View Full Version : House to Vote on Unborn Victims Bill
House to Vote on Unborn Victims Bill (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112579,00.html)
Is this a bad idea?
Originally posted by UDawg
House to Vote on Unborn Victims Bill (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112579,00.html)
Is this a bad idea?
yes...
it is legislature that... if passed... can be used to undermine roe v wade...
there is no precedence for establishing the rights of a foetus... there never has been... current laws to protect people are adequate.. in some rare situations there are calls for double murder (ie of mother and unborn child such as in the scott peterson case) but again it is a fundamental question of establishing the rights of the foetus above and beyond that which it already has... thereby signing into law anti-abortion legislation...
the day a foetus comes out and chimes in for its rights as an individual I will listen to it... till then the rights of the mother are adequate...
silence
02-26-04, 11:32 AM
i can see what they want to regarding abortion, but if someone attacks pregnant woman and she loses her child, specially in late pregnancy, that should be classified as murder.....
IMO, if u dont want child and dont want to get pregnant....then bloody well take pill and other precaution.....life should be sacred.
i know that for example teen pregnancy is burning issue, but IMO, govermant should explain to kids what and how to do.....and how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy....young girl that does abortion cause she is too young to have child is also victim (if she is anything close to normal human being).....
i would love to see anyone who attacks pregnant woman doing maximum time in prison....capital punishment not excluded........
Originally posted by Sazar
yes...
it is legislature that... if passed... can be used to undermine roe v wade...
there is no precedence for establishing the rights of a foetus... there never has been... current laws to protect people are adequate.. in some rare situations there are calls for double murder (ie of mother and unborn child such as in the scott peterson case) but again it is a fundamental question of establishing the rights of the foetus above and beyond that which it already has... thereby signing into law anti-abortion legislation...
the day a foetus comes out and chimes in for its rights as an individual I will listen to it... till then the rights of the mother are adequate...
So what about a mentally disabled people? They cannot exactly come out and chime for their rights. What about 2 year olds? they can't defend them selves.
Originally posted by UDawg
So what about a mentally disabled people? They cannot exactly come out and chime for their rights. What about 2 year olds? they can't defend them selves.
both of them are capable of self sustenance... I don't see any foetus's crawling about...
Do you really believe that? A 2 year old can take care of its self? My 4 year can't take care of him self. Anyway since when did being able to take care of your self be the measure by which you should not be killed or are not even human? This is a false and terrible argument.
Riptide
02-26-04, 12:38 PM
Good points UDawg.
This world would be a lot simpler if people would just learn to quit humping out of wedlock and/or start using birth control religiously.
Originally posted by UDawg
Do you really believe that? A 2 year old can take care of its self? My 4 year can't take care of him self. Anyway since when did being able to take care of your self be the measure by which you should not be killed or are not even human? This is a false and terrible argument.
the law requires including terminology that would make the killing of the foetus == murder...
that can then be taken against roe v wade...
unless there is a subsequent clause which states this will not be case and cannot be used in any anti-abortion legislature... the bill is a terrible idea...
Originally posted by Riptide
Good points UDawg.
This world would be a lot simpler if people would just learn to quit humping out of wedlock and/or start using birth control religiously.
not all abortions are due to a woman not wanting a child...
2fast4u
02-26-04, 12:53 PM
i also suspect this could indeed be used to undermine abortion laws. who knows, maybe its even the original intention...but thats not the point. the idea seems to make sense but under the viewpoint of sazars point i wouldnt aprove of such a law.
Originally posted by Sazar
not all abortions are due to a woman not wanting a child...
An over whelming number are abortions of of unwanted babies.
BTW when women are pregnant they do not refer to the baby as a feotus. They say "my baby" or "the baby". The only people who constantly call it a feotus are those that want to defend this horrible practice. It is used to put a disconnect between the child and the brutal action.
Here is a question.
Two women are murdered while giving birth. Both the babies are killed also. The babies were not fully born, infact the head had not even crowned yet. One woman said a month before she was giving birth "I never wanted this baby. I just want to get rid of it". The other woman was excited about the baby.
The question is, how many people were murdered?
Originally posted by UDawg
An over whelming number are abortions of of unwanted babies.
BTW when women are pregnant they do not refer to the baby as a feotus. They say "my baby" or "the baby". The only people who constantly call it a feotus are those that want to defend this horrible practice. It is used to put a disconnect between the child and the brutal action.
Here is a question.
Two women are murdered while giving birth. Both the babies are killed also. The babies were not fully born, infact the head had not even crowned yet. One woman said a month before she was giving birth "I never wanted this baby. I just want to get rid of it". The other woman was excited about the baby.
The question is, how many people were murdered?
frankly speaking I can do the same spin for gun control.. heck I can say instead of having this legislature... you should have gun control since guns take more lives than abortions...
abortion is a choice and while I may not condone the practice I am for the choice being made available... regardless of the spin put forth...
A quick story from a couple of weeks back. I didn't think this could exist, but evidently it does.
There was PETA demonstration here in Albuquerque a few weeks back. It envloved a bed and vegetarians (I don't get it either.). Anyway, a woman called into the radio program that was discussing this issue. She ranted, raved, and argued as to how the methods used to kill animals for food are inhumane. The talks show host she argued their points for at least two minutes. Next, the talk show host asked for her position on abortion. She replied with pro choice.
As I said, I didn't think this scenario could exist, i.e. caring for animals (and their young) more than humans (and their young).
I do not like the idea of abortion and think this measure is a good one. Even if considered non-human, the fetus has the potential (100% potential, BTW) of becoming a human being and contributing to society. I know this card get played a lot, but what if your potential of being who you are today was just thrown out the window with no consideration of your abilities as a person?
Phyre
Originally posted by Sazar
frankly speaking I can do the same spin for gun control.. heck I can say instead of having this legislature... you should have gun control since guns take more lives than abortions...
abortion is a choice and while I may not condone the practice I am for the choice being made available... regardless of the spin put forth...
If you do then you are saying "feotusssss" are viable human babies. ;)
Guns are not make just to kill humans. Abortion's only purpose is to kill humans. There is no such thing as an accidental abortion but there are accidental gun deaths.
Now answer my question you puke before I sick Jimbob on you. :eek: :D
Oh wait you might like that. :p
Originally posted by UDawg
If you do then you are saying "feotusssss" are viable human babies. ;)
Guns are not make just to kill humans. Abortion's only purpose is to kill humans. There is no such thing as an accidental abortion but there are accidental gun deaths.
Now answer my question you puke before I sick Jimbob on you. :eek: :D
Oh wait you might like that. :p
abortions are necessary in many situations such as health related instances for the mother... or severe deformities and the like... or even for rape victims..
I don't think having a bill that can be effectively used to overturn roe v wade on the grounds that it is murder is a good idea... choice is very important...
You still are avoiding my question. :D
If my the choice was either my wife would live or the child would live but only one I would choose my wife. That haven been said still does not justify abortion on demand and that is what most abortions are.
Now with that in mind, ANSWER MY QUESION!
:angel:
Originally posted by Sazar
2...
At least you are honest but whhich two? ;)
Now here is a follow up question.
Are the murders more terrible under the circumstances or are they the same if the women were not pregnant?
Originally posted by UDawg
At least you are honest but whhich two? ;)
well considering the babies per your definition were unlikely to have survived... the women...
I edited my last post. Sorry.
Originally posted by Sazar
well considering the babies per your definition were unlikely to have survived... the women...
So what if the women had terminal cancer and would have died 4 months later?
Two women are murdered while giving birth
right there is terrible enough... the circumstances of the murder and the manner in which it was carried out alone would justify a max penalty call for the perp...
however like I said... you need to differentiate this from an abortion and without terminology to support a woman's rights... I am personally not for the bill...
Riptide
02-26-04, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Sazar
not all abortions are due to a woman not wanting a child...
Oh c'mon now... You know the majority are though.
Originally posted by UDawg
So what if the women had terminal cancer and would have died 4 months later?
even if both of them had cancer... they were alive @ the time and therefore their killing will lead to a murder 1 trial... would be the same if anyone else was walking round and was killed...
consider this though udawg... everyone dies sometime... there are no guarantee's...
Originally posted by Riptide
Oh c'mon now... You know the majority are though.
yes... and like I said I may not condone the practice but I fully respect the right to choose...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.