felony to kill the unborn?

[DGB454]

I heard a piece on NPR the other day stated that federal lawmakers are working to secure a pro-life bill that would make it a separate felony to harm an unborn child during an assault on its mother. I was a little confused. It's legal to have an abortion but a felony to harm an unborn child? Does this make sense? Possibly if the law against harming the unborn child mirrored what the abortion law claims a living human being is. For instance: If the law stated it is only a felony to harm an unborn child after the 2nd trimester (or whenever the law claims it's ok to have an abortion.) then I could understand it.

I'm not saying I am for or against this bill but I am just saying that it doesn't make sense. Does it?

[lazysmurff]

no, its doesnt make sense, but what im sensing is that this bill is going to act as a gateway for pro-lifers to get an anti abortion bill passed.

"hey look, we passed this bill saying we couldnt harm unborn children during an assualt...why would let someone abort them?"

a serious set back in womens rights...

[Hyatus]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

no, its doesnt make sense, but what im sensing is that this bill is going to act as a gateway for pro-lifers to get an anti abortion bill passed.

"hey look, we passed this bill saying we couldnt harm unborn children during an assualt...why would let someone abort them?"

a serious set back in womens rights...

thats the idea, slip some bill in now that many wont notice, then use it for leverage later.

[eversio11]

Didn't this proposed law come out of the Lacey Peterson case?

[DGB454]

I don't know about the Peterson case but it has been used in one case in Iowa I think and it is going to be used in another upcomming case. I'll have to look it up to see which ones.

The thing is that if it doesn't pass then IMO it will be a huge injustice to those who want to have a child and put a little more value on life than those who believe in abortion. For instance; if a woman wants a child but her husband doesn't all he has to do is beat her till the child dies and the most he can get is assult or spousal abuse charges. That's not right.

[YogsVR4]

This law does not 'diminish womens rights' in fact it does the opposite. Anyone who believes otherwise has no idea what this law is about.

Heck, NOW thought it was an excellent law. If they believe it - you know its not a setback.

The law isn't treating the fetus as a person, its treating it as a piece of property. In other words its the womans to dispose of as she see's fit. This allows criminal action to be taken against someone who destroys the baby against the womans will.

If you believe in slippery slope arguements then all it takes is creative use the language to prove anything - not facts. So can someone who thinks this is a setback for women tell me how?

[Raz_Kaz]

I agree with you yogs but I can maybe see what another person will try and see it as "diminishing" women's rights.
If the law passes then the child still in the mothers womb is no longer under the mother's control but more or less the government. Sooner or later it will be against the law to have an abortion, which is still being debated. Now if there is a law passing that staes that the child inside the mother's womb cannot be harmed, government officials can hire lawyers on behalf of the child if the mother want's an abortion, leaving the mother to HAVE to carry on with the pregnancy. I dont know Im just pulling this outta my ass, lol

[lazysmurff]

I can see the law leading to an anti abortion law

BTW:

i am insulted that you seem to think us "pro choicers" do not take the sanctity of life seriously. its not that, wetake it as seriously as any "pro life" person. its just in the pro choice camp, we find that the life of the already existing woman is more important than the life of an unborn child.

however, yogs makes a good point. i know nothing about this law other than what DGB presented in the first post. if it is true, and its treating the unborn as the womans property rather than child, its a step in the entire other direction.

[YogsVR4]

Always be cautious of the slippery slope arguements out there. X doesn not always lead to Y and then on to Z. Its the easiest arguement to make but has no substance.

[crapmaster4000]

Good law! They already have banned partial-birth abortions, now they should ban abortions all together. Dosent anyone else think its disturbing that life is destroyed because some one else finds it a little inconvienient? There are more eligible people wanting to adopt than there are abortions. So why do people get self centered and KILL THEIR OWN BABY?

[lazysmurff]

miss the last three posts buddy? apparently, they are judging that the unborn will be treated as the mothers property, not a seperate human, which means its a step in right direction for pro choice, not pro life.

and anyways, which life is more important, the life of the woman, or the future baby?

what i find funny, is that (generally speaking) the same camp that fights abortion right, supported the war in iraq, and smiled and nodded when little babies bodies were chalked up as "collateral damage"

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

miss the last three posts buddy? apparently, they are judging that the unborn will be treated as the mothers property, not a seperate human, which means its a step in right direction for pro choice, not pro life.

and anyways, which life is more important, the life of the woman, or the future baby?

what i find funny, is that (generally speaking) the same camp that fights abortion right, supported the war in iraq, and smiled and nodded when little babies bodies were chalked up as "collateral damage"

Which life is more important? What kind of question is that? Both are equally important. I think the stance that most pro-choice people take is that it's not a life until it is a certain age in the mothers womb not which is worth more.

Where are the stats on the pro life and pro war? I think you are assuming.

[moslerporschefreak]

Originally Posted by crapmaster4000

Good law! They already have banned partial-birth abortions, now they should ban abortions all together. Dosent anyone else think its disturbing that life is destroyed because some one else finds it a little inconvienient? There are more eligible people wanting to adopt than there are abortions. So why do people get self centered and KILL THEIR OWN BABY?

Thing is, I am a man and therefore have no real personal vested interest in this topic. Still I have thought about it some. The question you should be asking is if the person wants to get an abortion isn't it clearly is because for one reason or another, they are not ready for a child? Whether it be financially, emotionally, whatever, the fact that they are not prepared should indicate that if the child is born, it may not be brought into the best of situations (to put it mildly). So would you rather the person ammend their mistake or ruin two lives?

[lazysmurff]

it was a pont brough up in a book im reading called "legitimate differences" where in the author seeks to prove that in such debates, we actually have the same values in common, but rather we disagree on how we "interpret them".

when i say "pro choice" i mean, like moslerporchefreak said above, i mean "you have no right to demand that she give up her life"

when you say "pro life" you mean "she has no right to give up another life"

both of us are looking out for a life, just different ones

[moslerporschefreak]

Well stated. This really brings up the question of whether certain lives are more "valuable" (for lack of a better word) and if they aren't, how do we deal with the situation.