That is supposition. It depends on each situation on the bell curve, there are many variables she can however not relinquish and maintain her sovereignty over her being. The embryo thru fetus is a parasite within her body, not even a symbiotic relationship. unless the pregnant, sovereign, American Citizen, a beneficiary of the founding documents, of age, in her right mind, authorizes it the embryo is hers. of her only. she knows who the father is yatayata she has unalienable rights period.

Within The United States of America she was declared a sovereign American by Donald J. Trump POTUSA. The 16th amendment was never ratified another fraud. Murder is not private in our Constitutional Republic. apples and oranges analogy. Is it private or public is she an American national or a US citizen?

You only speak of her rights and not the baby's. And you speak as if her decision can only happen AFTER she is pregnant. She already authorized it when she knowingly allowed herself to get pregnant and started a new life. Once that life is started, there are TWO lives involved. Not just hers. A parasite does not magically become a baby at 9 months. If someone assaults a pregnant woman which results in her losing the baby (note the term is not losing the parasite), that person can be charged with murder. If both die, it is a double homicide. Not a homicide and parasite elimination.

You only speak of her rights and not the baby's. And you speak as if her decision can only happen AFTER she is pregnant. She already authorized it when she knowingly allowed herself to get pregnant and started a new life. Once that life is started, there are TWO lives involved. Not just hers. A parasite does not magically become a baby at 9 months. If someone assaults a pregnant woman which results in her losing the baby (note the term is not losing the parasite), that person can be charged with murder. If both die, it is a double homicide. Not a homicide and parasite elimination.

Bad Bob wrote:
Murder is murder, all complicit are guilty. Very simple, just like the guy in the get away car.

Murder is murder, you are right...

However, Roe vs Wade does not fit the legal definition of murder if the a******n is done within the time frame established by the courts and therefore is not murder.. The argument being the fetus is not yet a viable life sustaining fetus until it reaches 20/24 weeks gestation..

Passing a death penalty punishment is also murder under your analogy but not by legal definition.. Are those k*****g the prisoner for his action murderers as well???

There is no constitutional guarantee to a******ns! There are no amendments regarding a******ns. The Supreme Court applied the Due Process Clause in the 5th and 14th amendments to cover a******ns. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. So the very clause which is suppose to safeguard against arbitrary denial of life, is used to sanction arbitrary k*****g of babies.

But in many states, k*****g babies is murder including for the unborn. The following list is a list of states whose homicide laws cover the unborn throughout the entire time of pregnancy.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisianna
Michigan
Mennesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

The following list of states have homicide laws which cover part of the time of pregnancy.


California
Maryland
Massachusetts
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Washington

And New York has conflicting laws making it a homicide to k**l an unborn, and another defining a person as having to be born.

Yes. A woman has the right to decide whether or not to have a child. Once that decision is made, it is her responsibility to see to the child's needs, or see that the child is given to someone else who will do so. She should not have the right to change her mind by eliminating the child from her body once the child exists. The choice was already made before she got pregnant. She CHOSE to engage in pregnancy causing activity without preventing herself getting pregnant (unless she was raped). That choice was hers to make and she made it. One made she could still change her mind on raising a child, but should not have the right to decide on whether or not that child has the right to live. She chose to start a baby inside her body, by not preventing it. That was her choice. To end its life is no different than ending its life after birth. Would you feel the same about a private individual who decides to eliminate a baby after 11 months from the start of her pregnancy? No one should force her to raise a child she does not want. She could choose not to raise a child by giving it up for adopting. But should her right to live her life without being saddled by a child mean she should be legally allowed to commit infanticide? Now maybe some feel infanticide should be legal. Aborting an unborn baby is also infanticide which is legal because of the age of the infant, counting from the start of pregnancy.