The myth that pro-life views oppress 'women'

To prevent you from further conning the readers here.

First of all, it is titled the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The victim is the unborn child, OBVIOUSLY!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
Actual language from the law:
"Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section."


A child. Then it further explains where that child is located at the time of the crime.

It absolutely says nothing whatsoever about her right to choose. It protects the life of the child in utero. Quite obviously, "in utero" simply clarifies that the law applies to unborn persons. Even abortion laws recognize that there are persons who are not yet born, hence the prohibition of late term abortions. The UVVA; however, protects these unborn children people at any stage of development, from violent acts committed by anyone other than their own mother, who apparently can kill them at will up to a certain age. The person against whom the violence is committed that this law addresses is the child in utero, which is glaringly obvious to anyone who has read the law.

GAME, SET, MATCH!

No it doesn't! It merely clarifies that murder can include a child in utero, because the idiotic abortion laws have clouded the issue.

Nobody can commit a murder against anyone who is not a person. Even in Kalifornia.

 

You are completely wrong and only trying to deflect from your support of wanton homicide through abortion. Pro lifers care much more about born children that abortion salesmen do.

 

"Unborn" and "who is in utero" are descriptives that modify and differentiate between an unborn and a post-birth child.

If a fetus were considered a person, the UVVA would not even be necessary because we already had laws against murder.

That's why it excludes abortion.

 

Notice how Whaler is so concerned about the "murder" of fertilized eggs and embryoes...


and how easily he imagines the State EXECUTING actual women?

 

Maybe they do care about children but when that child grows up and becomes a woman they really dump on her.......

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you go around in circles?
You've been shown what would happen if a fetus was declared a "person"...... it would have the same restrictions any other person would have, it would not have super rights ....

 

Tell you what, you find a single case of a third person being convicted of the death of a foetus where the woman has not given consent, then you can crow all you like, until then the UVVA is about protecting the females choice as to what happens during the pregnancy. I know you pro-lifers have to misrepresent as that is all you have.

Also the ACTUAL language of the law

"(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. "

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— of any woman with respect to her unborn child

ergo it isn't just about abortion it is the fact that no woman can be prosecuted for doing anything with respect to her unborn child.

 

Also the absolute irony of SpaceCricket's Subject Line and OP premise....


contrasted with Whaler's endorsement of EXECUTING women who self-induced with RU-486.


There is nothing more dishonest....than a dishonest "pro-lifer."

And nothing more revealing...than an honest one.

 

Wrong, because the devaluing of human life that came through abortion permissiveness has clouded the issue.
Infant and adolescent are descriptive of certain traits of people, but one is no more or less a person than the other.

NOPE! It excludes abortion because they made that concession to go ahead and get the law on the books. But it clearly recognizes the personhood of a child in utero, at any stage of development. As I said before, even abortion laws recognize the personhood of fetuses, that is why late term abortions are prohibited.

- - - Updated - - -

I chuckle at those who advocate the wanton killing of innocent children trying to demonize those who want to protect them.

 

More pure bull feces from you. Nothing new.

- - - Updated - - -

You must be dizzy, I am not going around in any circle. I am standing right here on the solid ground that UVVA recognizes the personhood of all children in utero regardless of stage of development! Sorry if the truth makes you dizzy. You should get that checked out. All persons have the right not to be executed just for existing!

 

Tell you what, read the law and try to stay on topic. Children in utero are recognized as people and protected under this federal law. End of story.The fact that there is an irrational exception for abortion is just politics.

 

so you wailing and gnashing about the UVVA is on the topic of "The myth that pro-life views oppress 'women'"

Nope children in utero are recognised SPECIFICALLY for this law ALONE, and as already shown I know far more about your laws than you do;

So far you have failed to even understand the fundamentals of consent and self-defence laws, and now you fail on the UVVA as well.

No doubt you will try to come back with some inane response.

Want to try this one again - "Tell you what, you find a single case of a third person being convicted of the death of a foetus where the woman has not given consent, then you can crow all you like, until then the UVVA is about protecting the females choice as to what happens during the pregnancy. I know you pro-lifers have to misrepresent as that is all you have."

 

This law exists for the sole purpose of backing up state fetal homicide laws. No wailing, no gnashing on my part. Just pointing out the truth. Try this again, read the law and show me where it denies personhood to unborn children other than the one exception for abortion. I am sure you will reply with some inane nonsense, but have at it.

 

A fetus wasn't considered a person before 1973, either. "Life begins at conception" is a relatively new Catholic notion.

Right, both an infant and adolescent are born individuals.

It was no concession; not including an exception for abortion would have been unconstitutional. The UVVA doesn't mention personhood. Late term abortions are prohibited after viability to protect the "potentiality of human life".

 

No it is a widely held view shared by both religious and non religious folks alike. Typical leftist dishonest tactic, categorize and demean.

Yet a 8 and a half month old fetus has the same right to life. So unborn have the same rights as born and your "born" comment is meaningless.

It was obviously a concession, there is no other logical explanation. Late term abortions bans protect persons, which late term fetuses are considered to be, BY LAW.

 

Show me where the only exception is abortion, the exceptions are listed in section 2c and are as follows;

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

you seem to be under some illusion that all three exceptions are specifically about abortion, where as only number 1 deals with abortion, number 2 deals with medical staff not being able to be prosecuted should any treatment result in the end of a pregnancy.
Number 3 is the important one, read what it actually says (if you can stem the blindness you have) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— of any woman with respect to her unborn child they are three separate exceptions.

If the exception were only about abortion number 1 covers all aspects, number 2 and 3 would be moot and not required.

UVVA simply creates a new definition of unborn, existing separately from the current one. What is abortion in one circumstance is first-degree murder in the other; the definition hinges only on the process, NOT the end result, and the process is one that is performed with the consent of the woman( abortion), the other is not (murder) ergo the law is in fact protecting the woman's right to consent or not to what happens to the pregnancy.

If this were not the case then explain why when a pregnancy is ended by a third party with the woman's consent there is no charge or conviction for murder, regardless of the medical expertise of the person ending the pregnancy.

and even IF the UVVA does as you claim it makes little difference to the legality of elective abortion, in fact it strengthens the argument for elective abortion for ANY reason, at ANY time AND the state paying for it.

So yes you do need to try again and read what the law actually says and does, not what you want it to say and what you want it to do.

 

No one thought a fertilized egg was a person until the Catholic Church declared that "life begins at conception" in 1979.

Wrong. Neither the born nor unborn have a right to exist inside someone.

Not according to Roe v. Wade:

"Third Trimester: Since the fetus has the capability of "meaningful life" outside the pregnant woman's womb at "about 28 weeks, but as early as 24 weeks," the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes "compelling" at this point of "viability." Therefore, the state, if it chooses, may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the woman."

 

Nothing in that post shows that the law does not consider the unborn child a child, and therefore a person. So

- - - Updated - - -

Prove that. I believe you have simply made that nonsense up. If something caused people to come to that realization, it was likely science not religion.

What an idiotic response.

 

You seem to be unable to read the posts that explained the UVVA law and they were quite clear that the UVVA law had nothing to do with abortion.

You seem to be unable to grasp that IF the fetus is declared a person it would have no more rights than anyone else.

But you can never say WHY you think it should have more rights than any other person.

You seem to read things that aren't there like me being dizzy......why can't you read things that ARE there?

 

You are confused, no one here has advocated "the wanton killing of innocent children".....and you will never prove they have.

But some here have advocated punishing people, even with death, who haven't broken any law.

 

"""""""""" Late term abortions bans protect persons, which late term"""""


Notice the SHIFT to "late term"........

 

I read the actual law Skippy. I understand it very well. It has everything to do with recognizing the personhood of unborn children and prosecuting crimes against them. If it has nothing to do with abortion, why does it specifically address it? The unborn child should have the rights of any other chiled, ie: should have the right not to be killed simply for existing.

- - - Updated - - -

No shift anywhere, getting desperate I see.

 

It had nothing to do with abortion in that it excluded it.......


OK, you want unborn to have the same rights as the born. THEN it also has the same restrictions Or do you want it to have MORE rights than anyone else? Why should it have MORE rights???

...it does NOT have the right to harm someone else . It IS harming the woman it is in and she has the SAME RIGHT AS YOU DO to protect herself from harm, it's called self defense.

BUT YOU want to take away a woman's right to self defense, a right you wouldn't give up yourself , would you?

 

Wow, I just looked this up. I didn't even know about it. Just more proof of the dishonesty and emptiness of the pro-abortion argument. And the conflicting nature of the current state of the law. Kind of like the slavery days when blacks were people in some cases but not in others. Pretty messed up.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...that-life-begins-at-conception_b_2072716.html

Read the above link for numerous quotes from religious leaders (before 1980) with moderate and diverse opinions about abortion, even praising the RvW decision. For example:

"A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction," included the consensus of attendees on abortion:
"Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed," it declared, "but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord." Circumstances justifying abortion included "family welfare, and social responsibility." "When principles conflict," they affirmed, "the preservation of fetal life ... may have to be abandoned to maintain full and secure family life."

By 1980, evangelical leaders formed an agreement to stand with the Catholics on abortion, because they needed an issue to galvanize their base, and they chose abortion at random:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785

But you don't have a civil answer for it...

 

I congratulate you....for totally refuting the Subject Line of the OP....with your misogynistic hope that women who self-induce an abortion are EXECUTED.