NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Forums: Legal, Murder, Criminal Law, Trials, Beginning Of Life
Email this Topic • Print this Page

April 25, 2003
Case renews push for fetus protection

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The murder charge California prosecutors are seeking for the death of Laci Peterson's unborn son would not be allowed if the crime were being prosecuted under federal statutes, said supporters of legislation designed to close that loophole.

They hope the Peterson case will compel lawmakers to back legislation that would make it a crime to kill or injure an unborn fetus during the commission of federal crimes of violence, crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or crimes committed on federal land.

"It's the kind of thing that is focusing lawmakers' attention on the problem, which is that right now, justice cannot be done in the federal system or in the military system when an unborn child is killed," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

"It gives impetus to a movement towards passing this type of legislation to protect unborn children," Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican, said of the Peterson case. Mr. Chabot chairs the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee, which will handle the bill.

Prosecutors in California have charged Scott Peterson, 30, with separate counts of murder in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, 27, and their unborn son, Connor, whose remains were discovered in the San Francisco Bay. Under California law, intentionally killing a fetus is murder, with an exception for surgical abortions. About half the states have similar laws, but there is no federal equivalent. Federal law recognizes a crime only against the pregnant woman, not her unborn child.

"There is a gap in federal law," said Kevin Bishop, spokesman for Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and bill supporter.

Sen. Mike DeWine, Ohio Republican, is the Senate sponsor of the bill designed to close that gap. Rep. Melissa A. Hart, Pennsylvania Republican, plans to introduce a companion bill in the House soon. The House has passed the bill twice, and likely will do so again this year. The Senate has never considered the measure.

A Senate Republican aide said no decision has been made if or when to move Mr. DeWine's bill in the chamber this year.

The legislation would allow separate charges to be filed for the harm or death of a fetus in the commission of certain federal crimes against the mother. The proposal would exclude legal abortion. Under the proposal, the perpetrator would not have to know that the woman was pregnant when he acted with criminal intent against her. The bill would apply in any stage of pregnancy.

In past years, House Democrats have offered an alternative proposal, which would increase the penalty for injuring a pregnant woman but would not allow separate charges for harm to the fetus.

Abortion-rights groups have staunchly opposed the bill in previous years, arguing that it creates new rights for the unborn that could lead to outlawing abortion.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 13,659 • Replies: 134

No top replies

It?

Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as
"it"?

0 Replies

According to one NOW (National Organization of Women) spokeswoman, when the child is not yet born?

Or, as my wife, when she/he (It) was born a Pseudohermaphrodite.

0 Replies

Such commentary by NOW reps is a disgrace to motherhood and all women.

0 Replies

New Haven wrote:

It?

Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as
"it"?

And of course, you can show without question that there is a God -- and that the God gives souls -- and that the fetus has a soul -- is that correct?

If you can -- I am sure we would all appreciate your sharing your information with us.

0 Replies

I'll provide proof of all that, just as soon as you provide evidence of how YOU keep your respiratory and circulatory systems functioning.

0 Replies

Amen, Snood!

0 Replies

Some people really do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

0 Replies

Intent of Article
I certainly have no problem, if New Haven or Snood, argue the case for life, by using the phrase "God-given human soul." Whether we argue "God-given" or Life-given, makes no difference in this article.
The purpose of this article, is to ask, "When does the life of a human being begin?"

I truly believe that life begins at conception. This is my belief, and I direct my actions to support this.

To argue semantics or theistical values is to digress from the intent of this article. Mr. Apsia can take his misdirected comments or critique on theology, and put it over in the Philosophy section, where it rightfully belongs.

In this article, we are taking about defining the beginning of human life. It is really a sad state of affairs, that our society has never clearly defined when life begins, and who has the right to end it.

Definitions

Zygote

A zygote is the product of the fusion of an egg and a sperm. It contains two copies of each chromosome, one from each parent. Egg and sperms cells, on the other hand, each contain only one copy of each chromosome. The zygote develops into an embryo.

Embryo

Organisms in the early stages of growth and development. In animals, embryos are characterized by the cleavage of the fertilized eggs to many cells, the laying down of the three germ layers, and formative steps in organ development. Although there is some discussion about the characteristics marking the switch from embryo to fetus, in human beings, "embryo" generally refers to the time from implantation to about eight to twelve weeks after conception.

Fetus/Foetus

Unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth.

0 Replies

Re: Intent of Article

ferrous wrote:

I certainly have no problem, if New Haven or Snood, argue the case for life, by using the phrase "God-given human soul." Whether we argue "God-given" or Life-given, makes no difference in this article.
The purpose of this article, is to ask, "When does the life of a human being begin?"

I truly believe that life begins at conception. This is my belief, and I direct my actions to support this.

To argue semantics or theistical values is to digress from the intent of this article. Mr. Apsia can take his misdirected comments or critique on theology, and put it over in the Philosophy section, where it rightfully belongs.

So Ferrous -- you are saying that it is okay for New Haven and Snood to make their arguments, but it is inappropriate for me to respond and rebut them.

Interesting logic.

I think it is baloney -- and you can take it to the food section where it belongs.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I'll provide proof of all that, just as soon as you provide evidence of how YOU keep your respiratory and circulatory systems functioning.

Really!

What do the two have to do with each other?

If you can provide proof of the fact that there is a God -- and that the God gives souls -- and that the fetus has a soul -- do it.

Don't worry about whether or not I can provide proof of how I keep my respiratory and circulatory systems functioning.

I've never said I could do that. Right?

0 Replies

Staying Focused...

Frank Apisa wrote:

And of course, you can show without question that there is a God -- and that the God gives souls -- and that the fetus has a soul -- is that correct?

If you can -- I am sure we would all appreciate your sharing your information with us.

Yes, there is "Life" (God,) That "Life" gives souls (the human spirit to live,) and that the fetus has this "will to survive."

Your argument was too quick to split hairs rather than deal with the intent of the article.

New Haven simply wrote "It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"?

I can easily translate that to, "It? Since when is a human being with a Life-given human soul (Will to survive) referred to as "it"?

My answer was directed to mis-definitions or Genital deformities

I do not accept the Christian dogma of God given Life, but can easily understand and accept their beliefs.

Your argument, on the other hand, I reject, as purposely being directed to argue something that can well be suited, being discussed in a proper venue.

Burden of proof: Whether "God-given" or "Life-given," human beings at some point in time, are provided equal protection under the law. All I'm asking, is a clearer definition of when these rights begin. The question purposed is: "Why does Federal Law states after birth, while some States regulate it in the womb."

The issue is at hand, and I dismiss your argument, as not dealing with the context of this article, rather than arguing an isolated personal belief, based in faith. I am not saying that your argument in not valid, only that it is mis-directed and digresses from the issue of this article.

The point is, stay focused.

0 Replies

Maybe this can get us back on track, if we leave our politics out of this question:

To those who don't think an unborn baby deserves protection:

If you or your wife are happily anticipating the birth of your child... You've started planning for the baby, you already love it

and someone mugs your wife, hitting her in the stomach to disable her--killing the baby...

Shouldn't the one who killed your baby have to answer to the killing in a court of law?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

snood wrote:
I'll provide proof of all that, just as soon as you provide evidence of how YOU keep your respiratory and circulatory systems functioning.

Really!

What do the two have to do with each other?

If you can provide proof of the fact that there is a God -- and that the God gives souls -- and that the fetus has a soul -- do it.

Don't worry about whether or not I can provide proof of how I keep my respiratory and circulatory systems functioning.

I've never said I could do that. Right?

No. It's just that people who want proof of God make me wonder what they think DOES breathe life into them, and I wonder if they think they have something to do with that, since they seem to acknowledge no higher power than themselves. That's all.

0 Replies

ferrous wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

And of course, you can show without question that there is a God -- and that the God gives souls -- and that the fetus has a soul -- is that correct?

If you can -- I am sure we would all appreciate your sharing your information with us.

Yes, there is "Life" (God,) That "Life" gives souls (the human spirit to live,) and that the fetus has this "will to survive."

That is absurd.

You are simply deciding things are so -- and then stating it as fact.

Quote:

Your argument was too quick to split hairs rather than deal with the intent of the article.

New Haven simply wrote "It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"?

Once again -- who are you to say that a human being has God-given virtures. And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?

Quote:

The issue is at hand, and I dismiss your argument, as not dealing with the context of this article, rather than arguing an isolated personal belief, based in faith. I am not saying that your argument in not valid, only that it is mis-directed and digresses from the issue of this article.

The point is, stay focused.

I was commenting on a comment made by New Haven. I am focused. Stay focused yourself -- and stop trying to silence comments you don't agree with.

0 Replies

Snood wrote:

Quote:

No. It's just that people who want proof of God make me wonder what they think DOES breathe life into them, and I wonder if they think they have something to do with that, since they seem to acknowledge no higher power than themselves. That's all.

Perhaps there was no "breathing of life" into anyone. Perhaps it is a function of physics.

I don't know which it is -- or if it is something different from either of those two choices.

But when someone asserts that it is one way or the other -- I think it is fair to ask them why they say what they do.

You had addressed your remark to me. I am not saying that there is no higher power than me. There may be a God. If there is, I don't know that there is.

0 Replies

Personally, I figure, born or unborn, if a foetus is viable outside the womb absent extraordinary measures ... it can support its own metabolic functions given no more than the customary attention accorded neonates in general, it is "Alive", and is a "Person". To my mind, it is a matter of physiologic development, not of a trip down a birth canal or legal proclamation. Particularly in the latter portion of the third trimester, a foetus, whether expressed in the normal fashion or removed from the womb by surgical means, is highly likely to achieve spontaneous survival. I'd call that "Alive" ... but that's just my own take.

0 Replies

Dare I enter this?

If one holds a faith stance such as Sofia or Snood, then certain questions are, or become, answered to their satisfaction. However, they ought not to expect others to be necessarily satisfied with those same answers.

Outside of such a faith stance, where it is held that life commences at conception with the implantation of soul stuff, or outside of an arguably quite arbitrary assignment of point x (ferrous's union of egg and sperm) in the biological process, there seems to be no way to say this is life now, but earlier it wasn't.

I frankly do not have a problem with the notion that a purposeful act of violence which ends with the unnecessary death of the fetus might be considered murder or manslaughter, in keeping with the normal differentiation of these two terms.

I do, however, have a big fat problem with the duplicitous agenda of some of the proponents for such legislation.

0 Replies

Well said, Blatham.

I'd go so far as to say I would support legislation of that sort -- except for the same reservations that you have.

0 Replies

"Yes, there is "Life" (God,) That "Life" gives souls (the human spirit to live,) and that the fetus has this "will to survive."

Aprisa wrote "That is absurd.

You are simply deciding things are so -- and then stating it as fact."

Deal with the context of what I wrote. In no way, did I mention some Judeo-Christian God. I stated simply

"Yes, there is Life(call it what you wish, God, Mitochondria, Wanker, call it anything you want.) That is a fact!

Life gives souls(again, call it what you wish, psyche, ego, Living Life Force that defines Me," call it whatever you want) Human life is defined by the individual will That is a fact

And at some time in it's development, this living being, becomes defined, and it's will to survive ensues. That is a fact.

I stated three facts, and took in to account, peoples definitions of how they come to terms in explaining this phenomenon.

Ferrous wrote: "Your argument was too quick to split hairs rather than deal with the intent of the article.

New Haven simply wrote "It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"?

Aprisa wrote: "Once again -- who are you to say that a human being has God-given virtures. And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?

I agree with your choice of words Absurdity is a good description of this nonsense of yours

Aprisa wrote: "I was commenting on a comment made by New Haven. I am focused. Stay focused yourself -- and stop trying to silence comments you don't agree with."

You really have wasted enough time on this little side trip of yours. Has anything really been accomplished Not really. You have yet, failed to offer constructive input on the subject matter of this discussion, and have commandeered it into a direction, best suited for a philosophical forum. I stepped in, and am now trying to redirect the discussion back to the question at hand

When does human life, become viable, to afford equal protection, under the Law?"

0 Replies

NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know