Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[jakee 1,254]

Saw an article in the new scientist that mentioned this. Apparently it
'designates the fetus as a human being from the moment of conception and makes the killing of one a murder seperate from the murder of a pregnant women except in certain medical procedures'

Any one have any information about it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Kennedy 0]

Go to this page, and enter "unborn victims" in the second search area (word/phrase).

http://thomas.loc.gov/

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

The idea is that if a person killed a pregnant woman and the fetus also died as a result, that person would then be charged with two murders.

This all came about as a result of the Laci Peterson case, but many people believe there is another motive behind the legislation -- which would be to weaken Roe v. Wade.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

That's garbage. (the Roe bit) A huge reason for the legislation was that if a man attacked a pregnant woman with intent to specifically kill the baby, but left the woman alive, he couldn't be charged with murder. Laci Peterson was just to most infamous case involving infant death. Do we have any idea what his motivations were?

Do pro choicers really want to say that attacking a woman with intent to kill the baby is not murder?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Quote

That's garbage. (the Roe bit)

Well, maybe you're right (but a LOT of folks would disagree with you). I can't figure out any other reason why it would apply from the moment of conception.

That part of the language is very troubling.

It will be very interesting the first time it's tested in court.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

(but a LOT of folks would disagree with you)

It doesn't matter if EVERYONE disagrees with him. The fact of the matter is, no human being knows for certain whether or not life begins at conception, yet the law decides to NOT err on the side of caution.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[quade 3]

Quote

. . . yet the law decides to NOT err on the side of caution.

Not exactly. What the law decides (or actually what the court decision on Row v. Wade said) is that the person that is pregnant has the right to choose for themselves.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Muenkel 0]

Paul,

With all due respect, I beg to differ.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[quade 3]

You don't have to beg.

Just show me where I'm wrong. References would be nice.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pajarito 0]

Just throwing this out there. The "Human Cloning" thread from way back covered a lot on the abortion issue.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=915399;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

[Muenkel 0]

My reference is my opinion. I'm not shoving my beliefs on you, just stating them. And I'm still waiting for scientific proof that I am wrong.

That last statement was not directed at you Paul.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Go to this page, and enter "unborn victims" in the second search area (word/phrase).

http://thomas.loc.gov/

The submitted text now in front of the Senate reads:

"(c) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--


`(1) for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency;"

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[tbrown 26]

This all came about as a result of the Laci Peterson case, but many people believe there is another motive behind the legislation -- which would be to weaken Roe v. Wade.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

this law does nothing but attempt to establish a legal precedent to undermine a woman's right to an abortion.

Please read this page, then reconsider.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[billvon 2,394]

>That's garbage. (the Roe bit)

I will bet you $200 (redeemable in jump tickets) that within a year a pro-life PAC will use this very bill to support a change to abortion law. Their support will be along the lines of "why should an unborn child be considered a human being by a murderer, but considered just a piece of meat by a doctor? Shouldn't unborn children have the same protection against a scalpel as against a dagger?"

Will you take the bet?

[Kennedy 0]

Of course pro lifers are going to make a case. That has nothing to do with the motives of the legislators.

Quote

many people believe there is another motive behind the legislation -- which would be to weaken Roe v. Wade.

An activist taking advantage of a new law is not the same as a new law being made for that activist.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jakee 1,254]

Thats about what I thought. Not getting into the pro life pro choice debate, this is the bit that seems really weird.

Quote

`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child

Fetuses can be very fragile things, and sometimes people miscarry for no apparent reason. Imagine if you're in a minor car accident, fender bender, bit of whiplash but nothing serious. Say there is a pregnant woman in the other car that has a miscarriage the next morning.
Could that lay you open to charges of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving? Is manslaughter listed in those provisions under subsection (b)?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Their support will be along the lines of "why should an unborn child be considered a human being by a murderer, but considered just a piece of meat by a doctor? Shouldn't unborn children have the same protection against a scalpel as against a dagger?"

Just curious. Does your statment above not seem logical to you? It does to me. Not trying to stir this up or anything. I've already been through a very long discussion concerning this topic on this site.

[billvon 2,394]

>Does your statment above not seem logical to you? It does to me.

Kennedy - I rest my case.

>Not trying to stir this up or anything. I've already been through a
> very long discussion concerning this topic on this site.


With "unborn children are human beings" as a given, then the above statement makes sense. I don't accept that as a given. A two celled organism is no more a human being than a few CC's of sperm is, although both (under the right conditions) can result in a human being.

[billvon 2,394]

>Of course pro lifers are going to make a case. That has nothing to
> do with the motives of the legislators.

Is it your position, then, that none of the legislators that voted for this are pro-life?

[Kennedy 0]

So you don't see a distinction between sperm and a fetus? One is a new life, the other is half the required DNA.

I'm sure some of the ayes were pro lifers. Does that mean their only possible motivation was to undermine Roe v Wade? They couldn't have actually been voting their conscience on this one?

Does that make Tom Daschle a hard core NRA lackey for supporting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skyrad 0]

Looks in,.........Hmmm interesting thread.......Closes door very quietly on way out

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Snowwhite 0]

A couple of years ago, we had an eight and a half month pregnant woman get kicked in the stomach. Baby died. Attacker got off.

skydiveTaylorville.org
[email protected]

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

Not exactly. What the law decides (or actually what the court decision on Row v. Wade said) is that the person that is pregnant has the right to choose for themselves.

And when an attacker attacks with the intent of killing the unborn child, the mother has lost her right to choose. The killer choose for her.

Therefore, should she believe that her baby was murdered, where is the justice for her? And what is to keep this from happening?

And should the mother die too I think the murderer should get hit with a double murder.

[pajarito 0]

How about a 1,000,000 cell organism? Where do you draw the line? How about as soon as it grows fingers?