I re-worded .  That’s 24 - 28 weeks personally I’ve no problem with that but it’s not my choice to make , so you’re ok prior to that then , so am I 

I am not sure I am comfortable with this number. But the point I am making is that the argument to human rights breaks down at the point of human and personhood viability.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

**** I am not sure I am comfortable with this number.

Sure , I’m fine with it 

 ****But the point I am making is that the argument to human rights breaks down at the point of human and personhood viability. 

For me no it doesn’t because my point still stands as in why is it fine to grant the unborn life against the the woman’s wishes?

This is forced birth no matter what spin is put on it

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

**** I am not sure I am comfortable with this number.

Sure , I’m fine with it 

 ****But the point I am making is that the argument to human rights breaks down at the point of human and personhood viability. 

For me no it doesn’t because my point still stands as in why is it fine to grant the unborn life against the the woman’s wishes?

This is forced birth no matter what spin is put on it

By the same token, I could ask you why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live and grant the rights of another person just because it's their wishes?

piloteer

Happy_Killbot said:

I can argue both sides of this debate, and that's why I disagree with both of them.

Morality:

• pro-life: "killing babies is murder"
• pro-choice: "forcing a woman to do something with her body is rape"

score 0-0

Values:

• pro-life: "We value the life of everyone and that includes potential life"
• pro-choice: "We value individual freedom and that includes the right to do what one wants with their body"

score: 0-0

Science:

• pro-life: "It is proven that a fetus has different DNA and is a different person"
• pro-choice: "A fetus can not feel any pain and has no developed brain, therefore it is just a mass of cells"

score: 0-0

Society & ethics:

• pro-life: "if we allow abortion, then how will we sustain a population?"
• pro-choice: "we need to allow abortion, or else population will get out of control"

score: 0-0

Future generations:

• pro-life: "No one wants to grow up knowing they could have been aborted"
• pro-choice: "Any fetus that is aborted will not have to grow up a burden to the mother and society"

score: 0-0

What is thought about the other side:

• pro-life: "They just want an excuse to not take responsibility"
• pro-choice: "They just want to force us to make babies as a form of subjugation of women"

score: 0-0

The absurdity of if they get their way:

• pro-life: If assumed right, then it implies that everyday you kill yourself and others millions of times by inhaling cells and via your own immune system.
• pro-choice: If assumed right, it implies that anyone who is dependent on another is completely at their mercy should they choose not to deal with them.

score: (-100) - (-100)

The way I see it, Both sides of this debate are completely ridiculous and unjustified. We can solve the abortion problem, and I mean problem not "issue" because I don't see it as some simple matter of making a decision one way or the other, but rather as problem to be solved, like math. To come to possible solutions, we must study the issue from first principals, which is most intuitive if we work backwards from the problem by asking simple questions about it.

Why do women want abortions?
Because they are pregnant and do not want to be, either for financial, or personal reasons.

How did they get pregnant?
There are many possible ways for this to occur, but the most common is because they had sex.

Does having sex or any of the other possibilities always lead to pregnancy?
No, there are many barriers to getting pregnant, in particular contraceptive birth control and impotency can lead to a decreased or inability for pregnancy to occur.

What can be done to minimize the potential for sex to lead to pregnancy?
Use of contraceptive drugs for females, use of condoms, vasectomy. Use of any one is considered effective, but use of multiple types compounds effect.

What methods do not exist that could further minimize the potential for sex to lead to pregnancy?
Development of male equivalent birth control, mandatory mass sterilization, genetic gene blockers.

Which if any of these methods would be considered practical and acceptable for possible development and implementation?
Male equivalent birth control

There is the answer to abortion, male equivalent birth control. Technological development is the way forward.

What if a woman wants to have a baby but finds out that her or her babies life is in danger if she proceeds with the birth. I don't think I'm going to far out on a limb by assuming your not a woman and you have no real empathy for woman's feelings or values. I'd say that I fail to see how any of those pro-choice arguments didn't score a point on your predetermined score board, but since it's your predetermined score board, it's obvious why. Of you really can argue either way, go ahead and make your best pro-life argument and see if it works against me.

RickeyD

@piloteer ; Pro-life argument: Life begins at conception; therefore, destroying that life through abortion, assault, murder of the mother, is murder/infanticide and in the United States it's a violation of the 5th and 14th-Amendment due process protections guaranteeing the child the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Roe v. Wade (1973) has never been Constitutional.

Life begins at Conception: HHS

In fact, science now confirms that "life" begins at conception: https://www.liveaction.org/news/new-hhs-strategic-plan-protects-american-lives-beginning-conception/

Life begins at Fertilization

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/25/science-life-begins-makes-pro-choicers-look-terrible/

Pediatricians agree: Life begins at conception:

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

Princeton agrees, life begins at conception: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

US Government Now Says: Life begins at conception

https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/yw397w/government-hhs-now-says-life-begins-at-conception

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer

Obviously if the woman's life is in danger the abortion should be allowed...

I'm not saying it shouldn't be.

Here is something to consider, suppose artificial womb technology can be created that can save the baby's life, even from the early stage of pregnancy. Something like this will not be available for several decades, but in principal it is possible and basic models have been created that successfully worked on premature animals, so this will probably be possible in the future.

If such technology is readily available and not extremely expensive, is there a single reason that the baby should not be allowed to be developed and then placed into the care of the parents, provided the fetus will not be a burden to the parents's body?

That is my best pro-life argument, although my official stance is neither pro-life nor pro-choice, it is pro-freedom. Technology will set us free from our biology.

piloteer

Happy_Killbot said:

@piloteer

Obviously if the woman's life is in danger the abortion should be allowed...

I'm not saying it shouldn't be.

Here is something to consider, suppose artificial womb technology can be created that can save the baby's life, even from the early stage of pregnancy. Something like this will not be available for several decades, but in principal it is possible and basic models have been created that successfully worked on premature animals, so this will probably be possible in the future.

If such technology is readily available and not extremely expensive, is there a single reason that the baby should not be allowed to be developed and then placed into the care of the parents, provided the fetus will not be a burden to the parents's body?

That is my best pro-life argument, although my official stance is neither pro-life nor pro-choice, it is pro-freedom. Technology will set us free from our biology.

OK, what do we until this technology is available?!?!? Do we just ignore it and wait around while people are still arguing over abortion? I think taking a stance now is what is needed until that time (If that time ever comes). 

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer
This day will come. Until then, there can not be a "right" answer, only damage control. There is no good answer to abortion issues, both positions are completely unthinkable. How they are handled, although of great consequence to individuals and society, it is ultimately of little value to give a benefit to either side.

Suppose we handled abortion rights via a simple coin flip: A request is submitted to a judge who then flips a coin. If heads, the request is approved and the woman has the option to abort the baby. If tails, the request is denied and the pregnancy must be brought to term.

Would this method be any better than our current system, where some places allow abortion and others do not?

I think the answer is no.

The key take away is that it really doesn't matter how it is handled because no matter what, someone has to lose, technology which separates sex from pregnancy is the only solution, and some options such as male-equivalent birth control could feasibly have been developed since Roe v. Wade with the proper funding.

The thing is, by taking a stance we subvert the need for these technologies to be developed, which is part of the reason why no serious effort has been made to develop these technologies. If one, even just one, politician took this stance I grantee that the abortion debate would be permanently changed. If this politician took action to enable the development of these technologies, the debate would collapses. If these technologies came into existence, the debate would be forgot to history, placed on the shelf where it belongs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt7twXzNEsQ

piloteer

@RickeyD

When life begins is of no value when put against the concept of personhood, and autonomy of a woman's right to make choices regarding her own body. If it needs to use the woman's body to survive and cannot survive without the woman's body, it is no more a person than a cancerous growth or a strand of hair. The woman has a right to not be a host to growths on or within her body and that is backed up by the 14th amendment which guarantees that federal rights shall be applied equally to all persons BORN in the United States. That also gives the right to the doctrine of substantive due process which guarantees our right to bodily integrity which is the amendment that the decision of roe vs wade was based on. Abortion is not against the law according to the constitution, and your mythological book is of no value in the face of the doctrine of the constitution.  

piloteer

Happy_Killbot said:

@piloteer
This day will come. Until then, there can not be a "right" answer, only damage control. There is no good answer to abortion issues, both positions are completely unthinkable. How they are handled, although of great consequence to individuals and society, it is ultimately of little value to give a benefit to either side.

Suppose we handled abortion rights via a simple coin flip: A request is submitted to a judge who then flips a coin. If heads, the request is approved and the woman has the option to abort the baby. If tails, the request is denied and the pregnancy must be brought to term.

Would this method be any better than our current system, where some places allow abortion and others do not?

I think the answer is no.

The key take away is that it really doesn't matter how it is handled because no matter what, someone has to lose, technology which separates sex from pregnancy is the only solution, and some options such as male-equivalent birth control could feasibly have been developed since Roe v. Wade with the proper funding.

The thing is, by taking a stance we subvert the need for these technologies to be developed, which is part of the reason why no serious effort has been made to develop these technologies. If one, even just one, politician took this stance I grantee that the abortion debate would be permanently changed. If this politician took action to enable the development of these technologies, the debate would collapses. If these technologies came into existence, the debate would be forgot to history, placed on the shelf where it belongs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt7twXzNEsQ

Under the doctrine of Roe vs Wade, no state can pass a law that outlaws abortion. They can defund planned parenthood, but that just creates circumstances where a woman's life is put in danger because she may need to find other means of having an abortion.

We most certainly do not subvert any need for these supposed technologies to arise, we actually exacerbate the need. The reason these technologies haven't been pursued is because not a lot of people are even talking about any such technologies, and I commend you for that, but until then, this issue will be addressed regardless of when this technology will be available, and I choose to take a stance. I also do not believe that all pro-life supporters would be willing to embrace the idea of a synthetic uterus that grows unborn babies in it, but I don't think your idea is terribly bad.

I agree that the debate over abortion can cause political, social, and cultural problems, but I don't see the problem with that. Standing up for what you believe in is not a bad thing, even if it sometimes causes problems. Although I commend you again for trying to take a unique stance, I will point out that it's a tad counterintuitive because it borders on disengagement rather than action. But if that's your stance, who am I to call you wrong for having that unique stance. All I can do is try and counter the parts of your stance that I don't agree with. Just some food for thought, if we look at this discussion that is being held on DI right now, we find people who disagree with each other, but nobody is threatening anybody or seems to wish any bad will on anybody for disagreeing. I find RickeyD to be excruciatingly annoying, but I don't actually wish any bad will on him for disagreeing. Just because this discussion may be a little passionate, it doesn't mean it's destructive or dangerous. Discussions can still be had, and we're doing it right now.                

RickeyD

@piloteer

1) When a woman becomes pregnant there is no bodily autonomy for two-lives are in play. Life = Person-hood, prove me wrong.

Article in Harvard Law Journal concludes: The preborn child is a constitutional person.”

https://www.liveaction.org/news/landmark-harvard-essay-preborn-child-constitutional-person/?utm_content=80273458&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

When Does a Human Person Begin?

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1305-when-does-a-human-person-begin

2) If a man or woman is incapacitated during surgery or as the result of an accident or other trauma and life-support is necessitated, does the individual lose their person-hood and become a non-entity? Is it permissible to deny this individual the right to life void due process? If not, why can you advocate for the murder of the preborn child seeing that the only obstacle-variable to viability is "Time?"

3) You speak of the child as a "growth" or tumor in the woman's body. This is devilish and demonic talk...are you possessed or simply lack knowledge and empathy for the life of a child?

4) The Bill of Rights also apply to those not born in the United States if they are within our borders, legally or illegally.

In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. As there is no constitutional text explicitly holding unborn children to be, or not to be, "persons," this argument will be based on the "historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and the jurisprudence of [the Supreme] Court." Specifically, it is argued that the Constitution does not confer upon the federal government a specifically enumerated power to grant or deny "personhood" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the power to recognize or deny unborn children as the holders of rights and duties has been historically exercised by the states. The Roe opinion and other Supreme Court cases implicitly recognize this function of state sovereignty. The states did exercise this power and held unborn children to be persons under the property, tort, and criminal law of the several states at the time Roe was decided. As an effect of the unanimity of the states in holding unborn children to be persons under criminal, tort, and property law, the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn persons. Furthermore, to the extent Justice Blackmun examined the substantive law in these disciplines, his findings are clearly erroneous and as a whole amount to judicial error. Moreover, as a matter of procedure, according to the due process standards recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade should be held null and void as to the rights and interests of unborn persons.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281

5) The preborn child is protected by fetal homicide laws so how is this child protected by law in the womb from assault yet permitted to be mutilated at the hands of an abortionist? You and the law, Roe v. Wade (1973), must be hypocrites?

Fetal Homicide Laws

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

6) Abortion, the murder of a preborn baby IS a violation of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 5th and 14th Amendment "due process" protections. Any man or woman that participates in or advocates for the murder of babies in the womb is demonic or mentally ill.

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer
Just to clarify, what I mean when I say that we subvert the need for these technologies to be developed by taking a hard stance on abortion ties heavily into the fact that no one is talking about it.

The long of the short is that once you have in your head the idea that either you can either be pro-life or pro-choice, you shut off the ability to develop new solutions and find common ground. On issues like abortion where there is not an obvious compromise, this is especially difficult.

Furthermore, once you take a hard stance on abortion the problem is "solved" so what is the need for this technology? Why would someone worry about trying to get their hands on a non-existent drug when the option for abortion exists, Vs. why would someone worry about trying to have sex when there is no option for abortion?

There are so many things that people do, even on a day to day basis that are fundamentally based on work-around fixes that do not solve the base problem.

For example, I knew someone in High school who never brushed their teeth, specifically because they decided a dentist would just take care of everything. Although I have never known anyone with a similar view on abortion, I think the parallels are clear.

There are those who would oppose such policies, particularly anarcho-primitivists, but very few people actually take them seriously. Some far right conservatives might find such technologies unnatural and wrong, and some might opt out of their use for religious reasons, but these decisions would ultimately be in the hands of individuals, and just having the option to not get pregnant or get anyone pregnant will minimize the abortion problem.

MayCaesar

I will also add that this debate is practically almost inconsequential, since abortion rights in one country do not have any significant impact on its residents' lives. Wherever you live, there is a country close by which allows abortions. For example, if you live in the US and abortions in the US are outlawed, then all you need is to take a flight to Canada, have the operation performed there, and then fly back. In Canada abortions are legal at any stage or pregnancy, so you have a choice throughout the whole thing.

You may be in trouble if you live in an extremely poor country which does not allow abortions and cannot afford to fly over to a different one and pay for the operation there, but if you do live in such a country in the first place, then you should get out of there as soon as possible anyway.

In any case, let authoritarians feel good about themselves and do your own thing. They can believe all they want that your body is their property, but you do not have to play along.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

***** By the same token, I could ask you why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live and grant the rights of another person just because it's their wishes? 

You agreed you’re ok with abortion up to a point right?  What you’re arguing now is that a woman should be made by government give birth against her wishes because a fetus now has become “viable, this is governmental tyranny,  the woman in question does not want to give birth no matter what emotional spin or terminology one puts on it , but the answer is she must to satisfy a societal viewpoint that attempts to deny her bodily autonomy in this case 

 A fetus is in a woman’s body by permission it has no “right “ to be there , this permission may be withdrawn at her will. If abortion rights are denied a womans health is further put in danger by using illegal abortionists banning abortion only creates more problems.

The anti mob use terms like baby , child , person all the time yet when I ask if in fact abortion is child murder why are women not given life terms in prison for the crime of infanticide they cannot give a reasonable answer to this?

Abortion is legal in a fair amount of countries the reason  being the arguments for allowing it have been persuasive enough to change old antiquated laws and at last listen to women who had perfectly reasonable reasons to seek such change

ZeusAres42

Soe said:

@ZeusAres42

***** By the same token, I could ask you why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live and grant the rights of another person just because it's their wishes? 

You agreed you’re ok with abortion up to a point right?  What you’re arguing now is that a woman should be made by government give birth against her wishes because a fetus now has become “viable, this is governmental tyranny,  the woman in question does not want to give birth no matter what emotional spin or terminology one puts on it , but the answer is she must to satisfy a societal viewpoint that attempts to deny her bodily autonomy in this case 

 A fetus is in a woman’s body by permission it has no “right “ to be there , this permission may be withdrawn at her will. If abortion rights are denied a womans health is further put in danger by using illegal abortionists banning abortion only creates more problems.

The anti mob use terms like baby , child , person all the time yet when I ask if in fact abortion is child murder why are women not given life terms in prison for the crime of infanticide they cannot give a reasonable answer to this?

Abortion is legal in a fair amount of countries the reason  being the arguments for allowing it have been persuasive enough to change old antiquated laws and at last listen to women who had perfectly reasonable reasons to seek such change

I never said that and that is not what I am arguing with. If you're going to make a counter argument please make one against what I actually said rather than making one against something I never even presented in the first place. Your counter argument doesn't say anything about what I actually said or even implied.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

**** I never said that and that is not what I am arguing with.

But you said .... I am not sure I am comfortable with this number. But the point I am making is that the argument to human rights breaks down at the point of human and personhood viability. 

So what do you mean “ I’m not comfortable with that number “ if you’re totally against abortion that’s fine but that statement is unclear

 ***I never said that a fetus is a baby. 

You actually said .

****why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live ***

So ok forget baby and use the term “human being “


****If you're going to make a counter argument please make one against what I actually said rather than making one against something I never even presented in the first place. Your counter argument doesn't say anything about what I actually said or even implied.

I thought I had made one if you think not that’s fine ,I’ve just stated exactly what you said right so what’s the problem?

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

All cases of pregnancy abortion are murder this is due to the united state created by the wording not the woman. Pro-life and Pro-choice only go on the further self-incriminate the idea the description of murder pregnancy abortion makes. Woman and politics had done nothing to resolve this legal precedent identified by court rulings made in supreme court, instead deals over payments had been made on the idea of public safety.

Woman in general have addressed this issue as a combat situation freely engaging the world in a civil war of what was to be women’s rights to openly make claims to kill that do not hold a unite state with all woman who would need this emergency medical treatment. In the process a basic principle had been overlook in the relief of command holding abortion criminal. All woman are created equal by their creator, ignoring this truth a goal of undermining a united state of constitution and the principles that bound a nation had been maliciously attack for no other purpose the to demonstrate an authority.

Balance, no there is no balance here. Stop the malpractice of law, stop the malpractice of Medicine, stop the malpractice of United state. Hold woman accountable in the burden of creating themselves as all equal before United States Constitution. The attempt to medical privacy had been violated and exploited over an idea of serving the political woman, themselves. Any equality with men though based on discrimination being true, had been an attempt to obstruct and ignore a legal precedent that had never been properly represented in court of law.

John_C_87

@RickeyD ;

The reason the casualties hold only monitory value scientifically is the one fact next of kin need not had been notified in this declared Civil War. In the principle of all woman being created equal even in something this ugly, woman still need to be created equal, allowing for a presumption of innocence to prevail other wise all is lost. Presadera a woman who sits before a united state in constitution on behalf of the future of all woman.  

Every woman has a pregnancy abortion as a united state not just those who undertake in greater value the principles of human reproduction. To change this in basic principle would be to dammed all woman for say yes, and to dammed all female for saying no to sexual relationships.

ZeusAres42

@piloteer What exactly is your stance and do you get my stance as well as what this topic discussion is about? My stance is that abortion is dependent on the circumstances as there are many different individual cases with multiple ethical and moral dilemmas. In some cases, abortion is necessary and justified and in other cases, it's not necessary or justified. This is also the way in which the legal system in the UK works surrounding abortion, and the UK is a country that fought hard for abortion rights for many years. The points I am making are that there are two extreme sides of this debate which are basically nothing more than a reflection of black and white thinking that fails to take into account that abortion does rest on many different kinds of individual circumstances. One the one hand you've now got some pro-choice advocates arguing for complete abortion even at the point just a few days before the birth (Also note that this isn't technically abortion at this point) of a baby just because it's what the woman wishes and it is their right to what they want with their body (they're conflating rights with license here as so many privileged people in the west tend to do these days). This polarized crowd also fails to take into account that the rights of the father and fathers are treated as second class citizens; the baby actually belongs to both the father and mother; they both made the baby; not just one of them. Now, I am not saying all the pro-choice advocates argue this; just the most extreme ones. There are indeed very reasonable pro-choice people such as the ones here in the UK that advocated for abortion rights. Here, after the viability cut off point you need a good reason for abortion other than "It's my body and I have the right to do what I like with it." And I am fine with this and so most people I know are fine with this including ones that are for abortion rights. This isn't government tyranny; it's democracy in action.

On the other extreme side of this debate, you've got some of the pro-life crowd stating that all abortion cases are acts of murder even when it's medically necessary and declare that abortion should be forbidden at all costs. This crowd as well as failing to take into account various medical complications they also fail to take into other considerations such as woman's rights, and even other things such as rape. Also, rape is not a red herring like Ben Shapiro likes to state; it's very relevant to the abortion case.

In summary, both of these extreme sided arguments of the debate are flawed, weak and are no more than dichotomous viewpoints that lead to very poor reasoning. What I have also noted is that people of either side like to make rules to rationalize their dichotomous positions which unfortunately fails since quite often the rules they make for themselves can be reduced to the consequent, which I have demonstrated with several people on either side of this debate. The only trouble is when I do that I get barraged with an endless amount of strawman arguments. And it really is futile to continue addressing arguments that don't even address you're preceeding arguments; that's not how argumentation works. Anyway, I digress.

So, that's basically my position.@piloteer ; Do you understand what I am saying or am I not doing a good job of explaining myself?

John_C_87

What exactly is your stance on abortion and do you get my stance as well as what this topic is about? My stance is that abortion is dependent on the circumstance as there is different individual cases with multiple ethical and moral dilemmas.

 (Is not technically abortion at this point) A nation that fights hard for abortion right. Yes, it is technically abortion at that point, at that point the U.K. like many nations  is fighting hard form a medical right to abort birth.

1.       Pregnancy Abortion is a self-incrimination on an individual case.

2.       A self-incrimination is a statement that places a claim of wrong upon some-one making the self-incrimination.

3.       The way we correct a wrong that places all woman in the legal state of self-incrimination is to stop woman, allowing woman to self-incriminate is the wrong.

4.       The legal state a woman shares with many nations is immigration not a right to openly state murder. A woman does not go to War with birth it is not a realistic possibility.

5.       Female specific amputation is not the state of pregnancy abortion.

piloteer

@RickeyD

If a man or a woman become incapacitated as a result of an accident, they most certainly DO lose their status as a legal autonomous human. Hence the reason it would be up to the family to decide if they should remain on life support. If it is decided that person can only be kept alive while on life support and there is nobody who can make the decision on their behalf to keep them on life support, what do you think is gonna happen?..............................They will be taken off life support and they'll die, and everyone else will move on. 

If I cut my own perfectly healthy arm off, can I be convicted of a crime? Probably not because there aren't any specific laws that make self amputation a crime because it is done to ones self by ones self. Therefore, since the fetus, and all that is within it are a part of the wwoman's body,  and she decides to kill that which is within her body, that is her own prerogative and the law cannot stop her. If I cut somebody else's perfectly healthy arm off without there consent, can I be convicted of a crime? You bet your sweet asp I can, because there are specific laws that make it illegal to amputate somebody's perfectly healthy limbs without their consent. Therefore, anybody who kills a fetus inside a woman's body without her consent is most definitely in violation of the law. Fetal Homicide laws do not put a woman in violation of the law if she decides to kill her own fetus.     

The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the liberties that are allotted by that amendment are only allotted to BORN citizens of the US. Nowhere within that amendment are there any specific laws that are allotted to unborn citizens. Abortion and infanticide were not unheard of scenarios at the time of the making of the constitution, and many cultures used those things often, so if the framers of the constitution were actually concerned with the liberties of unborn fetuses, why didn't they specifically call for their protection?..................They didn't because they were not concerned about the liberties of unborn fetuses.

Yes, I lack sympathy for unborn fetuses. Your mythological rhetoric is of no value in the face of the US constitution because the constitution does not abide by your mythology. The US constitution only appeals to the merits of individual freedom, not mythological "morality".         

  

John_C_87

@piloteer ;

Quite simply there is no equal ground created by pregnancy abortion the self-incrimination made by the words themselves is a violation to the 14th Amendment. Female specific amputation versus Pregnancy abortion. All woman are to be created equal by their creator.

ZeusAres42

@piloteer did you not get my message before?

ZeusAres42

@John_C_87

What exactly is your stance on abortion and do you get my stance as well as what this topic is about? My stance is that abortion is dependent on the circumstance as there is different individual cases with multiple ethical and moral dilemmas.

 (Is not technically abortion at this point) A nation that fights hard for abortion right. Yes, it is technically abortion at that point, at that point the U.K. like many nations  is fighting hard form a medical right to abort birth.

1.       Pregnancy Abortion is a self-incrimination on an individual case.

2.       A self-incrimination is a statement that places a claim of wrong upon some-one making the self-incrimination.

3.       The way we correct a wrong that places all woman in the legal state of self-incrimination is to stop woman, allowing woman to self-incriminate is the wrong.

4.       The legal state a woman shares with many nations is immigration not a right to openly state murder. A woman does not go to War with birth it is not a realistic possibility.

5.       Female specific amputation is not the state of pregnancy abortion.

Firstly, maybe the word "technically" is not the right word. Perhaps a more apt word would be inaccurate. The point I am making is that it's not really accurate to call the termination of a fully developed viable human being an abortion. Think of it like this: you may start a project and decide you're not happy with what you start and so you abort the operation you have stared; that is abortion. On the other hand, however, you may now have a fully developed project and the only thing left to do is to publish the project. But something in your mind ticks and you decide you no longer want to publish your project, and you throw away your project. This latter part of this analogy is the equivalent of someone wanting to no longer have their baby after the point of viability; the point being that there is now a fully developed human being capable of living just fine outside the womb as it is inside, and this also does entail that this developed human being now does have rights just as any other human being; something that the tyrannical pro-choice crowd has trouble either understanding or just refuse to accept this is the case, and thus they come up with all kinds of crazy stuff such as calling fully developed babies fetuses or parasites. It's very easy to rationalize your stance on human rights (which the tyrannical crowd also conflates rights with being the same thing as license). if you continue to frame a baby as a fetus and deny that it has rights at the point of viability, but this isn't a justifiable way to do it according to good reason; hence rationalization and makes for a very poor argument. Furthermore, if a violent man attacks a pregnant woman where there exists a viable human baby inside the womb and the baby dies that man gets charged with infanticide, and the fact that the baby is inside the womb is irrelevant.

And I also say that framing all cases of abortion as murder even just a short while after conception just because it has the potential for life is also a poor argument since every cell in the human body also has the potential for life.

And the UK and the legal system is neither pro-choice or pro-choice unlike some political and/or tyrannical countries; it's actually pro-liberal and pro-democratic, especially in regard to the abortion debate. Hence the reason for the following legislation:

What is the abortion law in England, Scotland and Wales?

Abortions can take place in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales. However, they have to be approved by two doctors. They must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than a termination.Abortions were illegal before the the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act, which initially allowed them to take place up to 28 weeks. This was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:the woman's life is in danger, there is a severe fetal abnormality, the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19856314

That is my stance on abortion. And I am not saying the UK's system is superior to other countries all over, but it certainly is in comparison to some of the authoritarian and/or severely politically divided countries. I am pro-equilibrium.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

**** I never said that and that is not what I am arguing with.

But you said .... I am not sure I am comfortable with this number. But the point I am making is that the argument to human rights breaks down at the point of human and personhood viability. 

So what do you mean “ I’m not comfortable with that number “ if you’re totally against abortion that’s fine but that statement is unclear

 ***I never said that a fetus is a baby. 

You actually said .

****why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live ***

So ok forget baby and use the term “human being “


****If you're going to make a counter argument please make one against what I actually said rather than making one against something I never even presented in the first place. Your counter argument doesn't say anything about what I actually said or even implied.

I thought I had made one if you think not that’s fine ,I’ve just stated exactly what you said right so what’s the problem?

@Dee sorry, I was responding to you in the morning that day after just waking up. And I am quite grumpy in the mornings. So, sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt. However, you did state what I said but also made an assumption about my position. And in your above response here you actually forgot to quote what you said before I asked: "****By the same token, I could also ask you why is it fine to deny the rights of a viable human being to live ***." That was a response you said previously which was: "
"why is it fine to grant the unborn life against the woman’s wishes?"

My point was to challenge your question which I just reduced to the consequent. This is not implicative of my position and nor does it mean that I think all women should be forced to give birth at all costs, at all times against their will. I do not think all women should be forced to give birth no matter what; this is actually the polarized pro-life crowd stance; not mine. I am against all women being forced to give birth against their will. But I am also against late-term termination of a fully developed viable living human being unless there is a dam good reason for it. If you want to call me something in regard to the abortion debate then call me pro-choice in the sense that I choose not to accept either of those dichotomous viewpoints. Also, just because I am uncomfortable with something is irrelevant and I also acknowledge that I cannot make an argument purely based on an uncomfortable feeling, and I have not done so yet.

Lastly, with regard to being forced against our will, that argument can only go so far. The truth is we're all legally, morally and ethically bound to some degree according to society and societal rules, whether we like it or not.

Vaulk

People in the U.S. will stand up against the killing of anything alive.  Trees, plants, bees, beetles, bats, algae...hell they'll even stand up for keeping things like oceans alive and healthy...nobody really argues against the need to keep these things alive although we might all contribute to their death but when it comes to unborn humans...seems the fact that you have to kill it escapes half of the argument.  If you have to kill it to get rid of it...then it was alive and all pro-life supporters are trying to do is fight for that life.

RickeyD

@piloteer

1) No, a person incapacitated on life-support does not lose their person-hood and the problem is exacerbated and most complicated when the incapacitated person's prognosis is one of potential recovery. Truly, the person-hood question in a comparison/contrast with the preborn child is irrelevant seeing that the probably-rate for the preborn child to attain viability is almost 100% when said child is afforded proper prenatal nurturing. You are suggesting that the child does not possess person-hood when this not only denies said child's rights in the womb concerning fetal homicide laws/penal code but commonsense and mores, norms, values, essential to a healthy, sustainable society. You are actively advocating for the mutilation of babies...this is demonic and you are compromising with the demonic and will face judgment for same.

2) If you cut your arm off...that's your business but a baby in the womb is not an appendage but a wholly unique life possessing unique DNA and person-hood...there is no comparison to a person's body part and the life of a child in the womb.

3) Again, rights belong to the born and preborn child as fetal homicide laws depend upon the due process rights of the preborn child.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");

*  Indicates states that have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization").

** Massachusetts established fetal homicide/manslaughter laws only through case law, not through legislation.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures and StateNet

Note: List may not be comprehensive, but is representative of state laws that exist. NCSL appreciates additions and corrections.

State Penalty-enhancement Laws for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

State	Summary of Statutes and Case Laws
Colorado	Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1.3-401 (13) specifies that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of committing specified offenses against a pregnant woman, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was pregnant, to a term of at least the midpoint, but not more than twice the maximum, of the presumptive range for the punishment of the offense. Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1.3-501 (6) establishes that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of assault in the third degree to a term of imprisonment of at least six months, but not longer than the maximum sentence authorized for the offense, if the victim of the assault was a pregnant woman and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant. Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1.3-1201 defines aggravating factors in the sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law defines the intentional killing of a pregnant woman with the knowledge that she was pregnant as an aggravating factor.
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-924-59a defines the crime of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, pregnant person or person with an intellectual disability in the first degree. It is a Class B felony and carries a minimum prison sentence of 5 years. This charge can be added to the charge of assault in the first degree. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-924-59c defines the crimes of assault of a pregnant woman resulting in termination of pregnancy. It is a Class A felony. A person is guilty of this crime if they commit assault of a pregnant woman and it results in the termination of pregnancy. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-924-60b defines the crime of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, pregnant person or person with an intellectual disability in the second degree. It is a Class D felony and carries a minimum prison sentence of 2 years. This charge can be added to the charge of assault or larceny in the second degree. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-924-60c defines the crime of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, pregnant person or person with an intellectual disability in the second degree with a firearm. It is a Class D felony and carries a minimum prison sentence of 3 years. This charge can be added to the charge of assault in the second degree or assault in the second degree with a firearm. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-924-61a defines the crime of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, pregnant person or person with an intellectual disability in the third degree. It is a Class A misdemeanor and carries a minimum prison sentence of 1 year. This charge can be added to the charge of assault in the third degree.
Delaware	Del. Code Ann. § 11-5-605 creates the charge of abuse of a pregnant women in the second degree. Abuse of a pregnant woman in the second degree is a class C felony. The charge is applied when anyone causes the unintentional termination of a pregnancy while committing or attempting to commit a third degree assault or any violent felony. Prosecution under this section does not preclude prosecution under any other section of the Delaware Code. Abuse of a pregnant female in the second degree is a class C felony. Del. Code Ann. § 11-5-606 creates the charge of abuse of a pregnant women in the first degree. Abuse of a pregnant woman in the first degree is a class B felony. The charge is applied when anyone causes the intentional termination of a pregnancy while committing or attempting to commit a third degree assault or any violent felony.  Prosecution under this section does not preclude prosecution under any other section of the Delaware Code. Abuse of a pregnant female in the first degree is a class B felony.
Iowa	Iowa Code §707.8 provides penalties for the nonconsensual termination or serious injury to a human pregnancy. Specifically, the law defines penalties for a person who terminates a human pregnancy without the consent of the pregnant person under specified circumstances. The law also defines serious injury to a human pregnancy and provides for penalties to a person who causes serious injury to a human pregnancy under specified circumstances.
Maine	Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 208-C provides that a person is guilty of elevated aggravated assault on a pregnant person if that person intentionally or knowingly causes serious bodily injury to a person they know or has reason to know is pregnant. "Serious bodily injury" is defined to include bodily injury that results in the termination of a pregnancy. These provisions do not apply to an abortion for which the pregnant woman has consented, or to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or the fetus. (2005 Me. Laws, Chap. 408, LD 262)
New Mexico	NM Stat. Ann. § 30-3-7 states that injury to a pregnant woman consists of a person other than the woman injuring a pregnant woman in the commission of a felony causing her to suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth as a result of that injury.
Oregon	Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.155 provides that when a defendant, who was at least 15 years of age at the time of committing the murder, is convicted of murdering a pregnant victim and the defendant knew that the victim was pregnant, the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole or to life imprisonment. Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.160 Assault in the fourth degree goes from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony if the person commits the assault knowing the victim is pregnant. Or. Rev Stat. § 163.185 Assault in the second degree becomes assault in the first degree if the person commits the assault knowing the victim is pregnant.
Wyoming	Wy. Stat. § 6-2-502 provides that a person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if they knowingly or recklessly cause bodily harm to a woman whom they know is pregnant.

Alabama*	Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
Alaska*	Alaska. Stat. § 11.41.150 et seq., Alaska Stat. § 11.81.250, Alaska Stat. § 12.55.035, and Alaska Stat. § 12.55.125 (2005) relate to offenses against unborn children.  The law provides that a defendant convicted of murder in the second degree or murder of an unborn child shall be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of at least 10 years but no more than 99 years. The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf consented, or for which such consent is implied by law. Alaska Stat. 11.81.900(b)(64) defines an unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development.
Arizona*	Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1102, § 13-1103, § 13-1104 and § 13-1105 define negligent homicide, manslaughter and first and second degree murder.  The law specifies that the offenses apply to an unborn child at any stage in its development. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann § 13-701, § 13-704, § 13-705 and § 13-751 define aggravated circumstances in the sentence of death or life imprisonment.  The law specifies that the defendant shall not be released until the completion of 35 years if the murdered person was under 15 years of age or was an unborn child.  The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.
Arkansas*	Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child at any stage of development. The law specifies that these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented, an act committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during testing or treatment, or an act committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105 define capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
California	Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.
Florida*	Fla. Stat. Ann. §775.021(5) states that anyone who commits a criminal offense and, in the process, causes bodily injury to or the death of an unborn child commits a separate offense if the provision or statute does not otherwise specifically provide a separate offense for such death or injury to an unborn child. At the end of the subsection, the state defines unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
Georgia*	Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 defines feticide.  A person commits the offense of feticide if he or she willfully kills an unborn child so far developed as to be ordinarily called "quick" by causing any injury to the mother of such child.  The penalty for feticide is imprisonment for life. Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-393.1 defines vehicular feticide and provides for penalties.    Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.  The law defines feticide by watercraft in the first and second degrees and provides for penalties.
Idaho*	Idaho Code § 18-4001, § 18-4006 and § 18-4016 (2002) declare that murder includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law defines "embryo" or "fetus" as any human in utero. These laws do not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law, or to any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her embryo or fetus.
Illinois*	Illinois Compiled Statute ch. 740 180/2 (2016) extends the statute of limitations for individuals who allegedly committed the intentional homicide of an unborn child, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child and involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide of an unborn child.  Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/9-1.2, § 5/9-2.1 and § 5/9-3.2 define intentional homicide of an unborn child, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide of an unborn child, respectively.  The laws define "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. The laws also specify that these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment. (2000 Ill. Laws, P.A. 91-404; 2010 Ill. Laws, P.A. 96-1000) Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1, § 5/12-3.2 (2004) and § 5/12-4.4 define battery and aggravated battery of an unborn child. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 730 § 5/3-6-3 directs the Department of Corrections to prescribe rules and regulations for awarding and revoking sentence credit and specify that a prisoner serving a sentence for attempt to commit the intentional homicide of an unborn child shall receive no more than 4.5 days of sentence credit for each month of his or her sentence. 2010 Ill. Laws, P.A. 1294 amended the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 730 § 154/1 et seq.) to include aggravated battery of an unborn child as a "violent offense against youth." (2010 SB 3305; 2011 HB 263)
Indiana*	Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 203 states that killing a fetus at any stage of development is murder unless the woman terminates her own pregnancy or obtains an abortion. Applicable to Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4, 35-42-1-6
Kansas*	Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5419 "Alexa's Law" defines "unborn child" as a living individual organism of the species Homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.  The law specifies that "person" and "human being" shall also mean an unborn child as used in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5401 through § 21-5406 and § 21-5413 which define murder in the first and second degrees, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, battery, aggravated battery, capital murder and involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (2010 HB 2668)
Kentucky*	Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.3401 (2015) Requires offenders convicted of homicide or fetal homicide to serve at least 50 percent of their sentence before becoming eligible for any type of early release, in cases where the victim died as the result of an overdose of a controlled substance.  Ky. Rev. Stat. § 507A.010 et seq. (2004) define "unborn child" as a member of the species Homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health or condition of dependency. The laws define fetal homicide in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. These laws do not apply to acts performed during any abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the consent is implied by law in a medical emergency. (2004 HB 108)
Louisiana*	La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:32.5 defines feticide as the killing of an unborn child by the act, procurement, or culpable omission of a person other than the mother of the unborn child.  The offense of feticide shall not include acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman or her legal guardian has consented or which was performed in an emergency.  Nor shall the offense of feticide include acts which are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:32.6 (2006) defines first degree feticide as the killing of an unborn child when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm, and includes the killing of an unborn child when the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated escape, armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, terrorism, or simple robbery, even though he has no intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:32.7 (1989) defines second degree feticide as the killing of an unborn child which would be first degree feticide, but the offense is committed in sudden passion or heat of blood immediately caused by provocation of the mother of the unborn child sufficient to deprive an average person of his self control and cool reflection; and is defined as feticide committed without any intent to cause death or great bodily harm. La. Rev. Stat.  Ann. § 14:2 (7), (11) defines "person" as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.  "Unborn child" means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:32.8 (2006, 2008) defines third degree feticide as the killing of an unborn child by criminal negligence; and is defined as the killing of an unborn child caused proximately or caused directly by an offender engaged in the operation of, or in actual physical control of, any motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other means of conveyance whether or not the offender had the intent to cause death or great bodily harm whenever specified conditions occur and such conditions were a contributing factor to the killing. (2008 SB 382) La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32.414(B)(1) was amended by 2010 La. Acts, P.A. 403 to allow the suspension of a driver's license for 24 months of any person who is convicted of committing third degree feticide as defined in § 14:32.8. (2010 HB 1231)
Maryland	Md. Criminal Law Code Ann. § 2-103 establishes that a prosecution may be instituted for murder or manslaughter of a viable fetus as defined in Md. Health-General Code Ann. § 20-209. A person prosecuted for murder or manslaughter must have intended to cause the death of the viable fetus; intended to cause serious physical injury to the viable fetus; or wantonly or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person’s actions would cause the death of or serious physical injury to the viable fetus. (2005 Md. Laws, Chap. 546)
Massachusetts **	Commonwealth vs. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1973) affirms the conviction for murder of a woman and involuntary manslaughter of her 27-week-old fetus. Commonwealth vs. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984) rules that a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term "person" in the vehicular homicide statute.  The case refers to Mass. Gen Law, ch. 90 § 24G, which defines vehicular homicide.
Michigan*	Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.322 defines the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of the child as manslaughter. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.323 declares that any person who administers medicines, drugs or substances to any woman pregnant with a quick child or uses an instrument or other means to destroy the child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of the mother, is guilty of manslaughter. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.90a et seq. define penalties and punishments if any of the crimes defined by § 750.81 et seq. (including assault and battery; felonious assault; torture; and assault with intent to murder, do great bodily harm, maim, or rob and steal), are committed against a pregnant woman and were intended to cause or result in a miscarriage or stillbirth or death to the embryo or fetus, great bodily harm to the embryo or fetus, serious or aggravated physical injury to the embryo or fetus, or physical injury to the embryo or fetus.
Minnesota*	Minn. Stat. § 609.205 and § 609.266 et seq. define unborn child and provide penalties for an assault to a pregnant woman and subsequent harm to an unborn child.  The law also defines an assault of an unborn child and provides penalties.  The law defines murder of an unborn child in the first, second and third degrees and provides penalties.    Minn. Stat. §609.21 declares that a person is guilty of criminal vehicular operation if an unborn child is killed in the act.  The law also states that as punishment, this person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both. (2004 Minn. Laws, Chap. 283; SB 58)
Mississippi*	Miss. Code Ann. § 11.7.13 describes circumstances when a person may be entitled to bring a wrongful death action, and includes circumstances related to the death of an unborn quick child.  The law excludes acts committed by the mother, a medical procedure performed by a medical professional or lawfully prescribed medication. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19 defines murder to include murder that is done with deliberate design to effect the death of an unborn child. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-37 provides a list of the criminal offenses, including murder, homicide and assault, in which the definition of “human being” includes an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception to live birth. 2011 Miss. Laws, Chap. 307 amended the law by changing the punishments for the defined offenses.
Missouri*	In 1986, Missouri enacted HB 1596, adding a new provision to §1.205.2 to the basic definitions section of the Missouri code. It states in part: “The life of each human being begins at conception . . . Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), declined to invalidate this law, holding that it was up to the Missouri courts to determine its application outside of the scope of the abortion-related rights that had been established in past U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Subsequently, in 1995, the Missouri Supreme Court held that §1.205.2 incorporates the “intention of the general assembly that courts should read all Missouri statutes in pari materia [on the same subject] with this section,” and construed the state’s wrongful death law to be covered by it (Connor v. Monkem Co., Inc., 898 S.W.2d 89).
Montana	Montana Code Ann. § 45-5-102 states that a person who “purposely or knowingly causes the death of a fetus of another with knowledge that the woman is pregnant” commits, depending on the circumstances, “deliberate homicide” or “mitigated deliberate homicide” (§ 45-5-103). Montana Code Ann. § 45-5-116 defines "harm to the fetus of another" and puts forth exemptions for this crime that include groups such as a woman with respect to her fetus, a provider performing an abortion and a provider performing other authorized medical procedures.
Nebraska*	Nebraska Revised Statute 28- 393-397 (2015) Reclassifies manslaughter of an unborn child and first degree assault of an unborn child from a class III felony to a class IIA felony.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-388 et seq. create the Homicide of the Unborn Child Act.  The law defines premeditation and unborn child. The law defines murder of an unborn child in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide. The law was amended in 2003 to change provisions relating to driving under the influence and amends provisions regarding motor vehicle homicide.  Provides a penalty for motor vehicle homicide of an unborn child and recognizes an action for an unborn child in wrongful death cases. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-394, which defines motor vehicle homicide of an unborn child, was amended in 2011 by LB 667 to specify that motor vehicle homicide of an unborn child shall be treated as a separate and distinct offense. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-395 et seq. create the Assault of the Unborn Child Act. The law defines assault of the unborn child in the first, second and third degree. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,198 states that any person who causes serious bodily injury to another person or an unborn child of a pregnant woman while operating a motor vehicle is guilty of a class IIIA felony and defines penalties.
Nevada	Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 defines manslaughter as a person who willfully kills an unborn quick child by any injury committed upon the mother of the child.
New Hampshire	Senate Bill 66 (signed on June 30, 2017, and effective January 1, 2018), states that a “fetus” may be a victim of the already-existing crimes of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and causing or aiding suicide (but not capital murder, i.e., a homicide offense subject to the death penalty), if the “fetus” victim has reached “the end of the twentieth week after conception or, in the case of in vitro fertilization, the end of the twentieth week after implantation, until birth.” This does not apply to “any act committed by the pregnant woman” or “at the request or direction of the pregnant woman or for the benefit of the pregnant woman,” nor does it apply to actions by a “medical professional in the course of . . . professional duties.” Affects New Hampshire RSA 630:1, 630:1-a, 630:1-b, 630:2, 630:3, and 630:4.
North Carolina*	2011 N.C. Sess. Laws, Chap. 60 (HB 215) defines murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, assault inflicting serious bodily injury and assault of an unborn child. "Unborn child" is defined as a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. These provisions do not apply to lawful acts that cause the death of an unborn child as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-45.1, acts that are committed in the usual standards of medical practice or acts committed by a pregnant woman that result in a miscarriage or stillbirth. The law repeals N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-18.2.
North Dakota*	N.D. Cent. Code, § 12.1-17.1-01 et seq. define abortion, person and unborn child.  The law defines the murder and manslaughter of an unborn child and provides penalties.
Ohio*	Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01 et seq. (2002) define aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, felonious assault, aggravated assault, assault and negligent assault. The law applies to a person, which includes an "unborn member of the species Homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."
Oklahoma*	Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 20 § 644 states that any person convicted of domestic abuse committed against a pregnant woman with knowledge of the pregnancy is guilty of a misdemeanor and any person convicted of domestic abuse committed against a pregnant woman with knowledge of the pregnancy and a miscarriage or injury to the unborn child occurs is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not less than 20 years. (2008 Okla. Sess. Laws, Chap 318, HB 1897) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 691 (2006) defines unborn child as a human being. Homicide does not include legal abortion or instances of death during normal medical, therapeutic or diagnostic testing. A mother shall not be prosecuted for the death of an unborn child unless the death was a result of criminal behavior. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 714 and § 652 (2005) revises civil wrongful death statutes to include the death of an unborn child; revises the provisions governing the intentional shooting with intent to kill another and any assault and battery upon another to add an unborn child; provides the penalty reference for anyone who willfully kills an unborn child; provides an exemption for a legal abortion, or the usual and customary diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 723 (2005) specifies that any offense committed pursuant to the provisions of Section 652 and 713 of Title 21, does not require proof that the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had the knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant or that the offender intended to cause the death or bodily injury to the unborn child.
Pennsylvania*	Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 106 and § 1102 et seq. define classes of offenses, including crimes against an unborn child and provide penalties. Section 1102 was amended in 2008 to provide for the sentence of the first degree murder and second degree murder of an unborn child (2008 HB 1845). Section 1102.1 was created in 2012 by Pa. Laws, Act 204 (SB 850) to provide for the sentence of a person under the age of 18 for certain offenses, including murder of an unborn child. Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 18. § 2601 et seq. define crimes against an unborn child, including criminal homicide, murder, voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated assault of an unborn child. Unborn child is defined as in § 3203, to mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5 defines "quick child." The willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of that child is deemed manslaughter.
South Carolina*	S.C. Code Ann § 16-3-1083 provides that a person who commits a violent crime that causes the death of, or injury to, a child in utero is guilty of a separate offense and that the person must be punished as if the death or injury occurred to the unborn child's mother. The law also provides that the person must be punished for murder or attempted murder if the person intentionally killed or attempted to kill the unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as a child in utero, and "child in utero" or "child who is in utero" as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any state of development, who is carried in the womb. The law does not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law, or to a person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child. State vs. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1984) reversed voluntary manslaughter conviction, holding that the killing of a viable human being in utero did not constitute a criminal homicide.  The case refers to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-10.  State vs. Ard, 505 S.E.2d328 (S.C. 1998) held, in relation to a murder conviction, that the terms "person" and "child" in S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (C)(a) included a viable fetus.
South Dakota*	S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-16-41 defines vehicular homicide, which includes the death of an unborn child.  Amended in 2003 to revise provisions concerning court suspensions and revocations of driver licenses; relates to driving while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances and causing the death of another person, including an unborn child (2006 HB 1163). S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-16-1.1 et seq. defines fetal homicide which refers to a person who knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification.  The law provides for penalties. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-16-4 defines homicide as murder in the first degree to include the death of a person or any other human being, including an unborn child. 2012 Senate Bill 148 defines the crimes of criminal battery and aggravated criminal battery of an unborn child and provides penalties.
Tennessee*	Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-107 and § 39-13-214 were amended in 2012 by Tenn. Pub. Act, Chap. 1006 (HB 3517/SB 3412) to define "another," "individuals" and "another person" to include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by the provisions of the law.
Texas*	Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties.  The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
Utah *	Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-201 et seq. declares that a person commits criminal homicide if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development. This law was amended by 2010 Utah Laws, Chap. 13 (HB 462) to specify that a person is not guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child if the sole reason for the death of the unborn child is that the person refused to consent to medical treatment or a cesarean section, or failed to follow medical advice. The amendment also states that a woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child is caused by a criminally negligent act or reckless act of the woman and is not caused by an intentional or knowing act of the woman. The amendment also clarifies that criminal homicide constitutes aggravated murder (as defined by § 76-5-202) if the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under several circumstances, including if the victim was younger than 14 years of age, but that this does not apply to an unborn child.
Virginia	Va. Code § 18.2-32.2 (2004) declares that any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills a fetus is guilty of a Class 2 felony.  The law also provides penalties. 2012 Va. Acts, Chap. 725 (SB 674) provides that in cases of fetal death (as defined by § 32.1-249) caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default of any person, ship, vessel or corporation, the natural mother of the fetus may bring an action against such tortfeasor.  No cause of action for the death of the fetus may be brought against the mother of the fetus.
Washington	Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060 declares that a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when he or she intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.
West Virginia *	W. Va. Code § 61-2-30 recognizes an embryo or fetus as a distinct unborn victim of certain crimes of violence against a person, including homicide and manslaughter.
Wisconsin*	Wis. Stat. § 940.04 (2) et seq. declare that any person who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child or causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child is guilty of homicide. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.

4) You lack sympathy for the preborn child because you're a foolish atheist and servant of Satan who is the father of murder and lies.  Your day in Judgment is coming.

piloteer

@RickeyD

Those laws in those states are unconstitutional because there is nothing at all in the constitution that extends liberties to unborn fetuses, and also because as we've discussed before, the 14th amendment gives the right to the doctrine of substantive due process which guarantees our right to bodily integrity. The government has no power to delegate the personal freedom to individuals bodies. That also means within the body, and the constitution did not give unborn citizens rights. The only document that we have to appeal to when it comes to the legal status of the unborn is the US constitution. ALL other forms of text or literature are of no value and only serve to add needless and baseless emotional argumentation.