US women are being jailed for having miscarriages

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_custom4=739F9CB8-4348-11EC-BA65-89DF4744363C&at_custom3=%40B

Interesting article with interesting consequences. Some intentional and some unintentional. Just realize this article is from the BBC so I cannot attest to the accuracy of the information provided nor the opinion thrown in as facts. So make sure you understand which is which.

This flies in the face of the pro abortion crowd due to all the case law, actual court cases and convictions which are on the side of protecting the fetus. And that a woman can go to jail for manslaughter and such for taking illicit drugs while pregnant and then having a miscarriage.

This is the future that republicans want. 

Since this forum loves slippy slopes,  imagine a future where you go to jail for choices you make or don't make about your body. 

This is the future that republicans want. 

Since this forum loves slippy slopes,  imagine a future where you go to jail for choices you make or don't make about your body. 

Yes, or lose your job, or not eat in a restaurant,   imagine that…. 🙄

Yes, or lose your job, or not eat in a restaurant,   imagine that…. 🙄

Even more to this. My body my choice proponents can go to jail for killing their fetus just because they want to get high instead of using a vacuum cleaner. The implication here is that the fetus is alive and is a human being protected by our laws from being murdered from illicit drugs. All because the “My Body My Choice” people want to legally kill their fetuses with a voluntary medical procedure they want the law to say the fetus is not alive so they can retaIn the moral high ground. But the laws in 40 states say otherwise. No matter what, pro choice people can never have the moral high ground as long as it is illegal to kill a fetus in 80% of the country. JMHO

Another thing I want to say about this is that I have been saying for a long time that anything the federal government sticks its nose into where it doesn’t belong usually creates unintended consequences. And this is one of those cases.

For many years prior to SCOTUS creating law by its decision on Rowe vs Wade, most or all of the states had or still have fetus protection laws. In other words the law defined the fetus as a living human with all the rights and laws to protect it. So doing something, anything intentional that intentionally or unintentionally kills ones fetus was/is illegal. That included abortion for the sake of birth control (except for medical reasons). So it seems that SCOTUS decided to play God and decide it was okay to kill a human being as defined by the states laws. They decided that abortion can be used as a form of post birth control (outside of medical reasons).

This brings up an interesting dichotomy. On one hand, the states define a fetus as a living human being with all the rights and laws to protect it. And then SCOTUS interferes with the states laws and states rights about abortion because this is really a state issue, not a federal government issue. They made law that stated (I am paraphrasing here) that it is okay to have an abortion in order to kill a fetus. Because besides any medical reason the decision to have an abortion is a decision to kill the fetus. Again, this is based on the prior existing laws that stated a fetus is a living human with all the rights and laws given to it. There is no way to get around that. And yet the laws that protected the fetus from being killed prior to the abortion ruling are pretty much still on the books in 40 states. Now, some states have abortion laws allowing abortion under certain circumstances. That is their right. But SCOTUS stuck its nose where it doesn’t belong into the states business and said it is okay to kill fetuses that the states say is illegal to do.

This issue of women being arrested for killing their fetuses is not new. Most of these state laws have been around since before the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS created this contradiction in the laws. I welcome another look at Rowe vs Wade to determine if the decision really accomplished what it was intended to or if it created more problems and unintended consequences than they anticipated. Maybe Rowe vs Wade needs to be changed and modified instead of reversed. I don’t know. My opinion here doesn’t matter.

Let the damage control begin. 

Even more to this. My body my choice proponents can go to jail for killing their fetus just because they want to get high instead of using a vacuum cleaner. The implication here is that the fetus is alive and is a human being protected by our laws from being murdered from illicit drugs. All because the “My Body My Choice” people want to legally kill their fetuses with a voluntary medical procedure they want the law to say the fetus is not alive so they can retaIn the moral high ground. But the laws in 40 states say otherwise. No matter what, pro choice people can never have the moral high ground as long as it is illegal to kill a fetus in 80% of the country. JMHO

Do you have any actual data behind that 80% claim? I highly doubt that. Abortion is legal. Its not alive. 

Yes, or lose your job, or not eat in a restaurant,   imagine that…. 🙄

Not getting extra privileges is far different than losing all rights and going to jail...

Another thing I want to say about this is that I have been saying for a long time that anything the federal government sticks its nose into where it doesn’t belong usually creates unintended consequences. And this is one of those cases.

For many years prior to SCOTUS creating law by its decision on Rowe vs Wade, most or all of the states had or still have fetus protection laws. In other words the law defined the fetus as a living human with all the rights and laws to protect it. So doing something, anything intentional that intentionally or unintentionally kills ones fetus was/is illegal. That included abortion for the sake of birth control (except for medical reasons). So it seems that SCOTUS decided to play God and decide it was okay to kill a human being as defined by the states laws. They decided that abortion can be used as a form of post birth control (outside of medical reasons).

This brings up an interesting dichotomy. On one hand, the states define a fetus as a living human being with all the rights and laws to protect it. And then SCOTUS interferes with the states laws and states rights about abortion because this is really a state issue, not a federal government issue. They made law that stated (I am paraphrasing here) that it is okay to have an abortion in order to kill a fetus. Because besides any medical reason the decision to have an abortion is a decision to kill the fetus. Again, this is based on the prior existing laws that stated a fetus is a living human with all the rights and laws given to it. There is no way to get around that. And yet the laws that protected the fetus from being killed prior to the abortion ruling are pretty much still on the books in 40 states. Now, some states have abortion laws allowing abortion under certain circumstances. That is their right. But SCOTUS stuck its nose where it doesn’t belong into the states business and said it is okay to kill fetuses that the states say is illegal to do.

This issue of women being arrested for killing their fetuses is not new. Most of these state laws have been around since before the SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS created this contradiction in the laws. I welcome another look at Rowe vs Wade to determine if the decision really accomplished what it was intended to or if it created more problems and unintended consequences than they anticipated. Maybe Rowe vs Wade needs to be changed and modified instead of reversed. I don’t know. My opinion here doesn’t matter.

Let the damage control begin. 

Antiquated laws are antiquated.  Doesn't make them right.  Slavery was legal in many states doesn't make it correct. 

Posted in wrong thread.

Not getting extra privileges is far different than losing all rights and going to jail...

Did you even read the article?  Eating is a privilege?  If you going to have a discussion have an argument and be informed about what you are talking about.

Don’t blather off the cuff, otherwise it seems as if you are trolling.

Did you even read the article?

This has been the story for a while now.

Enter John McClain meme "welcome to the party pal".

Damage control crashed and burned again! 

The laws in this country define us as a country. We have an issue here where the SCOTUS decided to make law (Rowe vs Wade) which is something that they are not supposed to do. Especially when this is a states issue not a federal issue. It is the states that have to determine their own abortion laws and that is something that can’t be argued. SCOTUS stuck their nose into this matter and now they have created the contradicting laws between the federal and state governments. To ignore the process and only look at the results because one approves of the results is not looking at the bigger picture and ignoring the reality of court overreach. And the illegality of that. That is the real problem here. Before SCOTUS stuck their nose in where it doesn’t belong every state handled abortion the way their citizens wanted them to. Plain and simple. To ignore the SCOTUS overreach because one approves of the result is naive and stupid. Swoosh!!!

Did you even read the article?  Eating is a privilege?  If you going to have a discussion have an argument and be informed about what you are talking about.

Don’t blather off the cuff, otherwise it seems as if you are trolling.

Buying groceries is perfectly legal and requires no vaxx or testing.  I've never had to present my vaxx card while going shopping.  Going to restaurants is a luxury not a necessity.  You can order food delivered if you are unable to cook.  If i were to guess 99% of restaurants have a take out option.  (ubereats etc method)  Eating out in public with other people is not a necessity to life.  Similar to watching movies in a movie theater etc.  If you are going to be in close contact without masks for a extended period of time its perfectly reasonable to have some safety measures.

The mandates were carefully implemented to ensure no harm to life was caused. 

I am not trolling.  And I did read the article.  This particular debate was a side offshoot from the original.