Unborn victims bill - Any thoughts? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

txlovely · 02-26-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Feb. 26, 2004, 3:21PM

House approves unborn victims bill
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The House voted today to treat attacks on a pregnant woman as separate crimes aqainst both her and the fetus she is carrying. Critics say it would undermine abortion rights by giving fetuses new federal legal status.

Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was actively backed by the White House and President Bush's conservative supporters. Following enactment of the law banning "partial birth" abortions last year, the bill is this year's prime measure dealing with the unborn.

It passed 254-163 after the House rejected a Democratic-led alternative that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women in which the fetus is injured or killed without conferring new rights on fetuses.

Backers further highlighted the bill by naming it in honor of Laci and Conner Peterson, the pregnant woman who was murdered in December 2002, and her unborn child.

"There are two victims in these kinds of attacks," said Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa., chief sponsor of the legislation. "That is so clear from the Laci and Conner Peterson case."

Laci's husband Scott Peterson faces double murder charges under California's state unborn victims law. California is one of 29 states that have enacted such laws, and supporters said Congress needs to bring the federal government in line with state laws.

At a news conference after the vote, supporters showed a video in which Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, urges Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards, "and every other senator who has refused to support it, to reconsider."

The measure would be applicable only when federal crimes -- such as terrorism, drug trafficking or offenses on federal land or on military bases -- are committed.

The White House expressed strong support for the legislation and opposed any "one-victim" alternatives such as that offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Her substitute, backed by most Democrats, fell 229-186.

Supporters denied that the bill was about abortion, pointing to language in the bill that specifically protects those carrying out legal abortions from prosecution. But the abortion issue dominated the debate.

"You deny personhood, which is a legal concept, to the unborn," Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a strong opponent of abortion, said to critics of the bill. "Here's an opportunity to not restrict the liberty of a pregnant woman, but to enhance the sanctity of human life."

But Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. The bill "is not about shielding pregnant women," she said. "It is and has always been about undermining freedom of choice."

The House, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was "taking advantage of tragedy to promote the far-right agenda of trying to rob women of their right to choose."

The two sides also argued over language in the bill that defines "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Critics said that under this definition even a fertilized egg would have the same rights as the born, setting the stage for future challenges to abortion rights.

But those behind the bill noted that identical language was used in a 2000 bill that barred the execution of pregnant women. That bill passed the House 417-0 but didn't move in the Senate.

The House has also twice before, in 1999 and 2001, passed unborn victims bills, but in both those cases as well the Senate, where abortion rights lawmakers hold greater sway, did not take up the legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has pledged to bring up the bill soon, but it's uncertain whether he has the votes to pass it.

The bill also states that an offense does not require proof that the assailant had knowledge that the victim was pregnant. Hart noted that murder is a leading cause of death among pregnant women and in many cases the attack is made with the intention to kill the unborn child.

It will be interesting to see if the Senate approves, although I doubt they will. It certainly will be challenged by abortion rights causes...

What do you think?

WarWagon · 02-26-2004, 04:04 PM

I agree. It would have to be overturned by the courts, as it is now basically granting the status of "living person" to a fetus.

Arsenic7 · 02-26-2004, 04:25 PM

I beginning to expect that bizzarre bills like this and the anti homosexual marriage amendment happen daily and are struck down without my knowledge.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-26-2004, 04:27 PM

Glad to see it happening. I think its bullshit that people anywhere present and past have been able to justify the systematic eradication/extermination/mistreatment of various groups based on a guise of dehumanization.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-26-2004, 04:29 PM

Also in the words of this article, it outlines the extent and jurisdiction of the bill...

Quote:

The measure would be applicable only when federal crimes -- such as terrorism, drug trafficking or offenses on federal land or on military bases -- are committed.

"Reproductive rights" people can EAD.

raeanna74 · 02-26-2004, 04:39 PM

It's about time. Whether you believe the fetus is an unborn human or not, if the mother wants the baby she is already planning, expecting, and caring for it. As a mother I know how attached I already was to my baby before she was born. I had planned for 9 months, eaten the right foods to "feed" my future baby right, and bonded with the moving being inside me during the last 3 months or so. For a mother to loose that future with a baby they already love is equitable to someone killing a child that is already born. Someone who is heartless enough to kill a mother and said unborn fetus or just the fetus is a crime that they should be held accountable for. Should that mother and future baby suffer simply because of "Right to Choice". Shouldn't she have the CHOICE to keep that fetus and shouldn't she have the right for the criminal who denied her that choice to pay for what he did?

txlovely · 02-26-2004, 04:40 PM

Excellent point raeanna.

brianna · 02-26-2004, 05:31 PM

i don't think anyone is really against this bill -- we all love mothers and babies and recognize that there is a double loss when a pregnant woman is killed. However, right to life groups have been known to try to manipulate the law in an effort to further limit access to abortion even though the majority of people in the USA are pro-choice. Why not a law that recognizes fetuses as people when they reach the third trimester of development? Obviously I am not trying to suggest that a family is not connected to a fetus until the third trimester, I just think that adding such a definition of when we are going to recognize a fetus as a person may be the best compromise for this law -- and if we *really* want to protect pregnant women and their families compromise is probably the only way you're going to get this law through the senate.

balderdash111 · 02-26-2004, 05:40 PM

It's not a black and white thing. The law already recognizes some rights in a fetus after viability. I agree that attacking a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child is somehow "worse" than just attacking the woman.

I expect there will be some sort of analysis to distinguish between killing a 4 week fetus and killing a 36 week one.

Holo · 02-26-2004, 05:51 PM

I would be for this bill if the mother would have the option to press charges for the death of the fetus. It sounds callous but an attacker may be doing her a favor by causing the fetus fatal harm or a miscarriage. But I believe it's still a stepping stone to reversing Roe v. Wade, just like portions of the Patriot act and the DMCA and there to remove our freedoms and rights. This is the age of sneakiness in legislation.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-26-2004, 05:53 PM

How is it sneaky? It is clearly outlinned.

Ustwo · 02-26-2004, 05:56 PM

My wife and I are trying to start a family right now. I can't imagine the devistation she would feel if she lost a baby while being attacked.

I think the sad thing is the people who wouldn't support this just to be sure they can always flush theirs.

FaderMonkey · 02-26-2004, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raeanna74
...Shouldn't she have the CHOICE to keep that fetus and shouldn't she have the right for the criminal who denied her that choice to pay for what he did?

I understand your point, but but this isn't about having the choice of keeping your child or not. Yes, it would be a horrible, horrible, horrible thing to lose your child whether it has been born or not, but it is not as if this bill is a way of keeping that child alive. If this wasn't going to undermine abortion rights, then fine, it's sounds good to me. But, this is going to undermine that, and I think the con of this bill outways the pro. As horrific as losing an unborn child would be this bill isn't going to bring that child back. I know that may sound really bad, but that's how I feel.

tecoyah · 02-26-2004, 06:39 PM

In my opinion this would be a relatively good idea if.......the present trend in this administration was not to remove our rights little by little. I just cannot trust my government anymore, and this makes me upset.
I find it likely that this would be a first step to remove reproductive rights from women. Just as the attempt at constitutional ammendment is nothing short of an attempt at discrimination, these guys are tricky and dishonest.

Ustwo · 02-26-2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
In my opinion this would be a relatively good idea if.......the present trend in this administration was not to remove our rights little by little. I just cannot trust my government anymore, and this makes me upset.
I find it likely that this would be a first step to remove reproductive rights from women. Just as the attempt at constitutional ammendment is nothing short of an attempt at discrimination, these guys are tricky and dishonest.

A the good old slippery slope fallacy.

Glad to see its alive and well.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-26-2004, 07:02 PM

How will this effect abortion "rights" , when it is clearly designed as only pertain to federal crimes?

SecretMethod70 · 02-26-2004, 09:00 PM

I watched a lot of the debate for this bill on C-Span this morning, so I think I have a pretty decent grasp on the two sides at issue here. They key thing to note is that this bill specifically states that it does not apply to anything wilfully done by the mother or to any abortions, and a few other things too. Not to mention that Roe v Wade mentions a womans right to choose to have an abortion. What it doesn't mention - and I hope I'm wording this accurately because I'm paraphrasing what I remember someone mentioning this morning - is anything against making other laws outside the woman's right to choose that recognize the fetus as a person.

I think this is a great bill, and, really, I think this concept of a "slippery slope" is more paranoia than anything else. I think as much as anyone else that a lot of our rights are under attack, but in this case I just don't see that. When someone tries to draw conclusions based on this bill against abortion, THEN start crying out, but this bill itself does nothing against roe v wade and does only good.

FaderMonkey · 02-26-2004, 09:15 PM

No, this bill itself does not alter current abortion rights, but it will lead us down that road. As Rep. Nita Lowey points out, it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. To me, that obviously sets the stage for future challenges to abortion rights. Yeah, we could wait until those challenges and complain then, but at that point what would be left to say? If we have one bill that gives the same right to a fetus as the born, then why should there be abortion?? I guess my point is that I don't believe that a fetus should have those rights...I don't look at a fetus as a human being. Of course that's just me, and that's coming from a non-religious person.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-26-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FaderMonkey
No, this bill itself does not alter current abortion rights, but it will lead us down that road. As Rep. Nita Lowey points out, it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. To me, that obviously sets the stage for future challenges to abortion rights. Yeah, we could wait until those challenges and complain then, but at that point what would be left to say? If we have one bill that gives the same right to a fetus as the born, then why should there be abortion?? I guess my point is that I don't believe that a fetus should have those rights...I don't look at a fetus as a human being. Of course that's just me, and that's coming from a non-religious person.

**Sarcasm containing totally inappropriate wording**

**Rude comment directed at other posters** You already have SOOOO many precedents in your favor. How can you be threatened by a bill that in no way shape or form attacks your beloved Roe v. Wade?

**Long rant in which the main purpose was to (I have to assume) prove a point through the use of hyperbole and sarcasm. Unfortuntely, it fell short of both and was thoroughly offensive regardless.**

Seriously weak Analog.

FaderMonkey · 02-26-2004, 10:40 PM

Well, I wasn't at all trying to be sarcastic or rude. I was simply debating the topic of this thread. If I've offended or bothered anyone, I apologize.

Kadath · 02-27-2004, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
**Sarcasm containing totally inappropriate wording**

**Rude comment directed at other posters** You already have SOOOO many precedents in your favor. How can you be threatened by a bill that in no way shape or form attacks your beloved Roe v. Wade?

**Long rant in which the main purpose was to (I have to assume) prove a point through the use of hyperbole and sarcasm. Unfortuntely, it fell short of both and was thoroughly offensive regardless.**

Seriously weak Analog.

Jesus, you can be a jackass sometimes. The post you so viciously assaulted contained an extremely solid point: that the bill would cement, for the first time, the rights of the unborn. If you can't see how that could be used as a stepping stone to overturn RvW, then maybe you should think about it some more. Instead you chose to get your back up because you perceived insults and sarcasm. It's a rookie, for god's sake. Maybe you cut FaderMonkey some slack, don't scare him (or her) away, hey?

ARTelevision · 02-27-2004, 06:26 AM

Sometimes, I'm glad it's not my job to make laws.
I believe in the distribution of labor and a representative government. It's the task of the lawmakers - not me - to make this decision.

I'm pretty expert at what I do - but I don't feel like I need to have a precise opinion about everything in the world.

gibingus · 02-27-2004, 06:44 AM

ditto that ART. amen.

matthew330 · 02-27-2004, 07:27 AM

Quote:

As Rep. Nita Lowey points out, it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. To me, that obviously sets the stage for future challenges to abortion rights.

Don't know alot about this bill, but heard a little clip about it last night. It seems to essentially have done what you are suggesting no bill has done, and this was passed some time ago. Briefly (because that's all i know of it) a woman convicted of 1st degree murder who is pregnant cannot be put to death.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-27-2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Jesus, you can be a jackass sometimes. The post you so viciously assaulted contained an extremely solid point: that the bill would cement, for the first time, the rights of the unborn. If you can't see how that could be used as a stepping stone to overturn RvW, then maybe you should think about it some more. Instead you chose to get your back up because you perceived insults and sarcasm. It's a rookie, for god's sake. Maybe you cut FaderMonkey some slack, don't scare him (or her) away, hey?

I am a jackass, which is fair, and I do apologize if it seems as if I was going after fadermonkey.

But seriously, don't give me some slippery slope bullshit. Its fucking ridiculous that I get harped on and labeled a bigot and get told that I'm an idiot and offbase because I disagree with homosexual marriage.

Like I said Roe v. Wade will never get overturned you guys have to many precedents in your favor as it is. Besides I can guaren-damn-tee that this bill will get heavily assualted if it even gets passed, and the sadistic 13th circuit will call it unconstitutional.

Anyone else think its funny that when a woman wants an abortion its her choice because the child isn't human, but if she wishes to afford her unborn an equal slice, which one would assume would also be her choice, she is a threat to "woman's rights"?

Kadath · 02-27-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I am a jackass, which is fair, and I do apologize if it seems as if I was going after fadermonkey.

That's class, man, and I appreciate it. Don't make me have to revise my low opinion of you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei

But seriously, don't give me some slippery slope bullshit. Its fucking ridiculous that I get harped on and labeled a bigot and get told that I'm an idiot and offbase because I disagree with homosexual marriage.

Fair enough. I disagree with the idea that slippery slope is always bullshit, and I'm not sure how you moved to you getting ragged on because you disagree with gay marriage, but I'll try not to call you and idiot or a bigot. I can't find the way to see it from your perspective, but that doesn't make you either of those things.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Like I said Roe v. Wade will never get overturned you guys have to many precedents in your favor as it is. Besides I can guaren-damn-tee that this bill will get heavily assualted if it even gets passed, and the sadistic 13th circuit will call it unconstitutional.

Look, we all know that in the US, new laws are built on old laws. Lawyers cite precedent every single time. And it doesn't matter how many precedents "we" have in "our" favor, we don't want any against us. It's like gun owners not wanting to give up the rights to any gun. You give an inch, they'll want a yard. Also, take it easy on calling the 13th sadistic. That kind of vitriol hurts your argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Anyone else think its funny that when a woman wants an abortion its her choice because the child isn't human, but if she wishes to afford her unborn an equal slice, which one would assume would also be her choice, she is a threat to "woman's rights"?

"A equal slice" in this case being status as a human being? I'm serious now, I'm sorry if I come off as a jerk, just limitations of text, but can't you see how granting an unborn fetus the same status as a human in any case would be detrimental to Roe v. Wade? And I don't think anything about abortion is funny. It's as un-fucking-funny as it gets. It's a shitty place for a woman to come to in her life. I just don't want to make it any harder on her.

Lebell · 02-27-2004, 08:22 PM

Does anyone else feel the love?

*sniff*

(jk!)

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-27-2004, 09:47 PM

I mean I think its more that I don't care if Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Outside of that, I could see where someone would think it was under attack. However I would jsut tell them that they are offbase, this bill is clearly outlined and is limited to federal high crimes, not even basic CRIMINAL cases.

And btw the 13th circuit is sadistic, if 70+% of their decisions are getting over turned by the national Supreme Court something is up.

Kadath · 02-28-2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
And btw the 13th circuit is sadistic, if 70+% of their decisions are getting over turned by the national Supreme Court something is up.

Maybe what's up is the Supreme Court is packed with conservative jackholes like Scalia?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-28-2004, 04:51 PM

Or the 13th is packed with Quasi-Liberal facist activists. Either or.

tecoyah · 02-28-2004, 05:04 PM

My god....listen to you people. Go back and read your posts, then tell me if a maturity/reality check is in order here. Granted this is a hotly debated topic, but debate need not degrade to name calling .

we all have opinions and they are all wrong to someone....that is no reason to get nasty, unless you just wish to entertain the rest of us.

Strange Famous · 02-28-2004, 05:16 PM

In my opinion this law is wrong. I would agree hat a violent attack on a pregnant woman is an especially awful crime that should be treated with extra severity. But it simply does not make sense to give legal rights to a person that is not yet existing. A fetus is not, properly defined, a human being and it is wrong to treat it as one.

seretogis · 02-28-2004, 05:45 PM

I don't think there is any reason for this bill on a federal level. "Leave it to the states."

02-26-2004, 04:25 PM	#3 (permalink)
Arsenic7 Insane Location: Corvallis, OR.	I beginning to expect that bizzarre bills like this and the anti homosexual marriage amendment happen daily and are struck down without my knowledge. __________________ This is no sig.

02-26-2004, 04:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Glad to see it happening. I think its bullshit that people anywhere present and past have been able to justify the systematic eradication/extermination/mistreatment of various groups based on a guise of dehumanization. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-26-2004, 04:39 PM	#6 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	It's about time. Whether you believe the fetus is an unborn human or not, if the mother wants the baby she is already planning, expecting, and caring for it. As a mother I know how attached I already was to my baby before she was born. I had planned for 9 months, eaten the right foods to "feed" my future baby right, and bonded with the moving being inside me during the last 3 months or so. For a mother to loose that future with a baby they already love is equitable to someone killing a child that is already born. Someone who is heartless enough to kill a mother and said unborn fetus or just the fetus is a crime that they should be held accountable for. Should that mother and future baby suffer simply because of "Right to Choice". Shouldn't she have the CHOICE to keep that fetus and shouldn't she have the right for the criminal who denied her that choice to pay for what he did? __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

02-26-2004, 04:40 PM	#7 (permalink)
txlovely Insane Location: ...We have a problem.	Excellent point raeanna. __________________ Cruel words erode self-esteem like the ocean eats away the shore.

02-26-2004, 05:51 PM	#10 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	I would be for this bill if the mother would have the option to press charges for the death of the fetus. It sounds callous but an attacker may be doing her a favor by causing the fetus fatal harm or a miscarriage. But I believe it's still a stepping stone to reversing Roe v. Wade, just like portions of the Patriot act and the DMCA and there to remove our freedoms and rights. This is the age of sneakiness in legislation. __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

02-26-2004, 04:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
WarWagon Loser	I agree. It would have to be overturned by the courts, as it is now basically granting the status of "living person" to a fetus.

02-26-2004, 05:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	i don't think anyone is really against this bill -- we all love mothers and babies and recognize that there is a double loss when a pregnant woman is killed. However, right to life groups have been known to try to manipulate the law in an effort to further limit access to abortion even though the majority of people in the USA are pro-choice. Why not a law that recognizes fetuses as people when they reach the third trimester of development? Obviously I am not trying to suggest that a family is not connected to a fetus until the third trimester, I just think that adding such a definition of when we are going to recognize a fetus as a person may be the best compromise for this law -- and if we really want to protect pregnant women and their families compromise is probably the only way you're going to get this law through the senate.

02-26-2004, 05:40 PM	#9 (permalink)
balderdash111 Psycho	It's not a black and white thing. The law already recognizes some rights in a fetus after viability. I agree that attacking a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child is somehow "worse" than just attacking the woman. I expect there will be some sort of analysis to distinguish between killing a 4 week fetus and killing a 36 week one.

02-26-2004, 05:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How is it sneaky? It is clearly outlinned. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-26-2004, 05:56 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My wife and I are trying to start a family right now. I can't imagine the devistation she would feel if she lost a baby while being attacked. I think the sad thing is the people who wouldn't support this just to be sure they can always flush theirs. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-26-2004, 06:39 PM	#14 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	In my opinion this would be a relatively good idea if.......the present trend in this administration was not to remove our rights little by little. I just cannot trust my government anymore, and this makes me upset. I find it likely that this would be a first step to remove reproductive rights from women. Just as the attempt at constitutional ammendment is nothing short of an attempt at discrimination, these guys are tricky and dishonest. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-26-2004, 07:02 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How will this effect abortion "rights" , when it is clearly designed as only pertain to federal crimes? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-26-2004, 09:00 PM	#17 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I watched a lot of the debate for this bill on C-Span this morning, so I think I have a pretty decent grasp on the two sides at issue here. They key thing to note is that this bill specifically states that it does not apply to anything wilfully done by the mother or to any abortions, and a few other things too. Not to mention that Roe v Wade mentions a womans right to choose to have an abortion. What it doesn't mention - and I hope I'm wording this accurately because I'm paraphrasing what I remember someone mentioning this morning - is anything against making other laws outside the woman's right to choose that recognize the fetus as a person. I think this is a great bill, and, really, I think this concept of a "slippery slope" is more paranoia than anything else. I think as much as anyone else that a lot of our rights are under attack, but in this case I just don't see that. When someone tries to draw conclusions based on this bill against abortion, THEN start crying out, but this bill itself does nothing against roe v wade and does only good. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-26-2004, 09:15 PM	#18 (permalink)
FaderMonkey Psycho Location: Orlando, FL	No, this bill itself does not alter current abortion rights, but it will lead us down that road. As Rep. Nita Lowey points out, it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. To me, that obviously sets the stage for future challenges to abortion rights. Yeah, we could wait until those challenges and complain then, but at that point what would be left to say? If we have one bill that gives the same right to a fetus as the born, then why should there be abortion?? I guess my point is that I don't believe that a fetus should have those rights...I don't look at a fetus as a human being. Of course that's just me, and that's coming from a non-religious person. Last edited by FaderMonkey; 02-26-2004 at 09:24 PM..

02-26-2004, 10:40 PM	#20 (permalink)
FaderMonkey Psycho Location: Orlando, FL	Well, I wasn't at all trying to be sarcastic or rude. I was simply debating the topic of this thread. If I've offended or bothered anyone, I apologize.

02-27-2004, 06:44 AM	#23 (permalink)
gibingus Insane Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W	ditto that ART. amen. __________________ if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

02-27-2004, 06:26 AM	#22 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Sometimes, I'm glad it's not my job to make laws. I believe in the distribution of labor and a representative government. It's the task of the lawmakers - not me - to make this decision. I'm pretty expert at what I do - but I don't feel like I need to have a precise opinion about everything in the world. __________________ create evolution

02-27-2004, 08:22 PM	#27 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Does anyone else feel the love? sniff (jk!) __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-27-2004, 09:47 PM	#28 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I mean I think its more that I don't care if Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Outside of that, I could see where someone would think it was under attack. However I would jsut tell them that they are offbase, this bill is clearly outlined and is limited to federal high crimes, not even basic CRIMINAL cases. And btw the 13th circuit is sadistic, if 70+% of their decisions are getting over turned by the national Supreme Court something is up. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-28-2004, 04:51 PM	#30 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Or the 13th is packed with Quasi-Liberal facist activists. Either or. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-28-2004, 05:04 PM	#31 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	My god....listen to you people. Go back and read your posts, then tell me if a maturity/reality check is in order here. Granted this is a hotly debated topic, but debate need not degrade to name calling . we all have opinions and they are all wrong to someone....that is no reason to get nasty, unless you just wish to entertain the rest of us. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

02-28-2004, 05:16 PM	#32 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	In my opinion this law is wrong. I would agree hat a violent attack on a pregnant woman is an especially awful crime that should be treated with extra severity. But it simply does not make sense to give legal rights to a person that is not yet existing. A fetus is not, properly defined, a human being and it is wrong to treat it as one. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-28-2004, 05:45 PM	#33 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I don't think there is any reason for this bill on a federal level. "Leave it to the states." __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames