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:CXGdc.2995$k05.1189@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > Osprey wrote:   
   > > "Light Templar"  wrote in message   
   > > news:gEGdc.2961$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.   
   > >   
   >   
   > You asked about non-humans, which leaves animal, vegetable, or mineral.   
      
      
   I know, but can we please try to keep this issue to the human species?   
      
   >   
   >   
   > >    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?   
   > >   
   >   
   > Are they?   Have you read the law yet?   
      
   You are the one that refered to the law right?   
   So I am asking you.   
      
   Is this law intended to punish someone who commits a violent act against a   
   pregnant woman and the   
   unborn child dies as a result?   
      
   We both know the answer is yes.   
      
   So if the victim is this case is the unborn, is the victim a human being or   
   not?  Since we are talking about   
   the human species and not cats, dogs, vegetables, or minerals.   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>    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)