Difficult one.... if its post the accepted abortion date and a woman is actively choosing to carry the child to term then she should surely be held culpable for damaging it through wilful idiocy, since she will be expecting the state to support her stupidity. If its dead though it costs society feck all....though there is the issue of when it died and whether it counts as a seperate concious entity.

Wouldn't hold water here if she didn't know she was pregnant however. Hopefully in the US this will lead to more abortions and a drop in the birthrate in order to avoid such idiotic laws..

Homicide is a bit strong, though. That implies two things:

 - Willful desire to kill the baby

 - Proven cause and effect between the effect of the crack and the death of the baby.

The latter was not proven by the court, the former is scuppered by the fact that she went to hospital to get something done about it. She was clearly concerned and willing to do something to help. Even if you accept that the baby was alive at the point when she killed it (whereever you draw that line), you still only have accidental manslaughter or misadventure not homicide...

Personally, I think the 'line' is a bad argument to keep going. It doesn't get anywhere as no one can agree on it so the issue can never be settled. There needs to be a fresh outlook on the problem. But this is digression so I will leave it there...

This article is a prime example of the sort of legislation which is being imposed because of the Christian Theocracy that America claims to be a democracy. There are other examples - pharmacists being allowed to decide if they want to issue contraception to someone, for example. And I'll not go into the whole Creationism taught in schools nonsense as it is  not relevant to this discussion... All of the above are good arguments for why church and state should never be entwined and is what is making America into something akin to a Fundamentalist Sharia state instead of the land of the free it claims to be. A dark mirror of that which is opposes, perhaps?

Will this law (or something like it) end up here? I think it is currently unlikely. However, that does not mean never. I have been disturbed recently by various European countries having shifts in government away from a more liberal government to a Christian Right. It happened in Germany (though I don't to be honest know what government they had before so it may not have been liberal ) and has recently happened in Sweden. I don't know if this is happening or is likely to happen in other European countries but if it is it is a worrying trend. Do we really want the majority of the west ruled by people who take advice from their own interpretations of the Bible as to what laws they should pass?

Laws like that one are insane. They assume the population is stupid. They make a law about it rather than invest in nurses and counsellors to talk to people to explain to them about sensible health care during pregnancy. It also assumes that all women want to get pregnant and, in fact, that it is thier duty to get pregnant. This is despite there being a population crisis in the offing, despite extremes of poverty (the recent hurricane in New Orleans highlighted that problem in America) and despite evidence suggesting that the majority of single parent births and unwanted pregnancies happen in poor areas and despite the fact that there is a fairly large group of women who are clever enough not to get pregnant and don't actually want to get pregnant... This law effectively takes away their freedom to choose not to get pregnant.

Anyway, I will stop ranting now...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God...

Ruins of Empire

1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester

In Sound Dakota, abortion has been banned completely. This will impact the poor the most, those with money can always sneak out state for an abortion, although rumour has it there are moves afoot to prevent this.  Result - an increase in the number of unwanted babies and specifically among poor families.

In Missouri (I think it was), the state legislature voted to end the public subsidy of contraception. The implications of this are that already impoverished women will not be able to use contraception, their only option is abstention (which isnt realistic for many reasons). Ironically, the wives of the men who voted this way will not affected as they can afford to buy their own. Result? The number of poor people will increase and their conditions will deteriorate, plus the increase in the number of unwanted babies.

What are we to conclude from this?

The so-called 'elite' (and the word would choke me if I was speaking not typing) of these backwards states want to keep women, especially poor women, in their place. That place is barefoot and pregnant.

Meanwhile, the US no longer funds humanitarian programmes in Africa unless they preach abstinence as the means of preventing HIV, because condoms are apparently 'wrong'. Never mind that many African women dont have the power to abstain, some of the time their culture simply does not allow them to do so. Therefore, women in Africa can potentially be punished for being raped.

This kind of trend will only increase in the US, as religious fundamentalism increases across the US. Its not even Christianity, which is supposed to be about love and kindness and other nice things. I'd say that they should all read the Handmaid's Tale, but I can see the moron in the White House taking it as policy suggestions.

Women fought long and hard for rights to abortion and contraception, which are fundamental to equality. I suspect that this is behind these moves in the US - ultra-conservative men from traditional elite backgrounds feel threatened by the gains of women, and want to shove us back in 'our place' (see above). They think that by trying to push women's rights away, they can protect their own positions and that of their own sons.

These dinosaurs arent extinct yet, and are using their power to hang on as hard as possible.

_____________________________________________________

It is not a competition. It is a web forum.

The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God...

Ruins of Empire

1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester

Other than that I agree with Balors summation here and it does show a worrying trend.

Slightly tangental I know but in the interests of 'equality' those rights have been fought equally hard for by many men on behalf of women.

I would be interested to know why you consider abortion to be a 'right' and why it is 'fundamental to equality'. Not because I disagree with the sentiment but because I have not seen it expressed in quite that way before.

As far as I can see, because abortion affects only women it has nothing to do with equality at all. A devils advocate would point out that men have no right to demand an abortion despite the fact that (in this country) they will be held responsible for the decision not to abort.

I'm not denying that!

If women cannot control whether they have a baby or not they have no control over their bodies. Without control over their bodies, how can they control any other aspect of their lives? Contraception is never 100% reliable, so I would see abortion as a safety net.

_____________________________________________________

It is not a competition. It is a web forum.