Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[jakee 1,595]

An actual opinion on how far reaching this bill is would also be helpfull.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Well, I think it's pretty safe to say that some Laci Peterson type case is going to get prosecuted at some point in the future. As for branching out into other things like vehicular manslaughter . . . that's a lot more sketchy. I don't think that's anywhere near the intent of the law so somebody would really have to have something "interesting" in order to want to do that.

I really think the thing to really expect is for this law to be used as leverage against Roe v. Wade since this law now tries to define when life begins. There simply is no other logical explanation for the language used.

Then again -- I ain't no lawyer. I'm just a guy that knows a bit about how law (mostly as it applies to aviation) works.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,595]

Yeah, the fact that this law needs to make an exception for medical procedures says alot IMO.

Quote

I don't think that's anywhere near the intent of the law so somebody would really have to have something "interesting" in order to want to do that.

Is it the intent or the actual wording of the law that will be considered when the first "test" cases come to trial?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

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

as soon as it can sustain life on its own, without external support for basic functions. breathing, digestion etc...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[quade 4]

Actual wording.

Then some judge may lay on his opinion about whether or not it's Constitutional or whether the case fits the intent. 3rd trimester would be, I think, pretty much a slam dunk. Where it gets "interesting" is earlier in the pregnancy. The earlier, the more "interesting" both for the immediate case and the ones that follow based on it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,118]

>I'm sure some of the ayes were pro lifers. Does that mean their
>only possible motivation was to undermine Roe v Wade?

Not at all. But I am certain that some of them have that as one of their motivations.

Let me pose a question to you. If a law were proposed requiring gun registration for anyone convicted of any crime or infraction (to help prevent gun deaths, of course) and the legislators promised it wouldn't be used to confiscate anyone's gun who (for example) just had a few speeding tickets, would you believe them? Or would you think that perhaps there was an ulterior motive to their desire for the law?

[billvon 3,118]

> Where do you draw the line?

When it acquires the one indisputable thing that makes us human - a human mind. Which certainly occurs after the first brain activity is detected.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Where it gets "interesting" is earlier in the pregnancy.

Even though the bill specifically mentions conception as the starting point for human life under law? I suppose thats where expert medical testimony could be incredibly important in moulding this new law.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

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

The same could be said for some anti-gun laws, couldn't it?

As far as the unborn-baby-protection thing, I wonder at the slippery-slope. When does it become illegal for a pregnant woman to be too poor to afford prenatal care, or to skydive, or do anything else that might endanger the fetus? After all, you can do things yourself that you cannot force others to do (e.g. skydive). As soon as a fetus inside you is defined as another person, well, then there is a whole shitload of precedent to begin applying.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

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

The same could be said for some anti-gun laws, couldn't it?

You're going to have draw the parallel for me on this one, I don't see it. How can a law help the cause of anti-gunners but not be overtly anti-gun?

Quote

When does it become illegal for a pregnant woman to be too poor to afford prenatal care, or to skydive, etc etc etc etc?

From the law, not included are: abortions, any treating doctors, and the mother-to-be

Quote

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

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

[billvon 3,118]

>You're going to have draw the parallel for me on this one, I don't see it.

A new gun registration law where all legislators swear up and down that it will never, ever be used to take guns away from people. Doesn't hurt gun owners on the surface, but I bet you would suspect their motives.

[Kennedy 0]

I call bullshit. Registration is the third largest anti-gun step a legislature can take. (banning guns outright being the biggest, and outlawing their use being second).

Quote

A new gun registration law where all legislators swear up and down that it will never, ever be used to take guns away from people.

We've heard that one before, from London, from Sydney, from Albany, from Sacramento (I think I got those capitals right) and many other governments. Registration has led to confiscation in every instance that it has been instituted. Yes, I just said every single one.

Quote

Doesn't hurt gun owners on the surface, but I bet you would suspect their motives.

Wrong, it hurts them by putting them in front of the firing squad. It just doesn't pull the trigger.

Wasn't it you who reminded us that governments always expand their power as far as possible? You don't think some bureaucrat would just at the chance to yell "FIRE!!!"?

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

[billvon 3,118]

>I call bullshit. Registration is the third largest anti-gun step a
> legislature can take. (banning guns outright being the biggest, and
> outlawing their use being second).

I agree. Many see making killing a fetus murder as the third largest anti-abortion step a legislatiure can take.

>Wrong, it hurts them by putting them in front of the firing squad. It
> just doesn't pull the trigger.

Again, I agree. Apply how you feel about your right to own a gun to how some women feel over the right to control what happens with their own bodies, and you've got a sense of where opponents to this bill are coming from.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Legislation should not decide when a fetus becomes a person -- that's an ethical question.

A guestion that has never been answered by any human. Yet humanity decides to not err on the side of caution.

Chris

I disagree. I believe we are erring on the side of caution to avoid trampling on individual rights.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same could be said for some anti-gun laws, couldn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're going to have draw the parallel for me on this one, I don't see it. How can a law help the cause of anti-gunners but not be overtly anti-gun?

How can a law help the cause of pro-lifers but not be overtly anti-choice?

The parallel is the same argument made against gun control, which as you know, I'm also against. Once you give a little bit, the antis just want more. Every compromise is a stepping stone to an all out ban.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Saw an article in the new scientist that mentioned this. Apparently it
'designates the fetus as a human being from the moment of conception

Does that mean from the moment of conception a fetus can have a Social Security number and you get a tax break for it? I guess it does, otherwise it would not be getting equal treatment under the law as required by the Constitution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

You've misunderstood my point.

It's only murder if it's a person. Legislation should not decide when a fetus becomes a person -- that's an ethical question.

I think the word "delivery" sums it up. Until a woman "delivers" the baby, it is no-one's business but hers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

So according to you it's ok to kill the child at 8 months and 29 days, as long as it hasn't been delivered?

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

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

So according to you it's ok to kill the child at 8 months and 29 days, as long as it hasn't been delivered?

I have a very simple viewpoint - until the woman delivers a child, it is her business and hers alone. I don't find any other argument, pro or anti, to be in the slightest bit relevant.

You conservative folks are always going on about the "Nanny State" but you seem to have no problem with the State telling women how they should behave. Try being consistent!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

Quote

When it acquires the one indisputable thing that makes us human - a human mind. Which certainly occurs after the first brain activity is detected.

Do we have any idea when the first brain wave occurs?

[rhino 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Legislation should not decide when a fetus becomes a person -- that's an ethical question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A guestion that has never been answered by any human. Yet humanity decides to not err on the side of caution.

A valid point..

[rhino 0]

Quote

but I don't want our lawmakers to make that decision for people who disagree with me.

Why not? Laws are for that purpose. Some people think murder should be legal. Luckily the laws say otherwise.

Laws force people that can't make "ok" decisions to do so. If not they pay the consequences.

[billvon 3,118]

>Do we have any idea when the first brain wave occurs?

Detectable brain activity occurs between 6 and 10 weeks.

[Kennedy 0]

Bill, I love it when you make it easy for me.

Your proposed law is actually funny. Anyone convicted of any felony is barred from ever owning a firearm, or employing a bodyguard who carries a firearm (apparently Ted Kennedy gets to be the exception to the law, again).

Similarly, anyone convicted of a crime of violence, even a misdemeanor, is barred from owning a firearm.

As I've mentioned before, the Supreme Court found that requiring felons to register their guns is unconstitutional as a violation of the right against self incrimination. By SCUS definition, registration can only affect law abiding citizens.

The only people left open to prosecution are people with a few speeding tickets (those not barred from owning firearms).

This is why understanding the laws in place is required before discussing gun legislation (anyone claiming machine guns are covered by the fading assault weapons ban fails that test miserably).

Everything you can do wrong with a gun is already illegal. Why pass more gun laws?

I really can't imagine a good parallel here. We're talking about a tool versus a pregnant mother. Hard to draw connections.

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

6 and 10 weeks

after conception?

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