ABORTION.......

Hey Shazzer,

Again, some very intriguing and good questions. I am going to address each of these the best I can.

Shazzer Wrote:



You're right, no one put the Bible at anyone's doorstep and said do this. And yes, the words were written down by men. That I do not refute. You have to remember that Christianity is based on faith. Christians do not feel we need tangible proof that God exists or that the Bible is the word of God.

As a matter of fact, if it isn't the word of God, I think it would have been written a bit differently. If man made up the Bible, don't you think he would have had some of the same questions we all have? If it was written by men, wouldn't they write it not in parables but in plain English? Wouldn't they paint God in only the most glowing of pictures? One poster in particular feels that God is barbaric, vindictive, murderous, etc. He says well, that's what the Bible depicts. Well, I can see his point, but then I understand the resolution of the seeming differences in God in the Old and New Testament. But, the point is, if man wrote this book (if he is the one that thought this up) then why did he not do it so that God would never have flooded the earth and kill everyone except Noah and his family? Why would they make up that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone? Don't you think that if men made it up they would have had God do nothing but pamper and spoil us? Hey, if I was going to make up a God, he'd be all the things I would want.

Shazzer Wrote:



An extremely interesting take I must say. Unfortunately, literal is not a word that can really be given to the Bible. Some things can be taken literally and others cannot. Take the parables in the Bible. These are kind of like hypotheticals. Jesus used them to tell a story to make his point.

Concerning the prophecies of the Bible not being literal. Well, let's take Revelation 17:3 - Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead:

MYSTERY
BABYLON THE GREAT
THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

Now, it sounds like someone was walking through the desert and say this woman that was sitting on a seven headed, ten horned red animal with blasphemous names written all over it. The woman was holding a cup in her hand and it had all kinds of bad stuff in it. Then we see that what written on the woman (the title) was Babylong (a city). Now, one can hardly take those scriptures literally. But, remember that the things that God showed in dreams to people to write down were things that were going to happen (today? tomorrow? ten years from now?). Don't know when. But the point here is the person that had the dream or the vision God gave him wrote it the way he could best describe it. So, in a sense, he was the first to interpret it. Now, I would imagine that the above scripture can be interpreted in a lot of ways. I believe Babylon to be a city of the world where there is the most decadence, sin, etc. Do I know this for a fact? No, because I am no theologian. But it's an example of the literal.

Now a verse like "Jesus wept" can be taken very literally. Jesus heard Lazarus was dead and he cried.

How is it that you think you can murder in the name of God? Well, I hope you don't think that. Murders have been committed in the name of God in the Bible. But here again, remember that Christians believe that once Jesus entered into the picture, things changed drastically. We now have an intercessory. Think of Christ as a buffer, if you will. And why do people think that adultery is really in the action, not the mind? In my opinion, it's because people don't want to think it's a sin because not thinking about things like sex, adultery, lust, etc. is a lot harder to do than the act itself. The reasons for all the denominations are partly because of interpretation but also partly because man wants to do what he wants to do so he rewrites the laws or makes up a new denomination with his own rules.

Shazzer Wrote:



Oh yeah. Lots of this going on today. If someone uses the bible to justify any of that, they are wrong. Again, they interpret it to make their behavior ok. I don't recall the Bible saying the US is the "chosen" country so where they get this? Beats the heck out of me! And again, man changes the rules so many can do what he wants with as little guilt as possible. That's why I say I am a Christian and not a particular denomination. If I had to pick one, I'd claim Baptist. It's not the laws of the church that should be preached, it's the gospel itself. If a church does not preach the gospel, I don't attend it.

Shazzer Wrote:



Quote:



Shazzer Wrote:



I love the way you put that in an equation. I can only tell you that God is perfect so, of course, any imperfection would be viewed as a sin. I don't mean physical imperfections. I mean the acts of imperfection. So, I believe, that God views a wrong as a wrong. It is man that has labeled the different degrees of sin. Now, I don't know that for a fact, but that is what I have always believed. And I believe that because of the if you have lusted in your heart you've already done the deed.

This post is getting very long and my answer to your next issue (abortion) has a rather long answer. So sufficed to say, this is in response to your abortion questions.

And no one, let me repeat that, no on is entitled to act as god instead of loving everyone despite their flaws. We are told to love our neighbors and take the plank out of our own eye before we remove the speck from theirs, which tells me you worry about what you do and you let your neighbor worry about what he does. No one is without sin; therefore, no one has the right to condemn anyone.

Here's the answer to how I feel about abortion and hopefully, will answer some of your questions. Oh by the way, I sure hope I wasn't one that posted any uncharitable characterizations upthread.

First, let me correct something I said there. He does point out lying is a sin. He says not to bear false witness. That's lying.

Concerning abortion: There was no practice of abortion in Bible times. Therefore, the Bible never specifically addresses the issue. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God's view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God's active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty of someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman's right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).

The first argument that always arises against the Christian stance on abortion is, "What about cases of rape and/or incest?" As horrible as it would be to become pregnant as a result of rape and/or incest, does that make the murder of a baby the answer? Two wrongs do not make a right. The child who is a result of rape/incest could be given up for adoption to a loving family unable to have children on their own - or the child could be raised by its mother. Again, the baby should not be punished for the evil acts of its father.

The second argument that usually arises against the Christian stance on abortion is, "What about when the life of the mother is at risk?" Honestly, this is the most difficult question to answer on the issue of abortion. First, let's remember that this situation is the reason behind less than one-tenth of one percent of the abortions done in the world today. Second, let's remember that God is a God of miracles. He can preserve the life of a mother and a child despite all the medical odds being against it. Ultimately, though, this question can only be decided between a husband, wife, and God. Any couple facing this extremely difficult situation should pray to the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5) as to what He would have them to do.

For those who have had an abortion - the sin of abortion is no less forgivable than any other sin. Through faith in Christ, any and all sins can be forgiven (John 3:16; Rom 8:1; Col 1:14).

Shazzer Wrote:



I don't know of anywhere in the bible that it says you can't go to a doctor and use every technology there is to keep you alive. I do know that he refers to physicians in the bible and He doesn't say that there should be no physicians. I believe God gave them a gift for learning their profession. Not everyone can be a doctor even if they go to school. And I don't believe that it's wrong to refuse treatment. I think this is one of the choices we are given and in neither case can you be considered committing a sin. And if it was meant for the cancer patient to go into remission, then I believe it would happen whether they have treatment or not.

The driver that kills the people while on the cellphone. Let's see, how do I respond to that? I believe that we are all supposed to do what we do with thought and consideration and to the best of our ability. Now, driving and talking on a cell phane is very dangerous (in my opinion). So, if you had an accident and killed someone because of your negligence, then yes, Id say that is a sin. Now, I don't know that for a fact. That is just my feeling on the subject.

And Shazzer, keep asking these questions. You are causing me to research and learn. I hope it is of help to you as it is to me.

Momma Angel

Shazzer,

I wish I had caught your last post before I finished this one. Then I could have answered that question to.

First of all, I am embarrassed to say, I do not know what the UCC is. So, if you can enlighten me, then I can answer that question.

Ok, on the same sex marriage issue we are going to have to agree to disagree. The bible says that it is an abomination unto the Lord. No where in the bible does it say a woman and a woman, a man and a man concerning marriage. It says a woman and a man. I think if God was ok with homosexuality, he would have made Adam and Steve, and Eve and April also.

And concerning changing the laws to accommodate a group of people? If homosexuality was ok with God, why wasn't all the outing done long ago? Why weren't there same sex marriages long ago? If you will look at the morality of people in decades past, I think you will find a lot of different things have changed for the worse.

Look at the crime rate.

How many rampage killings were there?
How many serial killers were there?
How many children shoot up schools?
How many unwed mothers with unwanted pregnancies?

Society becomes tolerant and turns a blind eye to unacceptable behavior. Man has changed the law to bend to his will. He has done this so he can do what he wants and considers since it is not breaking the law then it is ok.

And considering bi-racial marriage. The bible says not to be unevenly yoked to one another. The reason for that is the hardship it causes the people and any children of that union.

Well, Shazzer, you don't have to believe in my laws. I am just attempting to address your posts and questions.

But what is the UCC? (The United Christian Council?) I honestly don't know what it is.

Intrepid wrote this a while back:



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Because I was part of this discussion, could you please clarify this for me?

5 - I know of cases where the mother was going to have an abortion and changed their mind before going through with it. [/quote]

I believe this is a fine example of a woman exercising her right to choose.
I am glad she has that right.

edited cause I messed up the quote thingy.

Frank,

I liken Christ's being crucified to save me as I do a friend stepping in front of a bullet meant for me. That is an act of love.

Christ knew all along what the plan was. He accepted it. He went through with it.

And, you keep forgetting that Christ rose from the dead! It's not like he stayed dead!

You and I will never agree on what God is. I know Him to be a loving God.

And I said what I said about the lightning thing because it's exactly the type of thing you would think He would do to someone since you feel He is so hateful.

It was meant in a lighthearted spirit, I assure you. Can I ask you a question? You said you have a very high regard for the message of Jesus...although you think parts of it are essentially nonsense? Can you tell me what parts you think are nonsense?

And the reason I won't take your challenge is because of the scripture I gave you a long time ago. Do not test the Lord thy God. If Jesus wouldn't do it with Satan, I'm not doing it with you.

And, I see we are back to the idiotic God thing again? That's neither hear nor there anymore. I've come to expect it.

Intrepid, no way would our founding fathers agree with abortion! No way in (well, you know where).

Momma Angel

I'll try. I believe the discussion was about the morning after pill and whether it was the same as abortion or a sin...something like that. My take on it was that abortion is abortion and I do not agree with it because it takes the life of a living being. On the other hand, contraception and the morning after pill prevent conception and, therefore, it is not taking the life of anything. It is preventing the possibility of conception. Since it can take a few days for sperm to penetrate the egg and create an embryo, fertilization does not take place. If fertilization was immediate, then it would be abortion.

As for the 2nd part, I am not sure what you mean specifally. I wasn't advocating the right to choose. I was saying that the decision was changed. I did not agree with the decision to abort, only the decision not to. If you meant something else, I will try to answer if you post the question.

Just an aside. Same sex marriage is now legal in Canada. This is a law that has been passed by the government. My religion does not condone this, but we also don't condemn it. We abide by the laws of the land... However, we live by God's laws.

True. And I am aware of your intentions. I wrote this because in your previous post you were concerned with the impending legality of practices you find morally abhorrent and how humans try to change god's because we don't want to follow them. My point is, I don't believe in your laws, so why should I have to follow them? Furthermore, if you were allowed to make the law of the land, I would have to abide by them. And I feel that in a democracy, prohibiting actions such as abortion or same-sex marriage is much more dangerous than legalizing them. I feel that in this country, we should err on the side of freedom whenever possible.

More precisely, I mean that you don't have the right to force me to follow your religious laws. I'm not forcing you to stop being a Christian or to get an abortion. I'm simply keeping it legal for those who want to have one. There is a difference.



1) First of all, why would there be a passage in the bible regarding homosexuality if people weren't out? How do you know there weren't same-sex couples? I don't worry about whether it is ok with god because god may not exist. And if he does, then he did make Adam and Steve. Because I've met them, and I find it hard to believe that they were born with more sin than me. Secondly, that's not what I meant. I'm talking about accommodating your religion at the expense of other people's freedoms. Since this is not a theocracy, our laws don't have to reflect your moral codes. They have to be agreeable to the majority. And I think that in around 50 years, the majority of people will agree to same-sex marriage. I only hope I live to see it made law.

2) I couldn't disagree more. There are so many ways this world is improving. Let's see: because no we are living in an age where we no longer have to fear persecution from the church. Where we are moving beyond the need to justify everything with religion. Where we are working to make our governments reflect who we really are and to give us our freedom. Where we know so much more about how the rest of the world gets on with things and can actively investigate each other peacefully. Well, at least somewhat peacefully. When I look at the morality of people in the past, I see a great deal of hypocrisy and intolerance. I see a fear of the rational mind. I see a condemnation of people who are different. I see the perversion of religion to vilify humanity. Surely you can't believe these are qualities that stem from your god?

Sure, some of this is around today, but I choose to believe in optimism and that we are working towards greater economic and social equality for people every where. Bit by bit. Religion is being relegated to the cultural tier of influence where it belongs. And it makes me thankful to be alive now, and sad that I will not see these trends come to fruition. But I know they will. I am as certain of that as you are that they won't.

Ain't freedom grand?



I don't see that there is a correlation. Additionally, while I feel that the church does provide comfort to some, one cannot deny that Christianity has been the cause of many atrocities.



Wow. Just wow.

Oh, and the UCC is the United Church of Christ.

Thanks for the clarification, Intrepid. I guess I still don't understand why abortion is a sin, but preventing conception is not, but we don't have to get into it again if you don't want to.

I understood your quote perfectly, as I think you did my post. I didn't think you'd changed your mind. What I thought was that your story was the perfect example of a woman exercising her right to chose. I think there can be a misconception (how punny am I?) that pro-choicers want women to have abortions. I don't prefer them not to as you do, but I also don't feel a woman has to just because it is legal. I simply want a woman to be able to have a choice. I think she had that right, and I am glad. The fact that you agreed with her ultimate choice does not negate the reality that she had a choice in the first place any more than it invalidates her choice.

If abortions were mandatory, I would still be pro-choice.

That's all.


Yea, Canada!

Shazzer,

Please make no mistake about this. I am not saying you HAVE to abide by my religious beliefs, my moral standards, my anything. You asked me a question and I did my best to answer it truthfully.

I am not really sure what you meant when you said you were aware of my intentions? I don't want to take that wrong so I am asking what you meant.

And, I do abide by the laws of the land, as long as they do not conflict with God's laws. But, as in the case of abortion, that means I just don't have to have an abortion if I don't want to. It does not mean that I have to like the law or stop lobbying to have it changed. That's the part where the democracy comes in. Stating that I do not believe in abortion and why I do not believe in abortion is not forcing you to follow my religious laws. It is just my right.

1) The act of homosexuality in the Bible came about by a man getting drunk and having sex with another man. The Bible has no mention of same sex couples. And you don't worry about whether it is ok with god because god may not exist? Well, ok. But, what if He does exist? What if these are His laws? I prefer as you put it "to err" on the side of God rather than that of man. I will never condone homosexuality; just as I would never condemn someone for it. Christians are taught to hate the sin; but love the sinner. I try to do that to the best of my ability. I know people who are homosexual. I have some very dear friends that are. I treat them with the same love and respect I treat everyone else. What they, you, and others do, what choices anyone makes are between them and God. I just told you my beliefs.

2) Well, I don't understand how you could disagree more. But, if you do, then you do. I was born in the 50'sa. I remember what a family was then. I remember feeling safe to go to a school, a courthouse, anywhere. I remember when people were more concerned about what was good for everyone (I know you think letting them have all the freedom they want to do whatever they want is good for everyone.) And you not seeing the correlation between the morality of decades ago and now I just don't understand.

3) The church is not what provides the comfort to me. God is what provides the comfort to me. There is a big difference here. Man runs the church. Some do it the way God intended and some don't. But, I follow the Gospel, and quite frankly, I follow the Gospel for the exact same reason we are having this discussion. It's like going to the manufacturer to buy something instead of one it's subsidiaries.

And yes, Christianity has been the cause of many atrocities. And so has Buddhism, Muslim, etc. Until people learn to follow the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law, this will always be true. I just find it so odd how it's always the Christian religion specifically pointed out as the biggest offender. But, I guess I shouldn't. It is a strict faith, I agree. But, the rewards far outweigh any "freedoms" I may have to give up.

And I don't know what you mean about the Wow. Just wow either.

I don't know much about the UCC. I do have some friends that attend the Church of Christ. I do know that my friends do not condone homosexuality; nor do they condemn the person. As far as their "church" I have no idea.

And yes, freedom is grand. But, the freedom to do what we want when we want in every instance because it's our body or our life is not grand.

And again, those that practice racism, bigotry, hatred, etc., are not following the laws of the Bible. Yes, people may twist the bible to justify their behavior but that does not make it right.

2)

Shazzer wrote:


Others may not agree with me, but abortion is taking the life of a living person. Whether some want to argue that it is a fetus and not a child or an embryo and not a fetus or whatever....it is still killing a living soul. That is a sin. The prevention of conception, to me is the same as if the sperm never found the egg. We do not know whether the conception was prevented because of the contraception or because the sperm and egg did not meet. I don't see how that is a sin. I don't particularly want to hear from people about the spilling of the seed on the ground etc. I do not think that is relevant.

That is absurd, MA. Of course there was a practice of abortion back then.



You are correct that the Bible never specifically addresses the issue...but you are dead wrong that the practice did not exist.

Frank,

You've made your position on abortion abundantly clear.

What is your position on a mother-to-be smoking, drinking, or using illegal drugs during pregnancy ?

Should she be held legally responsible if she gives birth to a baby with birth defects because of her choices ?

No.

That bible passage, as interpreted, supports racist thinking. That is why I was shocked. (Please don't assume that I am calling you a racist)

Why does 'unevenly yoked' mean race?



It has always been clear to me that your posts are an attempt to thoughtfully answer my questions. You have previously written this when I, and others, have stated that we don't agree with the basis of an position of yours. It is clear that you are articulating an answer to a question. What may not be clear are your thoughts leading to your conclusions. For example, if I asked you to explain how you can believe in god when he/she may not exist; and if you answered because christians believe in faith. . .well, that's not exactly answering the question in my opinion (I think we all do this to some extent) I'd be asking how you, personally, can believe this. Surely you didn't always. So how did you rationally come to this position of faith? That is the actual part that I'd be curious about because I feel the fact that christians believe in faith is obvious.



I wasn't born in the 50's, but I can recognize that a single mother and her children are no less of a family simply because there is no father around. Or that the traditional family set-up does not guarantee a loving home. Or that adoption is a beneficial choice regardless of the races involved or the sexual preference of the parents. (please don't infer that am advocating adoption vs. abortion. I am referring to a circumstance where a woman has chosen to give up her child for adoption) Or that women and their children should be able to leave a dangerous marriage without forfeiting the right to call themselves a real family. To me, a family doesn't mean mother, father, and children. I feel that is entirely too short-sighted.



I'm not sure if I follow your logic here. As someone who lives by god's laws, abortion shouldn't even enter your mind if you became pregnant. Why would it? There is no legislation suggesting that doctors should counsel all pregnant women to consider abortion. (There are, however, waiting periods and such now) The law is allowing women to sin in your view. That I can understand. But isn't this where free will comes in? Why would you presume to decide for everyone?

And as I've stated previously, you should certainly lobby as your conscience dictates.

me earlier:


you earlier:


By taking away my right to choose, you are attempting to force me to follow your religious law.



I didn't post this. Since you are a Christian, I noted Christianity. If you were any other religion, I would have mentioned that as well. I don't think that your religion carries all the blame for the problems that plague us, but it has been used as justification for quite a few nasty things.

I don't prefer any religion.

(I'll be off-line for a while, so please understand I may not respond very quickly. Anyone who shares my views should feel free to jump in. Thanks)

Shazzer,

I admit that was not the best verse to support the point I was trying to make. Actually, that statement "unequally yoked" is geared more toward religion. For example: if the husband is a Christian and the wife is an atheist, it is overwhelmingly likely there will be problems. And, unequally yoked may not mean race. Like I said, probably not a good verse for that. So, accept my apology there.

I am so glad that you understand I am not trying to force anything on you. And here again, you ask a very intriguing though provoking question. "If I asked you to explain how you can believe in god when he/she may not exist;...." Well, it is very hard for me to even have the slightest inkling that God may not exist. I was raised up in the Christian faith. I learned as I got older. At any given point in time, I had the free will to believe or not believe. I believe. To me, it is black and white because I do believe in God's existence. To you (and if I assume incorrectly, I apologize) you aren't sure if there is a God. So, if you haven't chosen (believed, etc.) that there is a God yet, then you are going to take the stance you have. You stated, "So how did you rationally come to this position of faith? Rationally? Now, see to me, because I am a Christian, it's very rational thinking. Now, to you and others, it is not. I will try to explain this. I believe with all my heart, my soul, and my mind that God does exist and He is the God I speak of. I feel His presence in my life every single day. Call it conscience, call it whatever you will. In my life, He exists. It would be, to me, irrational to not believe that. Faith itself is such a hard thing to explain. Some Christians have faith and some don't. I have faith that God will take care of the troubles in my life. Others feel God only helps those who help themselves. I have no idea where that came from. I have never seen it in the Bible. He tells me to lean on Him for comfort, peace, joy, etc., and that's what I do.

I have been pregnant and abortion never entered into my mind. It is not an option for me. And yes, I believe the law is allowing women to sin in my view. I won't deny that. I am not presuming to decide for everyone. I am just stating what I believe is wrong and if I believe something is wrong, I am not going to agree with it for the sake of accommodating anyone. You, and everyone else has a free will. We are a democracy. If the majority says it's legal, well, then it's legal. But, being legal does not make something right or wrong. It just means there is no punishment for it on the earth. And yes, everyone should lobby as their conscience dictates, as long as they do it in a manner that is not hateful, discriminatory, etc.

I know women who have had an abortion. I have a very dear friend who had one. She talked to me about it before she had it done. I told her what I believed and then she told me what she believed. She decided to have the abortion, as was her right by law. She exercised her free will. I have no negative feelings toward her whatsoever. She is now, and always will be a very beloved friend. Her decisions are between her and God.

And no, you are not trying to force me to stop being a Christian or to have an abortion. You are merely doing what I am doing, stating your beliefs, why you believe them, and your views. So, we just have to agree to disagree. I respect your right to feel the way you do. You have stated your opinions in one of the nicest manners I have encountered in these forums with someone who disagrees with me. I thank you for that. Your kind of attitude is the kind of attitude that can help effect changes in others. You are showing others that you can disagree with someone without being hateful or using the "bombing the clinic" method. You are the type of person with which compromises can be made so that both sides can be reasonably accommodated. No one could ask for more than that.

And I understand why you pointed out Christianity as one of those atrocity doers. Very acceptable explanation. I applaud you. You seem to be a very fair minded individual, Shazzer, and I do enjoy these discussions with you.

Momma Angel

Why not ?

When a child is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome who's fault is it ?

Frank, in his infinite wisdom, will now proclaim that the biomass was not a child until it was born and OHWHATASHAME!

Neo,

I am, myself, quite interested in how he will address that question. Very good question, by the way.

Frank says if his wife were to decide that she did not want to have the child (fetus is his word) she were carrying right before it was born and wanted to abort, he would support her 100%. (And yes, this was a hypothetical situation I put to Frank.) And I still do not understand how just because the child is inside the womb at nine months it is not a child it is a growth (to Frank). I don't think I will ever understand that one.

One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004' or `Laci and Conner's Law'.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:
`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
`Sec.

`1841. Protection of unborn children.
`Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
`(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.
`(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1),
and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).

`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:

1841'.

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN- Subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919 (article 119) the following new section:
`Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child
`(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who 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 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
`(2) 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 accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(3) 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 paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
`(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

`(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

`(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

`919a. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Now! That's what I am talking about! That's what I call saving the children!

I am voting for this one!

I don't know for sure whose fault it is...but even if it were the woman's fault...my answer stands. Your question was: Should the woman be held legally responsible....?

NO!

If she is an idiot and uses drugs, alcohol and such...that is unfortunate. But I don't want the government deciding that she should be put in jail for that.

Not sure why you have trouble with that answer...but do continue.