Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Another abortion thread)

Posted on 5/22/19 at 6:31 pm
Posted by GAFF
Georgia
Member since Aug 2010
2448 posts
Posted on 5/22/19 at 6:31 pm
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 says that a “child in utero" is "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." So basically this law passed by Congress says that a fetus at ANY stage of development is a human. But this same law has a provision that excludes abortion. How can the government legally view a fetus as a human under one circumstance and not as a human under a different circumstance?
Posted by GAFF
Georgia
Member since Aug 2010
2448 posts
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:34 am to
Seriously. If a pro-life plaintiff was to take this to court how would the court be able to uphold this?

I don’t claim to be a legal expert so I’ll leave the actual arguments to those who are but can the law decide to view one thing a certain way in one instance and different in another?
Posted by memphis tiger
Memphis, TN
Member since Feb 2006
20720 posts
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:38 am to
quote:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 says that a “child in utero" is "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." So basically this law passed by Congress says that a fetus at ANY stage of development is a human. But this same law has a provision that excludes abortion. How can the government legally view a fetus as a human under one circumstance and not as a human under a different circumstance?


No one has ever debated that unborn fetuses were not human.

The debate has ling been weather a fetus constitutes a "person". The distinction may be subtle but it is real.
Posted by GAFF
Georgia
Member since Aug 2010
2448 posts
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:57 am to
So it’s more of a language issue? Either way how can you charge a person with its murder if it was never a person? Seems like it would have to be either or.
Posted by memphis tiger
Memphis, TN
Member since Feb 2006
20720 posts
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:54 pm to
quote:


So it’s more of a language issue? Either way how can you charge a person with its murder if it was never a person? Seems like it would have to be either or


That’s really been the central debate regarding abortion.

The right argues that a fetus is a “person” and should have all the associated rights.

The left argues that a fetus is not yet a “person” this it does not have the same rights.
Posted by GAFF
Georgia
Member since Aug 2010
2448 posts
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:38 pm to
I see the arguments as they pertain to the left and right, but how does the government say that it’s different in each instance. The left/right argues their sides point and the government (USSC) decides which side it views is legal. But in this instance it appears the government takes two stances. One that it’s a person if it’s mother is murdered and results in its death, but not a person if it’s mother wishes to dispose of it.

I find it odd that a lawyer whose client is accused of a double murder has not tested the ruling in this case to try to ease their clients sentence. Seems like a no brainer to me but again I’m not savvy when it comes to laws. Or at the least a pro-life organization try to use this to their advantage.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram