I think one of the problems with the abortion debate is that there is a huge disparity between two sides which often have extreme viewpoints. On the one hand, you've got pro-lifers framing all cases of abortion as murder. On the other hand, you've got pro-choices ranting about bodily choice rights, and some claim that women should be able to terminate a baby even at the point of complete viability. The abortion topic surrounds many legal, ethical, and moral dilemmas with lots of different individual cases and circumstances. I am doubtful that if we keep on just shouting that we are either for or against abortion then not much progress can be made as both polarized views lead to all kinds of wild accusations and errors in reasoning. What I would like with regard to the abortion debate is that an exchange of ideas with questions and answers back and forth that actually leads to both sides coming out winning. And note this debate here is not about for or against abortion but about finding some equilibrium with respect to it. I guess I could say the same about many other controversial debates but this one is about abortion.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: taking of human life void    crime of abortion   due process   compromise  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: radical posts    thanks   radicals   debate  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 43%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You see another religious preaching post. Who radicalized you @RickeyD?
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.1  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 36%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: God's words    Love   righteousness   babies  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Morality:
- pro-life: "killing babies is murder"
- pro-choice: "forcing a woman to do something with her body is rape"
score 0-0Values:
- 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: 0-0Science:
- 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: 0-0Society & 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: 0-0Future 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: 0-0What 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: 0-0The 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.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: basic human rights    such discussions.The abortion debate   foundation of human rights   developing countries  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: medical problems    birth control   mother   baby  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: medical problems    birth control   balanced view   mother  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Human rights    suicidal terrorists   case   body  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: technological development    early term abortions   actual solutions.This technology   child.The availability of this type of technology  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Human rights    case of abortions   rights of the victim triumph   unborn children  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: unwinnable argument    moral right   none of my business   woman  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: medical problems    birth control   balanced view   mother  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: technological development    early term abortions   actual solutions.This technology   bunch of primitive nonsense  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: moral right    broader points   implied right   argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
@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.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: moral right    broader points   implied right   argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Apologies    woman   birth   society  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** 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
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human person    unborn reaches   point   rights  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human person    human rights breaks   point   rights  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** 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.
This is forced birth no matter what spin is put on it
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human rights breaks    personhood viability   point   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human rights breaks    personhood viability   point   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
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  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 13  
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: artificial womb technology    basic models   woman's life   premature animals  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: artificial womb technology    basic models   such technology   premature animals  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: autonomy of a woman    doctrine of substantive due process   own body   woman's body  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
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=twitterWhen Does a Human Person Begin?
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1305-when-does-a-human-person-beginFetal 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.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: abortion rights    first place   poor country   possible anyway.In  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
***** 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
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: problems.The anti mob use terms    abortion rights   rights of another person   life terms  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: problems.The anti mob use terms    abortion rights   rights of another person   counter argument  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** I never said that and that is not what I am arguing with.
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
****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?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human rights breaks    counter argument   ok forget baby   point  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: court rulings    legal precedent   united state   supreme court  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: principle of all woman    united state   basic principle   greater value  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: self-incrimination    legal state of self-incrimination   Female specific amputation   legal state  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
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".
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: self-incrimination    Female specific amputation   pregnancy abortion   equal ground  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: message         
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
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.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
"why is it fine to grant the unborn life against the woman’s wishes?"
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: keeping things    unborn humans   half of the argument   People  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
* 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.54  
  Sources: 169  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: only document    forms of    legal status   unborn fetuses  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra