I beg to differ. I had no idea he had political views that may have coincided with mine, in the past, that is, before he was so desperate to raise the ratings of his TV show. He is, regardless of his politics, a con artist and perpetual bankrupt who has mastered the art of fleecing other people (investors and, more importantly to this discussion, taxpayers) to subsidize his massive ego and lavish lifestyle. That doesn't make him Presidential material, regardless of his views, whether they be left, right, or down the middle.
It wont matter if the people of Alabama think that it's murder or not. It transpired outside of their jurisdiction and is hence beyond the scope of their prosecution. Alabama doesn't prosecute people who commit crimes in other jurisdictions. In Alabama, gambling is illegal as well as prostitution. Yet, Alabama doesn't prosecute people who live in Alabama, but go on vacation in Las Vegas and gamble and hire prostitutes. Yet, if those acts were committed in Alabama, they'd be prosecuted by Alabama, since they are within the realm of judicial prosecution. Things which transpire in Nevada, or New York, are not Alabama's to prosecute. Alabama believes that prostitution and gambling are illegal, yet does not prosecute returning residents who go elsewhere and engage in those activities. Even under your unthinkably stupid exception, you'd have to PROVE that each woman got pregnant IN Alabama, and they'd have to find PROOF that she was pregnant and that an abortion did occur. The supreme court would quickly rule that it wasn't Alabama's jurisdiction, even if that unthinkably stupid hypothetical DID transpire. It wouldn't be a "nightmare" at all to have something be legal in one state and illegal in another. Gaming, prostitution, and several other issues showcase this fact. In fact, in the case of abortion that's how it was done for a very long time, nightmare free! You really need to work on your familiarity with law and government if you intend to regularly engage in that sort of discourse.
Apparently you didn't read: "If the crime originated in one state but actually physically took place in another...then you HAVE violated that state's law and can be prosecuted for THAT offense." The crime of murder of a resident of Alabama, i.e. the unborn child, was planned in Alabama, then executed in New York. So the woman who had her unborn child aborted could indeed be prosecuted, and I am sure that the state of Alabama would put that type of wording into the law. They would want to instill the fear in women that going across state lines to have an abortion would result in being prosecuted as if they had their abortion in Alabama...because the crime was orginated in Alabama. The planning, the means of transport, etc. all happened in Alabama. Try thinking next time, please.
Even under your unthinkably stupid exception, you'd have to PROVE that each woman got pregnant IN Alabama, and they'd have to find PROOF that she was pregnant and that an abortion did occur. The supreme court would quickly rule that it wasn't Alabama's jurisdiction, even if that unthinkably stupid hypothetical DID transpire. Try getting some familiarity with law and government before trying to act like an authority on it. LOL! This was a nose dive man for you man.
She is a resident of Alabama, and she went to New York to get an abortion? Pretty clear motive... Doesn't matter if she got preggers in Mississippi with her cousin. The unborn child is granted residence on the fact that she is a resident. The laws will be written in a manner that gives the state the right to try the woman for murder, no matter where she has the abortion. The unborn child would be granted all the same rights as a born child in these backward states like Alabama. You don't seem to understand how jury trials work in the deep south... I am not in favor of such laws, but the madness of one state saying that what another state thinks is a constitutional right is murder is not tenable.
Who cares how things would technically work out? There are all kinds of different laws between states presently, and things seem to work out ok. Regardless of the specific technicalities, the point is people would be free to migrate to states that best suit their values. Lets say a Jesus belt state DID want to prosecute like Optional suggests. So what? Social liberal feminist baby-killers and similar would migrate out of the conservative states, and Conservatives who want to ban abortion would move out of liberal states. They would each get to live in a community that was consistent with their values, as it rightfully should be. If a person chose to live in an area that had laws they disagreed with.. well, like always, they would have to abide by them or face consequences, just like right now. Problem solved.
We have already seen abortion clinics bombed, abortion doctors murdered...and you think these southern fried crazies wouldn't feel more self righteous to commit acts of murder, mahem and terrorist at abortion clinics in states where abortion was legal when Dixie outlaws abortion?
See? That's the problem with organized religion. Where there are enough lost sheep looking for guidance, there is always a shepherd of one stripe or another ready to guide an unthinking flock. Since religious faith and belief essentially require the suspension of critical thinking by definition, it can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands (or brains). And it always seems to find its way into the wrong hands (or brains). Although I am an atheist through and through, I really don't care what other people choose to believe as long as it remains nothing more than a personal belief. Even so, I will certainly debate the merits of the matter for the sake of argument with anyone who wishes to do so, if I am so inclined at the time. However, where I get concerned is when these organized beliefs encroach on others who choose otherwise. And it always seems to happen in one form or another. And so, while organized religion can exist alongside other beliefs in theory, in actual application this theory is about as effective as communism or unregulated capitalism. The outcome is never quite as delicious as the recipe would suggest.
It is not about organized religion. Please stop with the logical fallacy. It is about people who grasp onto an ideology...which need not be religion and need not be organized...who in their fanaticism for the ideology they have embraced have committed acts of unlawfulness and violence. PETA does the same thing in principle. So let go of your ax to grind against religion, because it causes you to look foolish and become ineffective at understanding that religion is not the cause. You view religion like a disease, but that disease doesn't impact everyone the same way. Some take religion and become peaceful, others take religion and become dogmatic and dangerous to others. You blame religion for that? Religion is not the cause of the way someone takes religion. Think deeply, you will see that the cause if the person who takes the religion in a manner that is harmful to others...not the religion. The Civil War was fought not over religion. It came to a Civil War because of the fanaticism and dogmatism of the southerners and their rigid and fundamentally driven belief systems about slavery and state's rights. Not religion. The demon is fanatical thinking, dogmatic thinking, and in your constant attacks on religion, you are just displaying a dogmatism and fanaticism yourself.
Optional, what religion do you practice? We have seen you defending Religion But never (so far as I have seen) a particular spiritual path. Are they all equal??