When Roe v Wade is overturned what will be the effect?

Your link says nothing whatsoever about executing women who have an abortion or the doctors who perform them.

 

Baby’s will stop being murdered in the name of female reproductive freedom when in realty abortion is used as a tool of eugenics.

 

A doctor who performs more than one illegal abortion I have no problems sending them to prison. 5-8 years for each illegal abortion. IIRC the average murderer in the U.S. serves 7-8 years in prison.

For the woman I will freely acknowledge there are major physical and mental stresses on her that cloud her judgement. Given that I would find a fine and probation for the first offense to be acceptable. Drastically greater punishment (imprisonment) if she obtained other illegal abortions.

 

Are you saying breaking the law once is OK?

Sorry, the righties attempt to not look like they hate women by letting them off the hook when committing a crime will not , and should not, work.

Saying women are too weak minded to know they're breaking the law won't work.

IF a person hires another person to commit a crime they are BOTH charged with the same crime and that is as it should be.

 

You apparently lack reading comprehension and understanding skills. OR, you read it SO fast, that you didnt understand what you read. One or the other.

If an unborn fetus is granted the full legal protection of person hood from the moment of conception, which this bill proposes, then an abortion would be considered 1st degree murder. The bill makes no exceptions.

So, if charged with 1st degree murder, one of the possible penalties for that in Georgia, would be the death penalty.

 

I've always disagreed with that principle. I believe that the "trigger pullers" bear the greatest responsibility for whether a crime is committed or not. They are the ones with the last clear chance to avoid an illegality being committed.

 

Very few people who commit 1st degree murder in Georgia are sentenced to death and you well know it.

 

Doesnt matter. There is still a possibility for such to happen. You cant get around that.

 

So do babies....

 

Leftists aren't even observing RvW.

Roe V. Wade limited abortions to first trimester.

Right now we're at: "you can kill it after it's born, just don't let it take a breath".

 

Sorry, the righties attempt to not look like they hate women by letting them off the hook when committing a crime will not , and should not, work.

Saying women are too weak minded to know they're breaking the law won't work.

IF a person hires another person to commit a crime they are BOTH charged with the same crime and that is as it should be.

The law, thankfully , doesn't see it that way.

If BOTH participants were not charged with the same crime then chaos would ensue.

Whether a person pulls the trigger themselves or hires someone the result is the same.

To let the "hiree" get off is like blaming the gun for the shooting.


BTW, hiring someone to commit a crime is illegal whether they go through with it or not

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Scientists are at odds over when life starts in the womb.

And law and science have spoken.

Abortion is legal until viability.

Women have the right to their own bodies just like everyone else.

Yes, babies do.....fetuses don't.

 

None of that is true.

 

They'll try, but most us can see through those thinny veiled scare tactics. The last such bullshit prop to make it onto the ballot was in 2002 to get consent from underage minors' parents and that bombed.

 

You claimed : """Roe V. Wade limited abortions to first trimester."""

then you forgot to read :


"" During the second trimester, the state’s interests become more compelling as the danger of complications increases and the fetus becomes more developed. During this stage, it may regulate, but not prohibit abortions, as long as the regulations are aimed at protecting the health of the mother. During the third trimester, the danger to the woman’s health becomes the greatest and fetal development nears completion. In the final trimester the state’s interests in protecting the health of the mother and in protecting the life of the fetus become their most compelling. The state may regulate or even prohibit abortions during this stage, as long as there is an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother

 

It does limit it.

States can rule any abortion past the first trimester illegal, with the exception of one that is life-threatening.

And we know how many that is. Almost none.

 

Laws can change.
It will change.
Just as the state sanctioning the right to abortion which is not mentioned or even implied in the U.S. constitution will one day be gone.

 

So you think the law that says hiring someone to commit a crime is a crime should be abolished??

That would give people free rein to simply hire their crimes out....like saying " I didn't shoot that guy, the gun did " LOL!!!!!

Not if sane, just, intelligent people rule on law.

Uh, if it's not there then it is already "gone"....

 

No. But I think hiring someone to commit a crime should not be considered equal to the actual crime. It should be a lesser offense.

 

Trump doesn't have any say in the matter so that statement is just flat out untrue. If RvW gets overturned, then Congress could make it legal with or without Trump, which is what should have happened in the first place. The only reason it didn't is so the congress critters could use it as a wedge issue in perpetuity.

 

Any evil you can imagine has been, at times, in places, perfectly legal.
Any good you can imagine has been, at times, in places, completely illegal.
Legal and illegal are no measure of good and evil, or moral and immoral, or right and wrong.
Each person has a personal responsibility to pick and choose which laws they obey because compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with what is evil, immoral or just plain wrong.

 

That would give people free rein to simply hire their crimes out....like saying " I didn't shoot that guy, the gun did " LOL!!!!!




Not if sane, just, intelligent people rule on law.





Uh, if it's not there then it is already "gone"....

LOL! WHY? That would give people free rein to simply hire their crimes out....like saying " I didn't shoot that guy, the gun did " LOL!!!!!

 

are you suggesting the trigger puller (you know, the person who ACTUALLY COMMITS THE CRIME) should be held to a lower level of responsibility?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
LOL! WHY? That would give people free rein to simply hire their crimes out....like saying " I didn't shoot that guy, the gun did " LOL!!!!!

NO, nowhere, not in this post you just quoted nor anywhere else did I suggest/infer/say that the person who commits the crime should be held to a lower level of responsibility.

The TRUTH is I posted they should , and ARE, BOTH held to the SAME level of responsibility.


Uh, your "imagination " iseems to be going into overdrive again...

 

Why? I've posted why I believe what I believe.