Unborn Victims Act: Closed Minds...

1stFreedom

[1stFreedom]

Recently I was in an Art chatroom recently where the topic of the "Unborn victims act" came up.

Instantly the issue turned to abortion even though this isn't abortion. Instead of people agreeing that killing a wanted, unborn child is murder, people were ranting about abortion and how choice was under attack.

What's ironic is that while some raged against anything to do with "choice", they had no outrage over a baby killed without the mother having chosen such a course.

In the pro-life movement, this is known as "abortion distortion". Reality, logic, and common sense are thrown out of the window in the name of almighty "choice".

No matter what is said to them, those arguing against this legislation simply attack the messenger and change the subject. A point by point debate isn't possible, since as soon as one starts answering a challenge, the subtopic shifts or one starts to receive insults.

How those in support of an abortion choice can be against this legislation is baffling.

[watchin]

You just can't argue with irrational emotional rage.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Of course it's not choice. No woman chooses to be raped, murdered or tortured while pregnant.

[goldstategop]

Mot every one who's pro-choice is against it. We have a similar law here on the books in liberal and Democratic California and the sky hasn't fallen.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I think this legislation, more than anything, will reignite the age old question of "when does a fetus become a fetus?"

[Alberta's Child]

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a typical government response to an emotional issue. When you think about it, it is utterly irrational and makes no sense whatsoever.

[Bart Mann]

Emotional? Maybe. That is what happens when the issue is life and death. A baby is a baby is a baby, and a human is a human from the moment one cell becomes two. Why is it that the pro-abortion crowd can rant and rave against laws that protect the most vulnerable, and call us pro-lifers the intolerant ones?

Fur is fur. Abortion is murder.

[LiteKeeper]

the age old question of "when does a fetus become a fetus?"

Better - when does an unborn baby become a person?

[mwl1]

White House/GOP campaign needs to more broadly communicate in select sunbelt markets that Kerry voted against this bill, which obviously puts him 90% away from rational, moral Americans.

[BigSkyFreeper]

According to the Senate vote, over 60% believe a baby becomes a person in the womb. Hardly what I would call a "divisive issue".

[LiteKeeper]

AMEN

[Former Fetus]

yeah, he first voted in favor of the Feingold "one victim" amandment, then he voted against the UVVA. Who, in his right mind, would vote for this man to be our next Chief Executive?

[irv]

A point by point debate isn't possible, since as soon as one starts answering a challenge, the subtopic shifts or one starts to receive insults.

I think it was Rush Limbaugh who said that, in any debate, on any issue, liberals will result to name calling within 3 minutes. They're very angry people.

[savedbygrace]

You're not kidding, are you?

How do you figure that?

[11th Earl of Mar]

According to the Senate vote, over 60% believe a baby becomes a person in the womb.

Correction... According to the Senate vote 60% believe a WANTED AND NOT YET ABORTED baby becomes a person in the womb.

Don't count on those 60 votes for much more than this.

[Alberta's Child]

Think about it. From a post of mine on another thread . . .

The Federal government has no business involving itself in matters that should instead be left to criminal statutes in individual states -- unless, of course, it involves matters specific to Federal law (crimes involving interstate commerce, for example) or involves a clarification of constitutional matters as they pertain to groups of people (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example).

The only legitimate Federal involvement in this case would have been a law that codifies full constitutional protection for the unborn child -- or a law that eliminates all constitutional protection for unborn children. There is no room for anything in between.

To get an idea of how useless and irrational this Unborn Victims of Violence Act is, imagine how preposterous it would seem if Congress had passed a Civil Rights Act in 1964 that only applied to people living in states east of the Rocky Mountains and west of the Mississippi River.

[savedbygrace]

Equal Protection clause.

[Alberta's Child]

Meaning what?

If anything, it would seem to me that the UVVA is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause. An assailant who injures an unborn child can be prosecuted for his crime, while a mother who kills the same child cannot? What kind of rational legal mind would ever accept that?

[savedbygrace]

It's a start.