The Unborn Victims of Violence Act - passed

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
  • What is the unborn victim of violence act? - the bare bones of it is that anyone perpetrating a violent act against a pregnant woman, wether this causes harm or the death of the unborn foetus, would be liable to arrest for two crimes; one against the woman and one against the unborn child.

    Seems good on the surface right? Anyone who attacks a pregnant woman should be severly punished IMHO....but this particular bill would be givning the unborn child the same rights as an already born child...that is...Life, Liberty etc...

    Can you guess where I'm going with this? - Yup...what about Roe vs. Wade? What about legal abortions? If the unborn foetus is considered to have the same rights as a born baby, or full-grown adult, would that not make legal-abortions, murder?

    Bush supports the bill...but then again, he would support an anti-abortion bill if he could. He can't get away with that, so why not work your way around the wall from the other side?
    The legislation defines "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
    Click to expand...
    here's the wording that frightens me particularly in regards to abortion.
    Sec.1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child. `Sec. 1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child[*]`(a)(1) Any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.[*]
    Click to expand...
  • section B- twice as guilty wether s/he knew that the victim was pregnant.
    • `(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.
    Click to expand...
  • HEre's teh sentence that would save the whole arguement...providing that it stays in.
    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;
      • `(2) for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
      • `(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
    Click to expand...
 
The constitutional ban on gay marriage isn't far away now....
/me is glad he lives in Sweden.
 
oops...almost forgot the kicker.

This bill gives the unborn foetus not only the term "unborn-child" at all points of growth (From one day into the pregnancy to full-term), but gives the unborn-child full rights.

Now...the sentence that I mentioned earlier protects abortionists from this one crime. Abortionists cannot be prosecuted for going against "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act " but says nothing about not prosecuting them for any other crime related to the newly named "unborn-child".
 
So I take it by the responses that choice only counts one way.

Lacey Peterson planned on having her baby. Her husband killed them both. It's only one murder?
 
in that case its different. she wanted the kid. if the kid is unwanted adoption should bte thought but abortion is a choice
 
Gonz said:
So I take it by the responses that choice only counts one way.

Lacey Peterson planned on having her baby. Her husband killed them both. It's only one murder?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
chcr said:
Yes.
Click to expand...



isnt that a bit cold? if she survived but the fetus was killed wouldnt that be murder since she wanted the child? the only difference here is mom and baby died.
 
I personally think this is a little scary. It is the start of what the Pro-Lifers want, although by itself it's not that big of deal, it can easily be used later to justify going to the next step. The only part of this one that really bothers me is this though..

Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--
    • `(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Click to expand...

So, a woman stabs herself in her stomach to abort a child, and there is no prosecution for that? :eh:
 
great, so now the potential for medical abortion to be challenged could lead to a return to the good old days of the home coat-hanger affair.
 
PuterTutor said:
I personally think this is a little scary. It is the start of what the Pro-Lifers want, although by itself it's not that big of deal, it can easily be used later to justify going to the next step. The only part of this one that really bothers me is this though..



So, a woman stabs herself in her stomach to abort a child, and there is no prosecution for that? :eh:
Click to expand...



this will sound cold and even hypocritical on my part but no. she didnt want the child and maybe couldnt get to an planned parenthood clinic or another abortion clinic. So in that case, no I do not see prosecution. If she wanted it and someone killed it that way I would feel differently
 
Gonz said:
So I take it by the responses that choice only counts one way.

Lacey Peterson planned on having her baby. Her husband killed them both. It's only one murder?
Click to expand...

How many weeks into the pregnancy was she? Was the foetus viable? If not then yes it is only one murder.

On a slightly different note if a woman is asaulted and then goes on to miscarry a couple of days later is that connected? Would she have miscarried anyway? Does that make it murder? This is very scary indeed imho. How about if I am involved in a RTA and the police find me to be at fault through speeding. A pregnant woman at 13/40 weeks gestation is also involved the next day she miscarries. Am I then liable to a murder charge? How far does this law go?

Do the words "floodgate" and "open" mean anything?
 
Gotnolegs said:
How many weeks into the pregnancy was she? Was the foetus viable? If not then yes it is only one murder.
Click to expand...


Since that case is nothing more than TV news fodder I've largely ignored it but if I recall, she was about 8+ months pregnant.

I just noticed your sig. Cool. I remeber that fondly.
 
Gonz said:
Since that case is nothing more than TV news fodder I've largely ignored it but if I recall, she was about 8+ months pregnant.

I just noticed your sig. Cool. I remeber that fondly.
Click to expand...

Then imho I'd say his sentence should reflect the fact that he killed a perfectly viable life as well.

I made the sig specially for you, thought you might like it... :D
 
Gotnolegs said:
How many weeks into the pregnancy was she? Was the foetus viable? If not then yes it is only one murder.

On a slightly different note if a woman is asaulted and then goes on to miscarry a couple of days later is that connected? Would she have miscarried anyway? Does that make it murder? This is very scary indeed imho. How about if I am involved in a RTA and the police find me to be at fault through speeding. A pregnant woman at 13/40 weeks gestation is also involved the next day she miscarries. Am I then liable to a murder charge? How far does this law go?

Do the words "floodgate" and "open" mean anything?
Click to expand...




I think in the case where she is assaulted then htere is a maybe but i would say b/c of the assault she miscarried. if she wasnt who knows. thast why I say it is a murder. because she wanted the child.
 
It sounds like a great law, but it's the big old can of worms that it opens that scares me, it is the start of making sure women don't have rights over their own bodies, when birth control fails. (or rape etc.)
 
which is something I never agreed with. it is why I am and have been pro-choice. but I agree this law does kind of make women not in control of their bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top