Kerry has his priorities... Are they yours?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill, if this is about concern for a fetus more than about legally defining a fetus as alive why was Senator Dianne Feinstein's amendment to it that would allow for the imposition of punishment without changing the legal status of the fetus rejected?

I haven't read Feinstein's amendment, so I don't know. Do you have it handy?

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm well aware of that Craven. The "irrelevant questions" you objected to are my answer to those concerns. They were unfounded. I object to placing a higher priority on a non-tangible concern than on the victims of violent crimes. That doesn't make sense to me.

What lacking concern for victims? This new law can't come into play in any way that was not criminalized by laws that existed prior to it.

Bologna. This new law, in certain situations, turns simple assault into a far more serious crime, and rightly so. There have been enough horror stories told right here on A2K to justify the need for this type of legislation.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So it's not like it's a new law preventing any acts, it's a change in legal status for the fetus.

... for the sole purpose of punishing more harshly those that would choose to unlawfully destroy a fetus WITHOUT the mother's consent.

Everybody is Pro-Life and nobody is Pro-Abortion. The majority believes they should mind their own business when it comes to a woman's choices about her body. IMHO, this is a Pro-Choice positive anyway. Not only is it worded specifically to not take away a woman's right to choose; it helps enforce the woman's right to choose over that of the violent monster who attacks her. With regular rigorous enforcement; it could become common knowledge that pregnant women are untouchable. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Idea

0 Replies

Any priority he has that is opposed to that of the brain dead halfwit Bush must be good.

0 Replies

Hold on, I didn't say Kerry should not have voted against the bill. I qualified my statement that there was some wording in that bill that made it too open for interpretation. Bills are not a few sentences long. What I did agree on was the premise that a bill may be in order but I'm not sure if there are the right words in the English language to delineate what rights an unborn fetus does have. Anything is possible, of course, but the subject is so emotionally delicate and has so much to do with personal philosophy (yes, including religion) that I am dubious they can come up with a bill that will pass. That this is playing on a murder case which hasn't even been consumated is almost ridiculous. We don't even know if the child was actually born before Lacy was murdered. Therefore they proposed a bill without all the facts. That's what one sometimes gets from a bunch of lawyers who have made it into legislatures and are trying to make laws. I've certainly expressed my opinion of that on these boards.

0 Replies

I can see where the bill could be considered as a contradiction of Roe vs. Wade as to when the fetus is considered a concern for the state.

0 Replies

LW, take off you ultra-partisan hat for a moment... forget who voted for it and examine the bill itself. I posted the bill's legal summary above. Now don't take this personally, but

Lightwizard wrote:

Hold on, I didn't say Kerry should not have voted against the bill. I qualified my statement that there was some wording in that bill that made it too open for interpretation.

The wording makes it abundantly clear what is not open to interpretation. Including every concern brought up on this thread...specifically!

Lightwizard wrote:

Bills are not a few sentences long. What I did agree on was the premise that a bill may be in order but I'm not sure if there are the right words in the English language to delineate what rights an unborn fetus does have. Anything is possible, of course, but the subject is so emotionally delicate and has so much to do with personal philosophy (yes, including religion) that I am dubious they can come up with a bill that will pass.

As I said the legal summary is above, and it already passed.

Lightwizard wrote:

That this is playing on a murder case which hasn't even been consumated is almost ridiculous.

That is certainly what brought the long-standing problem to the forefront, yes. However, new laws do not apply to old cases that pre-date them... so what's ridiculous?

Lightwizard wrote:

We don't even know if the child was actually born before Lacy was murdered.

What? Of course we do. The bloody straws you are grabbing at are pretty disgusting.

Lightwizard wrote:

Therefore they proposed a bill without all the facts.

Again, this is complete nonsense because the Bill will have nothing to do with the outcome of Peterson's trial anyway.

Lightwizard wrote:

That's what one sometimes gets from a bunch of lawyers who have made it into legislatures and are trying to make laws. I've certainly expressed my opinion of that on these boards.

What?

Lightwizard wrote:

I can see where the bill could be considered as a contradiction of Roe vs. Wade as to when the fetus is considered a concern for the state.

Really? The specific exclusion doesn't do it for you. The fact that only the Supreme Court can reverse Roe Vs. Wade doesn't do it for you either? Good heavens man; what would?

Think it through, my friend, think it through.

0 Replies

No, we do not know if the baby was born. It was introduced into court and hasn't been determined by the jury.

The only approach I can see for this is for the prosecution to go ahead and try for a murder charge on the "child" and let it go through the courts. It's easily going to make it to the USSC.

I'm not being partisan at all -- looking at something rationally without the emotional trappings is the only way.

Sorry for your emotional involvement with this subject but it's too easy to have that emotion displaced. Your bloody straw comment is an example.

0 Replies

BTW, what makes it the most ridiculous is the tabloid nature of grasping onto a murder case that has the news media all titillated with the soap opera nature of the case.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

What are you talking about? Bush signed it into law on April 1st 2004. And even then, it can't be applied retrocatively and has no bearing on the Peterson charges.

California already had a similar law, this was just using the celebrity of the case to get a federal law on the books.

My apologies,I misunderstood.I thought people were saying that the bill did NOT pass.

0 Replies

I has to be tested in the courts and, yes, it can't be used in the Peterson case. We've likely been discussing too many hypotheticals here as if the bill weren't passed. We're only discussing whether Kerry or any other legislature should have voted no. We may not see a court case come up for many years to test it.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

BTW, what makes it the most ridiculous is the tabloid nature of grasping onto a murder case that has the news media all titillated with the soap opera nature of the case.

When this story first broke, the only news media I remember that was really showing this story constantly was Fox News. I remember thinking "why the hell are they showing this story every time I turn this channel on?" Hmmm...

0 Replies

LW: Sorry about the bloody straws comment... However; I need not factor in my emotions to determine that I am 100% behind legislation that protects the rights of pregnant women while at the same time preserving the rights she already has.

LW wrote:

BTW, what makes it the most ridiculous is the tabloid nature of grasping onto a murder case that has the news media all titillated with the soap opera nature of the case.

That isn't ridiculous; it's sad. It shouldn't take a murder with national attention to figure out monsters that attack pregnant women are a danger to society. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

All murderers are a danger to society. In focusing on the fetus, it almost trivializes Lacy's murder as a supplement to the "murder" of a fetus.

I can tell when someone's emotions are driving their convictions because I catch myself doing it. Time to sit back and consider the subject objectively. I think the semantics of "pro-life" have been distorted. Where's the emotional concern for Lacy who may or may not have been done away with by her husband? At this point with the concealed evidence that Lacy did visit the locale of the boat blows the "hair in the boat" evidence right out of the water (metaphorical double entendre intended). I don;t believe this law should hang on one case.

0 Replies

(And quit with the rolling eyes -- it makes you look like Carol Channing). Very Happy

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

All murderers are a danger to society. In focusing on the fetus, it almost trivializes Lacy's murder as a supplement to the "murder" of a fetus.

No one is slighting the importance of Lacy's murder. The fact she was carrying a baby magnifies the heinousness of the crime. It trivializes nothing... that is absurd.

Lightwizard wrote:

I can tell when someone's emotions are driving their convictions because I catch myself doing it.

I have no doubt that your emotion radar is serving you well, LW, but my emotions or lack thereof have nothing to do with the accuracy of my argument. Yes, I have strong feelings against those who hurt women. Now I hope that's out of the way...

Lightwizard wrote:

Time to sit back and consider the subject objectively.

You will find my argument is just as objectively logical, with or without my obvious emotion, if you try.

Lightwizard wrote:

I think the semantics of "pro-life" have been distorted.

This has nothing to do with "pro-life". Everyone is "Pro-Life".

Lightwizard wrote:

Where's the emotional concern for Lacy who may or may not have been done away with by her husband?

Where do you see a lack of it? We have laws to cover what was allegedly done to Lacy... that's why she isn't the focus here.

Lightwizard wrote:

At this point with the concealed evidence that Lacy did visit the locale of the boat blows the "hair in the boat" evidence right out of the water (metaphorical double entendre intended). I don;t believe this law should hang on one case.

You are still speaking as if the outcome of the Peterson trial has some bearing on a bill that has already passed into law and isn't (and couldn't) being applied to that case in the first place. STOP IT! Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The case inspired the bill, nothing more. It is important legislation regardless of Peterson's guilt or innocence. The verdict in the Peterson trial will have no bearing on the law in question Got that? Rolling Eyes

(The eye rolling is involuntary and can't be helped. :wink: )

0 Replies

Okay, after further review, if you look at this bill in a vaccuum, without taking into consideration the politics surrounding it, which Bill (or Carol Channing, if you like) is doing, then it sounds good to me.

But I can see how this bill could be used in the future to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I do believe that it is a political move by the right to do that very thing at some point further down the line.

I understand Bill's desire to look at it without all the political motivations behind it, because if you do, then you might see that there is more in play here than just protecting an unborn child. And what Craven said makes sense, that it is legally re-defining the rights of a fetus.

How do you resolve the fact, Bill, that an abortion can be performed up to a certain stage in the pregnancy, meaning that the fetus is not entitled to any rights, but that in this case only, the fetus does have rights during that early term pregnancy? Either the fetus has rights all through the pregnancy or it doesn't. If it does, which this bill states, then there is a contradiction in the laws. This means that inevitably, the legal rights of an unborn child will have to be debated in court, which could be used to outlaw abortion.

Why doesn't this bill use the same criteria for life that current abortion legislation does?

0 Replies

Just hope the blonde wig isn't impairing your vision. :wink: Very Happy

The verdict would if the prosecution believed they had enough of a case to go ahead and add a charge of aborting a fetus with intent to end a pregnancy, without a medical license and without the direct request or permission of the mother.

This could verify whether or not the law that was passed is constitutionally valid without waiting around for it to happen again. I'm not sure how rare this is but to pass a national law seems like overkill (sic) when (and if) individual states already have laws on the books. How many states have laws delineating an ending of a pregnancy by violence as a murder and when were they passed? I guess state's rights really don't mean a Hell of a lot in the end.

0 Replies

BTW, they named the bill after Lacy. If that isn't focusing on the outcome of this case, what is? I don't believe they should have hung the precedent of the law on this one case. If the case is lost it could change the ultimate constitutionality of the law. Even if I do believe that states should have laws and presumably they do about unlicensed, intentional abortions without the permission of the mother. I believe the jury will consider this new law as an influence to decide on the death penalty if he is convicted. I think it was a mistake to bring it up during that specific event that is in the title of the bill. Did they really believe this was going to be happening on a weekly, okay, even an annual basis?

0 Replies

Right, Kicky, I do not see any legal ramification for repeating the qualifications in the Roe Vs. Wade decision.