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:gEGdc.2961$k05.2251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Osprey wrote:
> > "Light Templar" wrote in message
> > news:OnGdc.2941$k05.2079@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> >> You have read Roe v. Wade, right?
> >
> > Yes, now I am going to ask you again.
> > Is abortion only about "her body"?
>
> If you've read it, then you already know the answer to that question.
>
> > I have already proven many choices for abortion don't involve her
> > body at all.
>
> It doesn't have to. She has dominion over her own body, and privacy with
> her physician in the case of pregnancy.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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?
> >
>
> You've never heard of cruelty to animals charges I suppose?
Sure I have heard of cruelty to animals, but I don't recal a fetus being a
cat either.
However I can
> kill, slaughter, and eat a calf and not be charged with cruelty to
animals.
> What's the difference if I kick a puppy, or slaughter a calf?
Obviously,
> the situation has legally recognized differences.
>
> > Is the victim in the case of a unborn child dying in a violent act a
> > human being or not?
>
> The law does not specify a violent act against the fetus. "...as a
result
> of a violent act against the mother..." Abortion, per legal definition,
is
> not a violent act.
But yet if the fetus dies the charges are more severe...correct?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
>
> Read the law. Personally, I have neither the time nor the ambition to
walk
> you through something you could easily look up and read. I refered to
them
> to correct a gross error in a statement about the law someone made, no
more,
> no less.
>
> --
> "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)
|
