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:OnGdc.2941$k05.2079@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > Osprey wrote:   
   > > "Light Templar"  wrote in message   
   > > news:k%Fdc.3697$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?   
   > >   
   >   
   > You have read Roe v. Wade, right?   
      
   Yes, now I am going to ask you again.   
   Is abortion only about "her body"?   
   I have already proven many choices for abortion don't involve her body at   
   all.   
      
   >   
   > >>   
   > >>> 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?   
   >   
   > Again, read the law.  I didn't write it.    Federal law that contradicts a   
   > Supreme Court ruling is unenforceable, so by definition the law must   
   > recognize that it doesn't inhibit abortion, only death and injury   
   sustained   
   > to the fetus as a result of violent acts against the mother, not as a   
   result   
   > of abortion, which it does.  Realize also that numerous, perhaps most,   
   > states have carried the same, or similar law on the books for at least a   
   > couple of decades.   This is not a new issue.   Scott Peterson, for   
   example   
   > was charged with both his wife's and unborn son's death under California   
   > law.   The same law does not include abortion as a prosecutable act.   
   >   
   >   
   > > Don't you have to be a human being to be considered a victim?   
   >   
   > It depends on the charge and the situation.   
      
   how so?   
      
   Is the victim in the case of a unborn child dying in a violent act a human   
   being or not?   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >    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.   
   >   
   > Ask away, like I said, I didn't write the law, but the law is quite   
   > specific.   I suggest reading the text of the law, perhaps it can clear up   
   > your questions.   
   >   
      
   I understand you didn't write the laws.  But if you are going to refer to   
   them, I am going to ask 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)