What is it?

I know you know that Not judging is in the ________. Fill in the blank. By outlawing abortion your are forcing your viewpoint on others.

I answered all the questions honestly as I could

I have done the best I can , I answered and those are my beliefs .

 

Then you need to actually read them again, please quote any part of the UVVA that specifies one of the unborn as a person.

The actual wording of the UVVA states;

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.

If as you assert that the zef is a child there would be no requirement to elaborate on what child means, yet we see plainly above that section d does do exactly that. Section c also shows that the UVVA is about consent, if Section c had not been contained in the act it would not have been passed into law as it would be in direct conflict with the already constitutional granted right of a woman to procure an abortion, and yes I remember your comments from before and then as now you still haven't provided a compelling argument.

I have and it doesn't include the word person in it, have you noted my sig line as well - "Your right to privacy - "freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs." - ACLU" from the same source as yours .. seems you cherry pick the things that best suit your agenda and ignore everything else.

In reality they don't, they are very specific in their description of what a 'child' is pertaining to the specific law.

No the legal debate is whether the zef was injured or killed without the consent of the woman.

Regardless of the unresolved issue of whether a zef is a person or not there are still other laws that would allow a woman to get an abortion, which if I remember correctly you could not dispute apart from stating that it would be up to the courts to decide .. same goes for what you are advocating here, it would come down to what the courts decide. It is of interest to note that EVERY challenge to Roe has failed, regardless of which political creed is in power.

 

I believe that elective (voluntary) abortions violate a child's rights and I believe we have disparity in our laws which say both that they are children and their unjust killings are murders.. while at the same time making an exception to allow for voluntary abortions to continue.

I hope you can see and maybe even appreciate where I am coming from with that.

I also hope you will try to be more consistent with your 'beliefs' in the future.

 

The UVVA establishes the personhood of the children killed in two ways.

1. By defining a child in the womb as a human being (member of the species homo sapiens) while noting the legal definition for 'a natural person' is the same as that, and...
2. By making it a crime of murder to unjustly (illegally) kill one.

*Note that you can't be charged with MURDER for killing anything other than or less than another human being / person.

So, adding clarifications to remove any doubt or ambiguity in the language of a law - actually does what in your way of thinking?

Opinions noted.

You should know that a woman can be and some have been charged with killing their own prenatal children - under the UVVA.

I posted the links to my quotes to invite readers to read and find the same contradictions (and other findings) that I have found.

Except that, a woman can be convicted under the UVVA for killing her prenatal child herself. The language of the UVVA does not exempt women from that possibility. In fact, more than one woman has already been charged with crimes against their prenatal children under the UVVA.

Now, you will be quick to point out that there have not been any convictions in their cases - yet.

But, you'll only do that to dodge the fact that they CAN be charged and convicted under the UVVA - which is a fact that proves against your claims about their 'consent.'

I disagree with you when you claim the personhood status of children in is unresolved.

There are people doing time in prison for murder - for killing them.

The charge of murder itself proves that it was a 'person' that was killed.

 

nothing you have said changes my beliefs or opinions

 

The words of one who is thick-headed but can't stand up for his own opinions.

 

Sorry it does not establish it in any way except for this particular law and as you well know the law can define anything to mean anything for the purpose of a specific law - just as they did by finding a business as a 'person'. The courts could decide a rock is a person for the purpose of a specific law if they so wished, it does not mean that it is a person in the 'real' world, your denial of this fact is obvious.
The legal aspect of "person at conception" has already been dealt with on numerous occasions where Roe has been challenged and every time it has failed, there is also the findings of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who held that "courts do not compel one person to permit a significant intrusion upon his or her bodily integrity for the benefit of another person's health ... We hold that in virtually all cases the question of what is to be done is to be decided by the patient — the pregnant woman — on behalf of herself and the fetus."
The fact also remains that the UVVA does not state that the unlawful killing of a fetus is murder and the use of murder is nothing more than emotional hyperbole, under the UVVA the unlawful killing of a fetus is designated as a homicide which has a far broader scope than murder.

Furthermore the UVVA does not adhere to the 'person at conception' ideology or as the National Right to Life put it -

The bill applies to “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” The “zygote (fertilized egg)” and “blastocyst (preimplantation embryo)” could not possibly provide the basis for a prosecution under H.R. 2436. Under the bill, it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a human being (1) already existed, and (2) was “carried in the womb,” which would be utterly impossible until after the embryo had implanted in the womb and sent out the chemical signals that announce his or her presence (i.e., after implantation). Moreover, even after the prosecution has met that burden, it must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s criminal conduct caused the death of the child in utero. Thus, the mere possibility or even the strong likelihood that a defendant’s criminal conduct caused the baby’s death would not suffice — the bill requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In reality, the protections provided to the unborn child by H.R. 2436 (UVVA) apply only in cases in which a criminal has violated an existing federal law by an act of violence involving a pregnant woman.

Probably why section c was included to remove any doubt or ambiguity in the language of a law, though that doesn't stop some people from ignoring it.

How many have been convicted exactly?

The only contradiction is the one of your own making, it is quite plain and obvious that the UVVA deals with consent issues.

In reality, the protections provided to the unborn child by H.R. 2436 (UVVA) apply only in cases in which a criminal has violated an existing federal law by an act of violence involving a pregnant woman.

I have no reason to dodge it, the fact remains that if a conviction is overturned then that conviction was obviously unsound and a miscarriage of justice and proves against your claims that it is not about their consent.

You can disagree all you like, the fact remains that the personhood status of the unborn is unresolved just because you are in denial of this fact doesn't mean your are correct.

As a secondary charge, the primary charge is always the injury/death incurred by the woman.

The 'murder' of the fetus is always been convicted as the lesser crime, as it was in Scott Peterson's case - convicted of 1st degree murder for Laci's death and 2nd degree murder for Conner's death.

 

You are in complete (classic sense) ignorance of the many other States laws which say essentially the same thing as the UVVA.

Also, you don't seem to be aware of the fact that this part of the UVVA: "(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." - actually ties the UVVA to criminal laws outside of the realm of just the UVVA. Namely, US Codes: 1111 (Murder), 1112 (Manslaughter) and US Code 1113 (attempted murder / manslaughter)

Section C does the exact opposite of what you say that the UVVA does. It broadens the law and it makes the UVVA's definition of prenatal children - applicable - in all three of those other laws.

I agree that our lawmakers COULD decide rocks are persons.

They could try to do that anyway... but I don't believe such a law would pass any Constitutional challenges as the UVVA HAS.

Why do you suppose the SCOTUS has so far upheld the UVVA if prenatal children really are not human beings / persons?

Why do you suppose none of those who have been convicted under the UVVA have succeeded in challenging the definitions?

Those challenges were all prior to the UVVA.

So, the question is "how will the SCOTUS address the disparity between the two (Roe and the UVVA)?"

Again, that was prior to the UVVA being enacted into law.

You need to re-read section C because it says exactly that. It ties the intentional killing of the prenatal child to US Code 1111 which is the laws against murder.

We will have to wait for the SCOTUS to rule on that.

The law says: " The bill applies to “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "

Any means any.

In reality more than 30 States now have their own version of the UVVA and more are in the works. You're claim that this is only a narrowly focused Federal Law has already been decimated.

Don't know don't really care.... because I am not arguing anything based upon the current numbers of convictions or cases or anything like that.

Let's test your honesty.

According to the language and application of the UVVA, a human child in the womb in ANY stage of their life growth is a human being and as such is a legal 'person.'

True or false?

Again, you ignore the (more than 30) State's laws which afford prenatal children essentially the same protections now.

So far, no one (Not the ACLU nor Planned Parenthood) has been able to mount a challenge to the language of the UVVA - despite the obvious conflict it presents (or eventually will present) to Roe v Wade.

Really?

So what do you suppose Planned Parenthood reps meant when they wrote: "The so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) is not intended to protect pregnant women from domestic violence or punish individuals who harm them," said PPFA President Gloria Feldt. "It is part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus?"

You are still trying to ignore the fact that the woman herself could be charged under the UVVA and that some women have already been charged under the UVVA. I'm sure that more cases will be made in the future as cases can be made and prosecutions become more and more feasible.

You hang yourself with your absolutes and ill informed declarations.

There was a case not too long ago, for example where a guy tricked his girlfriend into taking abortion pills by telling here they were anti-biotics.

He faced a MURDER charge for the killing of the child and I don't think they even bothered with an assault charge against the woman. Even if they did, it (the assault charge) was the lessor charge and that completely refutes your claims to the contrary.

 

then I stand corrected, I did not realize that those codes related to that.

Where as section d removes the act of abortion with consent of the woman from the law.

Just as they did with businesses.

Perhaps as so many lawyers and judges have stated the UVVA does NOT conflict with ROE.

A question for the judges, I am not one.

UVVA passed into law in 2004 so in the ten years it has been law you are trying to say to me that no one has thought to use it to challenge the Roe decision, I find that difficult to comprehend given the zealous nature of the pro-life groups, one would have assumed that IF as you seem to think it is the 'golden arrow' to shoot down Roe it has not been attempted to date.

There is no disparity.

So you are saying that precedence has no standing in law.

already conceded in my first response

We will won't we.

I don't claim it, the people who pushed for the law do.

So you are arguing from a position of ignorance then.

As I do not accept your version of the language and application of the UVVA, just as you don't accept section d of the same law as removing abortion from prosecution, my answer would be false because it is only your interpretation that "a human child in the womb in ANY stage of their life growth is a human being" means they are a person.

Not ignoring it at all, merely stating what the people who pushed for this law have said.

As long as section d remains there is no conflict.

If this were the case Roe would already be repealed.

Why do you suppose the National Right to Life stated what they did .. pandering to their viewpoint perhaps.

I'm not ignoring it, what you are ignoring and so bluntly put in your earlier response is that almost every single case of this nature has been thrown out either in the initial trial or on appeal.

Tell me what was he actually charged with - here is a clue, he was charged with tampering with a consumer product and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, quite a climb down from a murder charge don't you think, he wasn't even charged with assault and there was no charge relating to the zef at all!!!, so your example is a classic FAIL.

You seem to be banking of a whole load of ifs to achieve your agenda.

IF section d of the UVVA can be removed from the law and IF by doing so the UVVA is not declared unconstitutional and IF SCOTUS decide to actually hear the case it MIGHT undermine Roe IF SCOTUS decide that it is enough to over rule the already established rights of the woman.

 

It's a bog pond.

I understand.

Not quite, entirely.

Women can be (and have been) charged under the UVVA for killing their own prenatal children illegally.

Why do you suppose a person can be charged with murder for killing a child in the womb.... but not for killing a business? Why do you consistently ignore the difference?

Or, they know they can't afford to challenge the UVVA - because they know they will be shot down in flames.

To do that (challenge Roe) you would have to have legal standing. The expectation was (or still is) that someone like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood would have instead challenged the UVVA or one of the many States laws which now use the same language.

But that didn't happen. So, State and Federal lawmakers now have the UVVA as both a legal precedent to beging establishing the personhood for children in the womb and a foundation to further establish their rights and personhood.

As the article I linked to earlier - shows.

Planned Parenthood believes there is.

I didn't say that at all.

I said the courts are going to (eventually) have to reconcile the two.

Nice try but I wasn't arguing those aspects at all to begin with. The number of those who have or have not been prosecuted and convicted is a red herring to the debate over whether or not the law establishes personhood for prenatal children or whether or not the language of the UVVA would make it possible.

It's also Planned Parenthood's interpretation.

"It is part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus." Gloria Feldt - Planned Parenthood Federation of America - President.

 

It's obvious that they were anticipating some the logistics of implementing the law. Specifically, they were predicting the difficulties in proving cases against a suspect who was very early in her pregnancy.

There was nothing the NRTL said that takes anything away from what the actual language of the laws say or mean.

I put it in a post myself.... but I'm ignoring it?

May I ask what kind of beverage you are drinking?

He was initially charged with murder. He eventually plead down to lesser charges and that is common for all sorts of crimes including other murders.

The fact that charged individual's in many cases cop a plea to a lessor crime is not an indication that the original charge was not warranted or had no merit. Plea deals are offered and accepted for all sorts of reasons.

You claimed that in order for anyone to be charged with murder (under the UVVA) they must also be charged with even more serious crimes against the would be mother. And that is simply not the case and the case I presented to you supports that fact. The man did not have to be charged with crimes against the woman, in order to be charged with the murder of her child.

If you are talking about the exception that the UVVA makes (for now) to allow for abortion to remain legal. That exception will likely be removed AFTER the SCOTUS reconciles the UVVA with Roe.

Not before.

 

Has a woman since Roe ever been charged with murder or any other such crime when having an abortion, that is what section d removes from the mix.

Just as you consistently ignore the difference between the consent of the woman in abortion and the non-consent of the woman in other cases.

Yet according to you they have a very strong case to challenge Roe, obviously your interpretation of a strong case falls woefully short of what the lawyers and judges think is a strong case.

Really, or they can decide that there is no reconciliation required as the UVVA in its current form does not clash with Roe.

So the fact that the people who have been charged and in the few cases where they have been convicted, but then later had those convictions over turned, has no bearing on a law that states the personhood of a fetus . .you don't see the contradiction then, that a law that, in effect, establishes fetal personhood can be made moot by appeal courts . .would seem that law is pretty useless.

As I said, PP would have a vested interest in making this claim in order to try and discredit it, just as pro-lifers claim this helps them .. it all about smoke and mirrors.

 

Or they had no intention of the UVVA being what you claim it to be

Just the fact that it would be impossible to convict someone where the cenceptus has not implanted ie before the pregnancy starts, even the wording of the UVVA states that a crime can only be against a pregnant woman, a pregnancy does not start until implantation.

None, have you?

You stated "Don't know don't really care.... " so although you acknowledge the issue you ignore it, pretty standard for pro-lifers really.

Name me a single other case where a person has been able to plea bargain down from murder to something that doesn't even warrant the 'killing' being included .. he must have had one hell of a lawyer.

He didn't just cop a plea to a lesser crime though did he, it was completely removed, again give another case where such a thing has happened, and why would the prosecution even offer a plea bargain of this magnitude unless they were not confident in securing a conviction that is, yet from your comments it would seem the case was pretty clear cut.

Care to quote where I said that.
People can be charged with all sorts of things, does not mean they are guilty of the accused crime .. that is what the courts decide and if found innocent that then shows that the charge was incorrect. Being charged for something is NOT an indication of being guilty of the crime it is an assumption (based on available evidence) that the police and prosecutor make, it is for the courts to decide whether the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a conviction or have you never heard of innocent until proven guilty.
The fact remains that even though this man was initially charged with murder he was not tried for murder or any other type of assault against the woman or the fetus, this really does put into perspective how seriously the police and prosecutor took the initial charge obviously not seriously at all.

So in order to overturn Roe you use a law that includes an exception for abortion BEFORE that exception is removed and you accuse me of drinking !!

The fact remains that in order to use the UVVA that exception would have to be nulled first, as soon as you try or do that then the UVVA becomes unconstitutional.

A principle that allows language in a law to not conflict with Roe, which logically should trigger Roe’s “collapse” clause, was explained in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490 (1989). Until such language becomes the basis for laws that specify penalties for abortion, the issue is not even before the court, of whether or not such language conflicts with Roe, and if so, which should be struck down.[11]

In order for the language of the UVVA to challenge Roe it must first have the abortion exception removed until then it does not specify penalties for abortion and so does not conflict with Roe.

 

Fugazi, we are all aware of the fact that the UVVA (for now) makes an exception to allow for abortions to continue.

I never claimed that it doesn't.

I offered the language of the UVVA in support of the fact that a prenatal human being (child) is already being recognized as legal 'persons.'

That is something that was NOT present at the time Roe was decided and it was something the SCOTUS said COULD be done in the future - when they actually writing the Roe decision.

Now (thanks to the UVVA and many other laws like it) the SCOTUS's prediction has become a reality.

How many times do I have say it? We recognize the fact that the UVVA makes an exception to the laws it establishes - (for now) allow for abortions to continue. We (many of us) intend to remove the exception because we feel that elective (voluntary) abortions violate the prenatal child's rights no less than an assault from a stranger does. The exception is un-Constitutional for that reason.

You can have the strongest case in the world, but you have to have legal standing in order to bring the case to trial and even then, the judges have to agree to take it up before the court.

The way this will have to reach the court (and I believe it will someday soon) is someone with standing (say Planned Parenthood) will have to challenge the language of the UVVA or a State's law which says the same. Until then? Lawmakers are free to expound upon it as they are pushed to do so by their 'pro-life' and anti-abortion constituents.

See above. We aren't going to stop pushing - just because our opponents doesn't see the language of the UVVA as a threat or challenge to Roe. We have now (or ten years) established the personhood rights of children in the womb as the SCOTUS said we could do when they decided Roe... and the SCOTUS has (for ten years) left that unchallenged.

Law makers are not going to let that go un-noticed.

1. Not all the convictions have been overturned and those that have been were not overturned due to any problems with the UVVA itself.
2. It's new law and procedure for courts, prosecutors and LE officials to have to follow. There is no argument that cases under the UVVA would be much more difficult to prosecute.

What you are not challenging is the validity of the law and the UVVA itself. And, neither are those who have been charged under the UVVA - challenging the Constitutionality or language of the law.

She said what she feared and her fears were not unfounded. We did exactly what she said (feared) we were doing.

 

The National Right to Life did not write the language of the UVVA.

Their comments have no actual bearing on the issue. They anticipated that it would be very difficult or even impossible to prosecute someone for killing a prenatal child that is in the first days of his or her life. I actually agree with them on that point.

Anything else?

That's a debate for another day and maybe another thread.

I understand that you are frustrated because I wouldn't bite on your Red Herring attempt. So now you resort to Ad Hominems?

Meh.

There have been countless cases where prosecutors have dropped all charges - because they didn't think they had enough to get a conviction. It happens all the time. It's a reality we have to live with. Are you suggesting that the person is completely innocent in a case like that? Just because the charges are (for whatever reason) dropped?

You are fixated on the actual outcome of that one specific case when I only offered it to you to prove ONE point. That - (under the UVVA) a person does NOT have to be charged with a crime against the mother - in order to be charged with a crime against her prenatal child.

You have yet to concede that point.

Instead, you are trying to drag me into defending the actions of what I agree would be an inept prosecution.

QOUTE: "The 'murder' of the fetus is always been convicted as the lesser crime, as it was in Scott Peterson's case - convicted of 1st degree murder for Laci's death and 2nd degree murder for Conner's death." Post #108

That would be hilarious if you meant that as a joke.

What about botched prosecutions of a case where the person actually did the deed (think- O.J. Simpson)?

I agree with all of that and I've said essentially the same thing in other posts. Show me where I ever claimed the guy who tricked his girlfriend was anything more than 'Charged' with the crime.

Remember, Fugazi. We were debating whether charges had to be brought for a crime against the mother in order for a "lesser" charge to be brought for the crime against her prenatal child.

You still haven't conceded to the fact that a person can be charged for crimes against the child alone and that charges are not required to be brought for any crimes against the mother.

One man - one case that I agree was probably botched.

Your point?

The language of the UVVA matters.

Indeed, the fact that it even had to make an exception to itself to allow abortions to continue - is a significant thing.

Because what the laws say now is different than before the UVVA.

Prior to the UVVA there was NO recognition of the personhood of prenatal children.

Now there is.

Drink up!

Tell that to those who are actually still serving time under their convictions.

I understand that is your opinion.

However, the court is not bound by that opinion.

The SCOTUS is not even bound by its own opinions.

They can choose re-visit Roe at any time they deem appropriate .

 

the statement is a total lack of conscious and shows a person who does not include altruism or empathy in their lives..at all

Human life is sacrosanct,period.

if you stand by in your opening statement than this is of course meaningless. as is the following
Y

of course for a person that finds human life nothing special, it doesn't have any relevance …

thats a major leap from a person asking a question what you feel they are…she used it with the term human…which for you is nothing special…and now you are concerned that at the use of the words glob of cells is some emotional exertion of the nature of what she is asking people what it is.

she asked …you demean her...

human life as you say is nothing special, why bother yourself with any of this then…self defence…what for human life to you is nothing special..

there is nothing as absurd as someone who on one hand describes humans as nothing special and them discusses the human condition..

 

you just said human life is nothing special and now you hound a poster for saying she doesn't care..you then point out she is ignoring an issue ..

what about the part where you say human life is nothing special..

why make that statement and have any care as to whether someone said"don't know don;t really care"

i realize you took her statement out of context to troll the thread..

the ultimate troll …human life is nothing special…then go on and hound a pro lifer…she loves humans , loves life…you don;t so why bother with people that do…

absurd little man venting desperation due to a depressed attitude where human life is nothing special ..

only a total depressant views humans in such a way..

seek professional help…

of course your the guy bragging about awards you get for poetry…and your poem you posted was about life and the beauty of it all…but here you want to tell people that humans are not special..

absurd and just mean venting in the thread…its a mean thing to say and do to a pro lifer.

 

for the purpose of that law, it does not mean it is recognized in other laws.

If you remove it you make the rest of that law unconstitutional based on the already established rights. you have a chicken and egg situation, in order for the UVVA to be used in a challenge to Roe you need to remove the exception, if you remove the exception you invalidate the rest of the law.

don't think it will happen, and even if it did it would only equate to abortion being returned to state level decisions, then of course there would be the challenges against the decision including using self defense laws.

Typically those in the minority wish to impose their views onto the majority .. strange kind of democracy you practice in the US.

As far as I am aware there is only one person still serving a sentence prosecuted using laws such as the UVVA where there has been no violence towards the female, and I will disagree with you on the allusion that the convictions overturned have not been because of problems with the UVVA.

a ten year old law is not a new law, this is just a cop on your part.

So long as the abortion exception is included there is no requirement to challenge the UVVA, and as long as those wrongly convicted are having those convictions overturned then all it shows is that prosecutors are over stepping what the law means.

but you haven't really done anything, one case where the woman was convicted and is still serving time is could hardly be seen as progress.

 

seriously Chuz life this is not an answer but a piece of non legal anything.
the arrogance that follows is tantamount to evasive maneuvering …otherwise known as bafflegab

once using the chicken and egg analogy in a legal sense all cradiabilty id flown the coup..

also chicken and the egg analogy when used in abortion killings is ludicrous…of course this fugazi fellow has said human life is nothing special.

sometimes the minority is right where as the majority has it so far wrong.

if we were to go along with strictly majority's thinking on so many issues we would be in the dark ages..in nazi germany after the war the majority could no longer be found.

basing judgement on a gnag mentality is the pro choice anthem ..


.

there you go again using some ad hominem to derail her point.
please read what she is trying to convey , for the love of human life…that you hold so cheaply it seems , both in your words and your attitudes towards children and the unborn.

i realize human life is nothing special for you…bt Nelson Mandella was just one person as well

i have always enjoyed you lucidity and your compelling defence of the unborn..

it is born from love chuz life ….born from love and compassion…absent in those that view life as nothing special and more importantly human life as nothing special…

appalling..

 

In the context of the Abortion debate and the debate over whether or not an abortion kills a child / prenatal person....

I challenge you to give me an example of a law that would matter more or one that would have more pertinence to the debate.

 

It is not necessary to remove any part of the language of the UVVA - in order to have the SCOTUS revisit Roe.

New (personhood) laws which use the same language of the UVVA but are being written specifically to ban elective abortions and they will accomplish the same thing.

I know this is from Wikipedia but it is precisely what I am talking about:

"The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the (UVVA) measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "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", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
However, the reticence of a federal law to authorize federal prosecution of a particular act committed under federal jurisdiction does not prevent states from passing their own laws against the act committed under their jurisdiction. Meanwhile the definition of all unborn babies as “members of the species homo sapiens” in section (d) says essentially what proposed “personhood” laws say.[3] Sponsors of such proposals say such legal language will trigger the “collapse” clause in Roe v. Wade, by establishing what Roe said must be established for legal abortion to end. [4] Several state supreme courts have ruled that sections (a) through (c) are not threatened by Roe, [5] but no court has addressed whether Roe can survive the triggering of its “collapse” clause by section (d)."

Bring it on.

We are ready for that one too. We already have laws against crating a conflict with someone and then killing them under the pretense of an act of 'self defense.'

Protecting innocent human life is a view that our 'majority' actually shares. They are simply un-aware that they (the majority?) are being hypocritical and are living in denial of the fact that they are turning their back on the murders of innocent children in their own country.

That's fine.

It only takes one case to support my claim and I was never arguing about the numbers of convictions - despite your efforts to bait me into doing so.

No matter the age of the law, It's still new ground for Law Enforcement and officials who have never prosecuted a case under that law.

Time will tell.

That's subjective.

Again, you should consider the content of the article I quoted from Wiki.

 

The only thing that frustrates me is you evasion, some things and people never change.

Are you suggesting they are not?

and you have yet to concede that being charged does not mean being guilty and I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that a person has been charged AND convicted in these circumstances, I know of only one such case where the charge was not dropped or the conviction overturned.

The proof of the strength of a law is not in how many times it has been used to charge someone it is in how many times it has lead to a safe conviction.

Still doesn't prove what you have been saying, a charge doesn't mean a damn thing without a safe conviction. The case you are talking about the man wasn't even convicted of any crime against the woman or the fetus. In the majority of cases (I know of only one that stands against it) that have lead to convictions, the charge against the man of killing or injuring the fetus has always been the lesser charge. BTW I've highlighted the relevant word used, a word that you tried to change to charge, you do know there is a difference between being charged for a crime and convicted of one don't you, so please try again.

Was he found innocent or not, so regardless of the public opinion of his guilt he was, according to the law, not guilty.

You are however alluding to the fact someone can be charged as somehow justifying the strength of the law used.

Actually we were not, you are stating about charges I am talking about convictions (as you so kindly showed in my comment you quoted), my point is that that charging someone with a crime has no bearing on the strength of the law used to bring that charge, the strength of the law is in how many convictions it leads to (convictions that are not overturned by appeal that is);

Charge - When a person is charged with a crime, a formal allegation (a statement not yet proven) of an offense is made.
Conviction - the person has been proven or declared guilty of the offense.

In all but one case ANY charge or conviction using any of the UVVA type laws has been either dropped or overturned because it has been found that the charge does not conform to the meaning of the law used, what has happened is that the police and prosecutors have interpreted said laws which all but one court or appeal has overturned.

No fact to concede, you seem to be placing a whole load of faith in the fact people can be charged with something and yet these charges have either been dropped or overturned after convictions because they do not conform to the meaning or letter of the law used.

Your example to try and prove your point .. it failed.

The personhood of a fetus is only applicable to this law (and ones like it), no other .. just as a business is a person for the purpose of the laws used in those cases, no other.
The exception to abortion (and its not just abortion that is the exception) HAD to be included, if it were not the law would have been declared unconstitutional as it would have clashed with the already declared constitutional right of a woman to procure an abortion.

The supreme court of California said it better - "[W]hen the mother's privacy interests are not at stake, the Legislature may determine whether, and at what point, it should protect life inside a mother's womb from homicide."

another quote of interest is by the Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger of Duke University School of Law - "The legislatures can decide that fetuses are deserving of protection without having to make any judgment that the entity being protected has freestanding constitutional rights"

Again all but one of those serving time under convictions using the UVVA were third party persons violating the privacy rights (consent) of the woman and they ALL but one included convictions against the female as the primary charge and conviction.

It is not my opinion but that of Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, and yes it is just an opinion, an opinion of three highly respected constitutional law experts

Prof. Walter Dellinger - http://law.duke.edu/fac/dellinger/
Richard Parker - http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10648/Parker
Sherry F. Colb - http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio.cfm?id=327

 

Prove it

Then please do explain how and why human life is 'special'

I answered the question asked, which was "Mary: So, what we're really trying to figure out is, what constitutes a life, what is a fetus? A human or a glob of cells? "

My answer was that whether it is human or not has little relevance was in context of the question asked, but yet again you cherry pick and twist other people words in order to project your own opinion.

again you are removing the context of the reply to the question or statement made, the statement made to which I replied was as follows - "Now, I will admit this doesn't work in the case where the mother's life is in danger. That goes back to the question, "Is it okay to kill someone in order to save another life?" "

My reply was in context of the statement made, the statement made was in reference to the self-defence item, which I correctly stated does not have to be only about the risk to life.

I am not discussing the human condition at all, I am addressing the legality of self defence and the wrongful assertion that it can only be used when there is a risk to life.

BTW, I respectfully request you remove my name from your signature line, as far as I am aware the rules of the forum do not allow you to use my name in that place unless you have my permission to do so .. you do not have that permission, if you do not remove my name I will request that the MOD's do so.

 

The UVVA and other similar laws are not in the context of the abortion debate, it is only thorough your (and others) interpretation that they are. The UVVA and similar laws deal with the loss of privacy (consent) from the woman and not abortion

Roe vs Wade as it deals specifically with abortion, UVVA and other similar laws do not.

 

Let me know when (or if) the challenge comes, till then everything you have stated is purely hypothetical and/or opinion.

Again another situation that would need to be tested in court.

Again just opinion no facts involved.

The baiting was the other way, I was always talking about convictions you changed it charges.

There have been numerous cases of people being charged and of trials taking place (all of which were overturned), seems to me that some are just flogging a dead horse, and yes that is just an opinion.

Ten years not enough time then?

If you say so.

and I did consider the article, all it shows is that until such time a challenge is made to Roe then all of this is nothing more than opinion and.or hypothetical.

If you remember that was the conclusion we both came to last time we debated this .. has anything changed?