While Ricky's point certainly seems counterintuitive here is some evidence in support of his assertion.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presski ... facts.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01 ... tin-rates/

Why should this lady NOT be punished?

Abortion is legal... Check!
She knew she was pregnant prior to the abortion time restriction of 24 weeks... Check!
Abortion services are provided nearby... Check!

Tell me why this lady should not be charged with violation of the Tennessee laws.

All this blather about abortion and the law are sidestepping the issue of there being a law. Did this woman violate the law as it stands? After all, Roe v Wade is in place. She knew she was pregnant, and there were services nearby.

Leave the mitigation to the judge.

freeman3 wrote:While Ricky's point certainly seems counterintuitive here is some evidence in support of his assertion.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presski ... facts.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01 ... tin-rates/

Thanks, but I don't see that as evidence. There are a lot of other variables to consider when comparing developed countries with developing countries. Also, comparing 1995 and 2003 is cherry picking the data. Shouldn't you also look at 1975? Were there other societal changes, such as rules concerning morning after pills, among other things.

When data agrees with our preconceived notions, we tend to accept it; when it doesn't, we tend to look for reasons why the data is at fault.

Ricky, thanks for the apology.

So the question is whether a state can criminalize home abortions when it is impinging on a woman 's constitutional right to abortion by not providing any clinics that perform abortions at 24 weeks. I think there is probably a good defense there somewhere. (Btw I disagree with the argument that a state can rely on other states to provide abortions when it doesn't do so.)

Here is the data for states. http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/sta ... tion-rate/

Problem here is that women in states that are more hostile to abortion can go to neighboring rates to get abortions and that skews figures .

But I'll stipulate that women in developed countries are going to have x higher number of more abortions with permissive abortion laws. But the data from countries like Latin America where women are getting abortions at high rates in spite of tough abortion laws and religious strictures indicates that women are predisposed (genetic, evolutionarily caused) to terminate unwanted pregnancies. So any tightening of abortion laws has a tough effect on women. I think we are better off making it extremely easy, ridiculously easy to get any contraception including morning after pills.

freeman3 wrote:Here is the data for states. http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/sta ... tion-rate/

Problem here is that women in states that are more hostile to abortion can go to neighboring rates to get abortions and that skews figures .

But I'll stipulate that women in developed countries are going to have x higher number of more abortions with permissive abortion laws. But the data from countries like Latin America where women are getting abortions at high rates in spite of tough abortion laws and religious strictures indicates that women are predisposed (genetic, evolutionarily caused) to terminate unwanted pregnancies. So any tightening of abortion laws has a tough effect on women. I think we are better off making it extremely easy, ridiculously easy to get any contraception including morning after pills.

That sounds about right to me, except for the genetic/evolution part.

bbauska wrote:Why should this lady NOT be punished?

Who actually said she shouldn't be? And as you are aware there are a couple of things that have to happen before she can be punished as you so clearly desire.

1) A court has to find her guilty
2) A judge has to set a punishment

Abortion is legal... Check!
She knew she was pregnant prior to the abortion time restriction of 24 weeks... Check!
Abortion services are provided nearby... Check!

But, did those nearby services cater for her situation by carrying out abortions up to the full 24 weeks?

Tell me why this lady should not be charged with violation of the Tennessee laws.

My opinion is that Tennessee laws are insane. I have already said that I think a lesser charge would be preferable.

All this blather about abortion and the law are sidestepping the issue of there being a law. Did this woman violate the law as it stands? After all, Roe v Wade is in place. She knew she was pregnant, and there were services nearby.

Again, you have yet to address the fact that those nearby services do not perform abortions up to the full 24 weeks.

Leave the mitigation to the judge.

Indeed, but does not mean we are banned from raising mitigating factors.

freeman3 wrote:So the question is whether a state can criminalize home abortions when it is impinging on a woman 's constitutional right to abortion by not providing any clinics that perform abortions at 24 weeks. I think there is probably a good defense there somewhere. (Btw I disagree with the argument that a state can rely on other states to provide abortions when it doesn't do so.)

No, That is not the question. The question is should people follow the laws that are in place. Was her action a violation of the law? We are close in the question. Just depends on how it is framed.

She had Constitutionally supported abortive rights until 24 weeks. She chose to not accept that as an option.

Her actions (if criminal) caused harm to a fetus, and was an attempt to cause termination of the pregnancy. My question is "How can this be called an attempted murder if the fetus does not has human rights until birth?" The state of Tennessee is granting human rights to a fetus. It will be an interesting case indeed.

BTW, there is a Planned Parenthood in Nashville providing services to people with and without insurance.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/tennessee/nashville/37203/nashville-health-center-2716-91560?utm_campaign=nashville-health-center&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=local-listing

Insurance Plans Accepted

If you don't have insurance, you may be able to get covered under Obamacare. From November 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016, you can sign up for affordable health insurance. With or without insurance, you can always come to us for your health care.

Danivon,
I agree that there must be a conviction before punishment. That is what our courts are over here as well.

I know you want a lesser charge. My question, and the one I posted above, is How is this a crime if the fetus does not have human rights.

Should the fetus have human rights?

Well, in California you can be charged with the murder of a fetus that has progressed to 7-8 weeks.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/ca ... 0/520.html

[what I posted here previously was wrong--it is the state interest in protecting potential human life that was discussed in Roe v Wade , not that the fetus had proto-human rights]

While this is not CA, thank you for this info. We are discussing the law of TN.

https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/

Tennessee: Effective July 1, 2012 (HB 3517, enacted as Pub. Ch. 1006), Tennessee law includes “a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero” as a victim of such offenses as murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. See Tennessee Code Annotated, Sections 39-13-107 and 39-13-214. This law replaces a law that took effect in 2011, which had applied the same principle to “a fetus of a human being.” The new language is intended to ensure that the protection extends throughout the period of pre-natal development, along with other technical changes. Prior to 2011, Tennessee law recognized an unborn child as a crime victim only after “viability.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability


United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6] The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week.[6] The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures.

I am going to watch this case closely.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I agree that there must be a conviction before punishment. That is what our courts are over here as well.

I know you want a lesser charge. My question, and the one I posted above, is How is this a crime if the fetus does not have human rights.

Should the fetus have human rights?

Animal cruelty is a crime, and animals do not have human rights.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I agree that there must be a conviction before punishment. That is what our courts are over here as well.

I know you want a lesser charge. My question, and the one I posted above, is How is this a crime if the fetus does not have human rights.

Should the fetus have human rights?

Animal cruelty is a crime, and animals do not have human rights.

'Are you charged with murder or attempted murder for killing a dog?

Perhaps you are comparing a fetus to puppy (or the like?)

What is your point? How does that apply?

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I agree that there must be a conviction before punishment. That is what our courts are over here as well.

I know you want a lesser charge. My question, and the one I posted above, is How is this a crime if the fetus does not have human rights.

Should the fetus have human rights?

Animal cruelty is a crime, and animals do not have human rights.

'Are you charged with murder or attempted murder for killing a dog?

Perhaps you are comparing a fetus to puppy (or the like?)

What is your point? How does that apply?

You seemed to be linking "human rights" to being a victim of a crime. ("How is this a crime if the fetus does not have human rights[?]")

I was pointing out that non-humans can be victims.

All else is in your own head. As ever, what I say is what I say.

I was pointing to my position that a fetus was a human.

Let me be clear.

Can a victim of attempted murder be ANYTHING but a human. If so, how? Your statement about non human victims does not apply to attempted murder otherwise.