How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Those who understand biology know that every abortion ends the life of an unborn human child.

I see...

You see nothing. For if you did see, you would admit the difference between plain, ordinary, biological fact and the outrageous propaganda used by the pro-death advocates in their efforts to distort biological fact.

you reverted back to your lying about science again. Those who actually understand biology knows that the developmental stage "child" begins after birth, and that spewing revisionist linguistic terms such as "Unborn baby" are as silly and deceptive at those who would insist that persons are "undead corpses."

Only pro-death advocates subscribe to this nonsense. Even Justice Blackmun cleverly worked around this issue when he wrote the Roe v. Wade opinion.

You choose to ignore a law enacted by Congress and signed the President, but I'll post it once more as a reminder.

H.R.1997

One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004' or `Laci and Conner's Law'.​

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

`1841. Protection of unborn children.

`Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

`(a)(1) 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.

-------------------​

It would seem that these folks are convinced that the occupant of a womb is an unborn human child. But, of course, you think you know better, don't you?

But this position of overt lying is no different than your typical position, so we understand that you have chosen to continue to deliberately lie.

You do not even begin to understand the meaning of the word, "lie".

 

[ngdawg]

When pasting an enacted law, you should know better than to only paste what suits your needs.
Here is the law's interpretation, taken from a pro-life site, but much more infromative than anything you may post: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/keypointsuvva.html
● The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (also known as "Laci and Conner's Law"), signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004, was enacted after a five-year effort led by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). This bill was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Melissa Hart (R-Pa.). A Senate companion bill (S. 1019) was sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). The House of Representatives approved the bill on February 26, 2004 (254-163) and the Senate approved it on March 25, 2004 (61-38).

● The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if a "child in utero" is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. The exact charge would depend on which federal law is involved, the degree of harm done to the child, and other factors. The law applies this two-victim principle to 68 existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These laws cover a considerable number of activities defined as federal crimes wherever they occur, including interstate stalking, kidnapping, bombings, and offenses related to major drug trafficking, and attacks on federal employees. In addition, these laws cover federal geographical jurisdictions, such as federal lands and tribal lands, and the military justice system.

● Prior to enactment of this law, an unborn child was not recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. Thus, for example, if a criminal beat a woman on a military base, and killed her unborn child, he would be charged only with the battery against the woman, because the unborn child's loss of life was not recognized by the law. Likewise, a bombing that injured a woman and killed her unborn child was not recognized as involving any loss of human life. This gap in federal law resulted in grave injustices, some real-world examples of which were described by former Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) at a July 21, 1999 House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee hearing on the issue. To read Congressman Canady's summary statement, go to: http://nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL899/cana.html.

● The law covers the "child in utero," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment. The National Right to Life Committee strongly supported enactment of the law because it achieved other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their own right: The protection of unborn children from acts of violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and the just punishment of those who harm unborn children while engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.

● As of March 31, 2004, twenty-nine (29) states have laws that allow a homicide charge to be brought for the unlawful killing of an "unborn child" or "fetus" in a state crime. Of these, 16 provide this protection throughout the period of in utero development, while the other 13 provide protection during certain specified stages of development, which varies from state to state. These laws are sometimes referred to as "fetal homicide" laws. For detailed information on state unborn victims laws, see the NRLC factsheet "State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims," at: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

● Enactment of the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act did not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor did it apply such a law for state crimes in a state that has not enacted one. Rather, the federal law applies only to unborn children injured or killed during the course of the federal crimes of violence that are listed in the law.

The law is SOLEY for the victims of violent crimes. Abortion is a medical procedure and does not fall under the law written.

 

[Fantasea]

When pasting an enacted law, you should know better than to only paste what suits your needs.

The law is SOLEY for the victims of violent crimes. Abortion is a medical procedure and does not fall under the law written.

You are correct. However, go back and read the post to which I was responding. The writer was complaining that there is no such thing as an unborn child.

I was simply showing him that federal law points out he is wrong. Did I succeed to your satisfaction?

 

[ngdawg]

Nope, never do...

 

[Fantasea]

Nope, never do...

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Those who understand biology know that every abortion ends the life of an unborn human child.

Originally posted by steen
you reverted back to your lying about science again. Those who actually understand biology knows that the developmental stage "child" begins after birth, and that spewing revisionist linguistic terms such as "Unborn baby" are as silly and deceptive at those who would insist that persons are "undead corpses."

Originally posted by Fantasea
H.R.1997

One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.​

Does this clear up your confusion? Or is that an impossibility?

 

[ngdawg]

Addendum to my posting of the interpretation. I need to note that ALL interpretations found were written by anti-choice groups and in no way change my personal views on a woman's right to freedom of reproductive choice.
I would also like to state that while this law is certainly good, it assumes that the victim whose life is lost is one that would have been viable had it continued and does NOT interfere with a woman's reproductive rights, only assigning victimization to the carried pregnancy.
I would also like to state that this other poster feels it is necessary to rescind every woman's rights, will NOT recognize those rights as law allows and is not responsive to questions posed, instead sings one note. As stated in another thread the poster has decided to flood with repetitious nonsense instead of answering questions directed their way, I will not play that game. Repetitious twisting is not debate nor is it informative, so I will ask that poster to NOT answer me and to please refrain from twisting anything I chose to say, paste or respond to.

 

[steen]

Does this clear up your confusion? Or is that an impossibility?

It is duly noted that you once again decide to outright lie, claiming that the political language of a bill is the same as biological fact.

Your ongoing need for lying in every one of your posts is duly noted as it marks you as a pathological liar. It is sad that you see a need to spew your fetish for lying on these boards.

 

[Fantasea]

It is duly noted that you once again decide to outright lie, claiming that the political language of a bill is the same as biological fact.

Your ongoing need for lying in every one of your posts is duly noted as it marks you as a pathological liar. It is sad that you see a need to spew your fetish for lying on these boards.

Just read the words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

:spin:. . . . . :rofl. . . . . :lamo​

 

[steen]

Just read the words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

Don't need to. You are still lying.

 

[Fantasea]

Don't need to. You are still lying.

Just read the words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

. . .:2wave: . . .:mrgreen: . . . .:rofl​

 

[steen]

Just read the words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

It is understandable that you don't want to deal with the fact of your many lies; even hardened prolifers are embarassed when their lies are exposed.

 

[Fantasea]

It is understandable that you don't want to deal with the fact of your many lies; even hardened prolifers are embarassed when their lies are exposed.

Just read the words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

. . .:spin: . . . .:rofl . . . :2wave:​

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Just read the words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

. . .:spin: . . . .:rofl . . . :2wave:​

101 repetitions makes one truth!

 

[Fantasea]

101 repetitions makes one truth!

A single biological fact need be stated only once.

 

[WinterSun]

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

How on earth can men get pregnant? :rofl

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

A single biological fact need be stated only once.

The single utternace of an irrelevant fact is not any more than repeating it 499 times. Your 'fact' remains irrelevant. The fact that it is human from conception means nothing, since there's no reason to attatch mroal value to something with none of the valuable characteristics of sentient beings. That's why we make a distinction between sentient and non-sentient. If nonsentient beings were worth as much as sentient--we wouldn't.

 

[ngdawg]

The whole crux of it is, someone takes the one law, disregards its basis and conditions and applies it to their own misconstrued system. The previous quotes used were from a small group of anti-choice doctors, then used as some sort of legit backing for the poster's 'facts'. The law clearly states and covers victims of VIOLENT CRIME . It gives no medical information or fact and bases its guidelines on the theory that the pregnancy would have been carried to term had the the crime not occurred. Has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.
Also, no one has denied that an embryo in a woman is human. But as long as it IS in the woman, it is legally HER right to choose to abort or carry. A child only has rights once it is a seperate entity, so rights of any fetus or embryo are a worthless point.
Back to the topic: Being pregnant against your will is rape. Having been sexually assaulted in the past, I am thankful I did not have to make the decision since there was no conception. But at least we are guaranteed the right to make that decision and not have to resort to dirty backrooms and coathangers-much more violent to the woman than anything these anti-choice zealots can get from their propogandist sites.

 

[steen]

A single biological fact need be stated only once.

But then, you haven't stated any biological fact to begin with, so that remark is irrelevant.

yes, you continue to spew an outright lie and CLAIM it is a biological fact, but you claiming validity of your lie doesn't make it a fact; it merely shows that you continue to lie.

 

[Fantasea]

But then, you haven't stated any biological fact to begin with, so that remark is irrelevant.

yes, you continue to spew an outright lie and CLAIM it is a biological fact, but you claiming validity of your lie doesn't make it a fact; it merely shows that you continue to lie.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Just go back and read my words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

:spin: . . .:mrgreen: . . . . :lol:​

 

[Fantasea]

The single utternace of an irrelevant fact is not any more than repeating it 499 times. Your 'fact' remains irrelevant. The fact that it is human from conception means nothing, since there's no reason to attatch mroal value to something with none of the valuable characteristics of sentient beings. That's why we make a distinction between sentient and non-sentient. If nonsentient beings were worth as much as sentient--we wouldn't.

If this is so, if it is more than unfounded opinion, then there must be some authoritative factual evidence to support it.

I've never seen any. What authoritative factual evidence can you furnish to support your claim?

I don't think you can furnish any authoritative factual evidence to support your claim.

Can you? Will you?

 

[steen]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Just go back and read my words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

It is understandable that you don't want to deal with the fact of your many lies; even hardened prolifers are embarassed when their lies are exposed.

 

[Fantasea]

It is understandable that you don't want to deal with the fact of your many lies; even hardened prolifers are embarassed when their lies are exposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Just go back and read my words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

:thumbdown ...:duel ...:lamo​

 

[steen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Just go back and read my words, one by one, over and over, until they sink in.

It is understandable that you don't want to deal with the fact of your many lies; even hardened prolifers are embarassed when their lies are exposed.

 

[Fantasea]

It is understandable that you don't want to deal with the fact of your many lies; even hardened prolifers are embarassed when their lies are exposed.

:2wave: ...:lol:... ... :naughty​

 

[FISHX]

Huh? How would you like it?

This question is especially aimed at Pro life MEN. How would you like to be pregnant against your will?

Been there and done that my son is now 18 years old and yes it was hard to be pregnant against my will as you put it but it was worth every second from the moment i held my son .

Would i do it again yes in a heartbeat.