Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House committee moves bill defining fetal crimes
Associated Press ^ | Jan 21 | Jim Abrams

Posted on 01/21/2004 12:43:33 PM PST by Condor51

Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP)

(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fetalrights; hr1997

1 posted on 01/21/2004 12:43:35 PM PST by Condor51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus; TexasCowboy
ping
2 posted on 01/21/2004 12:50:50 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
But he and other Republicans rejected an amendment, offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She would have increased penalties for attacks on a pregnant woman leading to the interruption of a pregnancy but not confer separate legal rights to the fetus.

DUH!!!

If the fetus does not have separate legal rights, then "increased penalties for atteacks on a pregnant woman leading to the interruption of a pregnancy" would make NO sense. If the fetus is nothing more than a lump of tissue, then any law that imposing stricter sentences for harming a pregnant woman would be no more Constitutional than a law imposing stricter sentences for harming someone based on their skin color...

3 posted on 01/21/2004 12:52:01 PM PST by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
But Democrats and abortion rights groups said the real motive was to establish "fetal personhood"

You just can't get much past these guys, can you? I mean, if you start thinking of a fetus as a human being, next thing you know they'll have the legal status of a Rottweiler or a yew tree!
4 posted on 01/21/2004 12:57:59 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok
"...legal status of a rottweiler or yew tree"

If only a fetus were so lucky. Live oaks have more legal protection than the unborn.
5 posted on 01/21/2004 1:31:44 PM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Democrats on the panel called the legislation a thinly veiled attempt to erode abortion rights.

What's for Dems to object?

Doctors are exempt. Right?

6 posted on 01/21/2004 3:44:16 PM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson