Anti Abortion Alley
November 1, 2007
On April 1, 2004, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law. Also known as Laci and Conner’s Law, the law establishes that one may be prosecuted for causing death or bodily injury to an unborn child.
`(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.
`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that–`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
I find the wording peculiar. The very premise of abortion laws now is that a ‘baby’ is not really a living member of the homo sapien community until it is out of the mother’s womb. Yet, this law is calling this entity an ‘unborn child’. Bush’s press secretary quotes:
“The President does believe that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.”
So how is it that we are supposed to accept abortion laws when the current laws contend that the fetus is an unborn child and the President insists that a crime against this unborn child has two victims? Obviously pro-abortionists caught onto the snafu too because they were in an uproar.
However, one abortionist in New Hampshire, Dr. Wayne Goldner, candidly gave his position on the Peterson case, “On a realistic basis, (the fetus) was not a human being, it was a potential human being,” he said.
I love this ‘idea’ the best. ‘Potential’ human being?? Is this guy for real? And he has a PhD??!! Is this to say that the fetus may or may not be a human? Color me confused, but I thought once a woman became pregnant, we throw them ‘baby’ showers…not ‘potential’ baby showers. Sure, he may be going on the premise that this unborn fetus may never get to be born due to complications during pregnancy or other horrors, but does that make it any less of a human? The syntax is wrong if that is what he was trying to say, but what befuddles me the most is that someone so educated could make such a stupid remark.
The law does contend that it cannot be used against those who choose to have an abortion. But it that does not make it any less illogical. Here we have a law that contends if someone kills or causes ‘bodily’ (and on an aside…how can we say this is not yet a human being, but it still has a body?) harm to an unborn child, that they have committed two crimes: one against the mother, and the other against the unborn child. Yet, if a mother decides to kill their baby, there is no crime… Why does it matter the manner in which one takes to terminate the life of this unborn fetus?
I think the abortion debate is flawed in many areas. Anti-abortionists contend that we should not play God and that abortion is murder (also against Christian beliefs). Yet, they can go around judging, slandering, and hindering their brothers. How does this make them any better of a Christian? The Bible contends that there is no difference in the weight of sins. Abortionists contend that we should have the choice to do whatever we want to with our own body because it is ours. Yet the Bible contends that the body is God’s temple. The Bible does also contend that we have free will. This means we have the choice to do whatever we want to (good or bad), yet Anti-abortionists cannot allow for it? They want to say that it is wrong to play God or go against the Word of God, yet they cannot allow others to institute the free will that God gave to us all? Hypocrites.
I myself am Pro-Choice, but given the choice, I would choose not have an abortion. And if anyone asked me what they should do, I would tell them every time not to have an abortion. I do not believe in abortions, but I do believe that we should have the choice that is given to us through the free will that God has granted us. I do not think it is appropriate to call Pro-Choicers ‘Pro-Death’ because that is not what they are. They are exactly what they are labeled: pro-choice. Because like in my instance, I am against abortions, but still pro-choice. So I cannot be pro-death if I do not condone it.
Do I think there should be anti-abortion laws on the book? Yes. Why? Because I think abortions have become the new birth control and it has done a great injustice not only to the unborn children, but to the mothers as well. Just as we have to have sanctions to ensure order, I think we should have sanctions to ensure our legacy, safety, and good name.
Tags: Unborn Victims of Violence Act, abortion, unborn fetus, pro-choice
Comments
Got something to say?
