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:g7Hdc.3010$k05.2970@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > Osprey wrote:   
   > > "Light Templar"  wrote in message   
   > > news:CXGdc.2995$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?   
   > >   
   >   
   > Hey, you're the one that asked about it.   
   >   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >>>    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?   
   >   
   > Yes, I did, that doesn't mean that I raised my hand and offered to do your   
   > homework.   
      
   Thats one of the biggest problems we have in Newsgroups.   
   People refer to laws and sources but once questioned to explain them they   
   can't.   
   Why even refer to them if you don't know how to explain them???   
      
   Thats why I challenged you on this law.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   > > 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?   
   >   
   > Essentially correct.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > 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?   
   >   
   > You still don't understand the full meaning of Roe v. Wade.   Whether or   
   not   
   > the fetus is considered a "human being" was not in debate.   The issue was   
   a   
   > determination of where the mother's rights and privacy extended in   
   relation   
   > to the fetus she carried.  The Court ruled that the mother's rights were   
   > paramount.   
   >   
   >   
   > > Since we are talking about   
   > > the human species and not cats, dogs, vegetables, or minerals.   
   >   
   > You're the one that asked about non-humans, not I.   
   >   
   > --   
   > "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)