kiara
|
posted on February 26, 2004 12:23:04 PM new
WASHINGTON (AP) The House passed legislation Thursday subjecting assailants who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus to two separate criminal penalties. The bill would for the first time under federal law give victim's rights to unborn children.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-26-unborn-victims_x.htm
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 26, 2004 12:51:54 PM new
posted on wrong thread..
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 26, 2004 12:56 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 26, 2004 12:55:41 PM new
I fully support this bill.
While many want freedom of choice to abort their babies, I think we must also accept that there are women who treasure each and every child they are given. And if by losing that said child, through intentional violence happens, then yes, two murders have been committed.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on February 26, 2004 01:16:17 PM new
But Linda, think at what this could lead to..... OMG abortion is killing an unborn child... MURDER
Can't have it both ways... I support this and hope it does stop the other.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 26, 2004 01:35:03 PM new
twelve - Scott and Laci Peterson's case is a perfect example. If she hadn't been murdered, that baby could have lived. Someone, Scott's the accused, took two lives.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 26, 2004 01:53:50 PM new
Does this mean that when a man is killed it is also murdering millions due to his sperm count ?
So you want the government to declare a fetus a person ?
Don't complain when the government arrests pregnant woman who don't eat right, or exercise too frequently or not enough, or how about those that knowingly pass on a fatal genetic defect?
It will be interesting when someone files a wrongful imprisonment charge against a pregnant woman for keeping the fetus in her against the fetus' will.
These Bills are nothing but crumbs that the "conservative" politicians have to throw to the faithful every election year.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 26, 2004 01:54:58 PM new
Like the article mentioned, it sure is a cosy way to tackle the abortion issue. So even if a woman is one week pregnant, a murderer can still be charged with 2 crimes. Why? Will it add more time to the existing murder charge? Will it insure a death penalty charge? I agree that this is about politics and not unborn children. What are your thoughts, Kiara?
|
logansdad
|
posted on February 26, 2004 02:11:39 PM new
Is Bush gonna change the constitution to define what a fetus is? At what point into the pregnancy does the egg become a fetus?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on February 26, 2004 03:00:33 PM new
Don't get too attahed to it, this one is not going to pass. There are a number of states that have laws that enable someone to be charged with the murder of a fetus but there are viability issues. Usually the definition is around 24 weeks at which time the fetus could survive outside the womb. With no viability definition there are too many possibilities for for problems. As Krafty mentioned, what if the woman is in the first weeks of pregnancy? One could argue that there is guarantee that this would have ever become a viable pregnancy. Many woman naturally abort in the first few weeks.
Oh and Twelve - the bill specifically exempts legal abortions.
I would support a bill with a viability clause, I would even support a second trimester clause but an open one like this? That I can't support.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Fenix03
|
posted on February 26, 2004 03:01:22 PM new
duplicate post
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 26, 2004 05:46 PM ]
|
kiara
|
posted on February 26, 2004 03:16:39 PM new
My thoughts? I'm wondering how this can ever be defined.
Perhaps if it was defined as a third person (not someone who legally performs abortions) who has malicious intent to deliberately harm the mother and/or unborn child, then I may be okay with it.
Even then, it would have to be proven that the assailant knew the woman was pregnant at the time of the attack.
Is it about politics? Isnt almost everything, especially during election time?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 26, 2004 03:52:02 PM new
Kiara - The bill, as I understand it does provide for exclusion of abortion doctors.
There are a number of states that have laws that enable someone to be charged with the murder of a fetus but there are viability issues. 29 I believe...but I don't know what each individual states viability limit is.
Yes, reamond, if I were carrying a child....maybe one I'd tried desperately to conceive for years...I'd want some justice from the person who took that away from me.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on February 26, 2004 04:11:56 PM new
Linda, I do understand that it would exclude abortion doctors. I added the comment in brackets because I wasn't sure if Twelvepole understands that.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 26, 2004 04:34:24 PM new
sorry Kiara - Wondered why you hadn't read your own article. 
--------
fenix - You said you don't think it will pass. Why is that? I don't know how the other bills were worded but this wording sounds pretty relaxed to me. I'm not sure why it would only include the women that fall under the provisions below. I'd think it should apply to all pregnant women.
--------------
Backers said the measure was needed to bring federal law in line with 29 states where those who attack pregnant women can be charged with two crimes when the fetus is harmed, including murder when it dies.
The legislation would apply only to attacks on women that qualify as federal offenses. Those would include such crimes as terrorist attacks, bank robberies, drug trafficking or assaults on federal land.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on February 26, 2004 05:27:16 PM new
Linda, it wasn't my article..... just one I linked to and read while I was eating my lunch.
I haven't read the wording of the bill, just what was mentioned in that article and on several other news sites I went to today.
|
Fenix03
|
posted on February 26, 2004 05:45:50 PM new
I don't think it'll pass for the reason that I mentioned. It's too loose. There is needs to be definition regarding perameters of age of the fetus. Besides, The senate hasn't passed any of the previus ones, why do you think they will pass this one? It's another step in attempting to make abortion illegal.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
profe51
|
posted on February 26, 2004 07:46:01 PM new
oops, wrong bill.._____________
[ edited by profe51 on Feb 26, 2004 07:46 PM ]
|
reamond
|
posted on February 26, 2004 08:08:08 PM new
Yes, reamond, if I were carrying a child....maybe one I'd tried desperately to conceive for years...I'd want some justice from the person who took that away from me.
Your "justice" from the person would be a civil matter, not criminal - and there is already is civil relief. The criminal charge is for the states' interests, not the victims nor the victims friends and relatives.
This is nothing more than a cheesy backdoor attempt to instill personhood upon a fetus.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on February 27, 2004 02:43:01 AM new
Oh and Twelve - the bill specifically exempts legal abortions.
Yes and Prop 22 defined marriage between a man and a woman... we see how well that is going...
If a fetus is defined as an living being that a person can be charged with murder, don't you think a good Lawyer will get that argument into an abortion case?
This bill, if it passes will open a new can of worms for those who do support abortions because then there will be legal precedence for protecting a fetus... good lawyers will make many many trials out of this.
edited to add: I went back and read the article again... I see nothing in it protecting abortion doctors specifically... it does often mention what others here are passing off as a non-issue... abortion... you can't have it both ways.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Feb 27, 2004 02:54 AM ]
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 27, 2004 08:59:27 AM new
But these laws have yet to pass constitutional muster.
In order to pass muster, the harm to the fetus will be considered an assault on the mother. There will be no consideration of personal harm to the fetus.
|
kiara
|
posted on February 27, 2004 09:32:25 AM new
Twelvepole, the page I linked to has been updated if you read the top of it Posted 2/26/2004 9:20 AM Updated 2/27/2004 7:15 AM and it reads different today than yesterday, but I suspect you already know that. Yesterday it did mention the exclusion of abortion doctors.
This can be found on another site and I'm sure if you delve into it you can find it in many other places also.
Critics said the bill undermines abortion rights by treating the fetus or embryo as a person, although bill sponsors said they included language that explicitly excludes abortion.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07389583.htm
|
Fenix03
|
posted on February 27, 2004 10:51:21 AM new
::edited to add: I went back and read the article again... I see nothing in it protecting abortion doctors specifically... it does often mention what others here are passing off as a non-issue... abortion... you can't have it both ways. ::
I know tht article did not but I had already readt two other pieces about the bill when this threa was posted and both of them did mention it. Did you think I would make up a specific aspect of a law?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 27, 2004 10:51 AM ]
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on February 27, 2004 11:45:45 AM new
I am saying that if this bill were to pass and become law, once again good lawyers will be able to challenge abortion laws...
I wasn't clear in that I don't believe the doctors would be charged with murder... yet
even though the bill excludes them... lawyers can turn this into a very big crusade for anti-abortion rights...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 27, 2004 12:01:48 PM new
Linda, the Peterson case is a good example, but what good does it do? From what Twelve says, it will only line the pockets for the lawyers, which I agree with. If the mother's already dead, what good is a second murder charge? Who benifits from this added charge?
|
