XPost: alt.abortion, alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion
XPost: alt.abortion.repent, alt.discuss.life, alt.politics.abortion
XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, us.issues.abortion
From: noneedtoknow@mail.com
"Light Templar" wrote in message
news:k%Fdc.3697$A_4.969@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Osprey wrote:
> > "Light Templar" wrote in message
> > news:3BFdc.3668$A_4.203@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Osprey wrote:
> >>> "Light Templar" wrote in message
> >>> news:m6Fdc.3614$A_4.2665@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>> Jabriol wrote:
> >>>>> On 8-Apr-2004, "Light Templar" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A pre-born child? No, it's called a fetus and yes, I support a
> >>>>>>>> woman's right
> >>>>>>>> to choose regardless of how she became pregnant. Her body, her
> >>>>>>>> choice.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> killing a fetus is against the law..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But abortion is not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and the difference is?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Abortion is not covered under the new law.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Feti in the uterus have the potential to become human beings
> >>>>>>>> should they be
> >>>>>>>> carried to term. They are not considered human beings while in
> >>>>>>>> the uterus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> says who?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current law
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bush signed into law the "violence against Fetus act"
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you actually bothered to read the act? The death or harm of
> >>>> the fetus becomes a crime IF and ONLY IF said death or harm came as
> >>>> a result of an act of violence perpetrated against the mother,
> >>>> ergo, abortion does not meet that criteria.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why not?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because under the law, abortion is not an act of violence where the
> >> mother consents to it.
> >>
> >> End of debate.
> >
> > No, sorry but it can't be the end of the debate.
>
> As far as the new law is concerned, it is.
>
> Especially if there
> > are questions that
> > are particularly difficult to address, such as the ones I am going to
> > ask.
> >
> > So, if a mother consents to the death of the unborn that is o.k..
>
> As long as the unborn is within her own body, yes.
So you are saying that the issue of abortion is only about "her body"
Correct?
>
> > But if she doesn't consent, suddenly the unborn has rights as we do
> > after birth.
>
> No. Under the new law, is is considered a victim, it is still not
granted
> rights as a citizen.
How can a unborn be considered a victim if the unborn isn't considered a
human being?
Don't you have to be a human being to be considered a victim?
It cannot own property, it cannot enter into
> contracts, I mean really Osprey, is it really necesarry to hold your hand
> through all of the details that any first year civics student knows?
Oh, we are just getting started with the questions. This is going to get
rather deep and involved.
>
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> You're asking me?
Yep
> I didn't right the law, but that's the way it reads.
>
> --
> "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
> of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use
> against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
>
> Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House
> (8/26/2002).
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
