Oh Oh! Another Abortion Observation?

Yep, that is true. Some states charge you with 2 counts of murder if you kill a prregnant woman. Scott Peterson is facing that

http://www.findlaci2003.us/double-homicide.html

The abortionists are always inconsistant with their arguments. Mostly they refuse to answer questions and just say "when you get a womb then talk to me."

I don't need to justify this to you or anyone. However, partial birth abortions are illegal and have been for some time. You should do some additional research to support yourself.

In the news this morning... an 11 year old child was beaten to death by her mother because she reminded the mom of her ex who she despised... and a 2 week old was found beaten to death in her crib. So sad. They had the right to life, didn't they? I guess if the baby is actually born and the mother kills it because she didn't want it, it's still better than an abortion, right?

In response to your "pro-life propoganda":

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531[1], PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "partial-birth abortion" in the act pertains to a procedure that is medically called intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

[edit] "Partial-birth abortion" defined by law

Since it was first coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, the term "partial birth abortion" has been used in numerous state and federal bills and laws, although the legal definition of the term is not always the same. In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[8] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] Some commentators have noted that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act's language was carefully crafted to take into account previous rulings.[9] The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as follows:

“ An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531) ”

Although in most cases the procedure legally defined as "partial birth abortion" would be medically defined as "intact dilation and extraction", these overlapping terms do not always coincide. For example, the IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g. due to a miscarriage or feticide) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.[10] Removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal legal definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."[11] Additionally, a doctor may extract a fetus past the navel and then "disarticulate at the neck", which could fall within the terms of the statute even though it would not result in an intact body and therefore would not be an intact dilation and extraction.[12]

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortio...

the bible actually says on this issue: if the woman is killed they deserve the death penalty, if the woman turns out OK but has a miscarriage then all they need to do is pay a fine.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

You don't count the baby in the census, until it is born.

When you ride the bus, you don't have to buy a ticket for the unborn baby.

For the most part, we look at the mother and the baby as one in the same. Why? Because until a certain point, the baby can't survive without the mother.

If you take a baby out of the womb before that point, it'll die, because it can't even support itself. How can you call something that can't even live on its own alive?

Until it's able to survive outside the womb, it's nothing but a parasite, and it has no more rights than a tapeworm does.

The most notable case was the Scott Peterson case in which he was charged with both the murder of his wife and the unborn child.

Because the prosecution typically will only pursue a double homicide if the child could survive outside of the womb, and if the child could survive outside the mother would not have the option of abortion at that point anyway.

A woman does not "choose" to be physically assaulted to the point of miscarrying..Obviously the pregnancy ended not by her choice..Undisturbed if it was her intention to carry through her pregnancy she would have "presumably" given birth to a live child..

Abortion does not equate to your scenario..Abortion terminates a pregnancy, there is no knowing whether it was a viable fetus to term or not...

Do you have conscious memory of being in your mothers womb?

Accusing women of murder for choosing to abort a pregnancy which only YOU assume is a viable one hardly makes her what you accuse her of..

I don't get to decide whether or not you'll ever have a vasectomy so you don't get to decide who will or won't occupy my uterus...

If that's true then that law should also be changed. Unless you want to think of it as *eventually* the fetus would have become a life.

oh noes!

are asking about the duality of the (double) murder and abortion

or about abortion in general, in that it is/isn't a life?

there's a reason that where it's allowed (currently) it's only allowed in the 1st trimester

In which country and/or state?

I don't know anywhere that sentences someone for murder if he causes a miscarriage etc. However he would and should be punished because his actions caused grievance to the woman.