So your answer is "no", unborn children don't count to be protected by the Government, based on the RvW decision?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
My answer is the US Government based on rulings from the Supreme Court do not qualify for protection up to a specified point.
Ok, now we're starting to delve into that area of "sketchy" again. Is or isn't an unborn child (one not born yet, just to be clear) to be protected by the Government, as one of its primary functions? Should be a yes or no question, but now you're not only allowing SOCTUS to make that decision for you, but now there's some "specified point"
OK, I'll bite....when is this "specified point" reached?
So what's with those laws that indict a murder suspect with 2 counts of murder, when they've killed a pregnant woman? What's up with that? Did they not get the memo from SCOTUS?
Perhaps you can show how punishing a suspect for two counts of murder protects the unborn?
DEFLECTION ALERT. I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up. The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular. I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected.
Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??
No, i think the intent is to punish more severely, much like hate crimes are intended to punish more severely. Which reminds me, aren't you against hate crime legislation?
DEFLECTION ALERT #2
Specified point:
The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey
by Mark Tushnet, from Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986, pp. 162
"The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the fetus becomes
viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman. This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians are willing to perform them.
In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage
where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. The uncertainty of this prediction might lead physicians to refrain from performing abortions if, as Roe seemed to suggest, states could readily prohibit post-viability abortions. The Court thus stressed that viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion decision.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/roe2.htmlDEFLECTION ALERT. I never claimed the punishing of someone who killed an unborn child is "protecting it", so there's no "intent" in trying to bring that up. The issue was that the unborn child was counted as a PERSON, by Government, the Judiciary in particular. I understand the effort to semantically wiggle out of this, but your position is ripe with inconsistency, if its the Government that you're using to claim the unborn person can't be protected.
Or are you now claiming that Government's primary function is to punish??
yet you said the governments primary function was to defend those who are unable to defend themselves and gave as examples laws on the books designed to
punish those who kill mothers and the unborn.
What i did was question the effectiveness of this protection and agreed that the laws were designed to punish.
