www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Help Pass 'Laci & Conner's Law'!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Click here: Help Pass 'Laci & Conner's Law'!

http://www.conservativealerts.com/022304.htm


Help Pass 'Laci & Conner's Law'!
Tell Congress to Support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act!


ISSUE: In a case that has garnered a great deal of attention from the news media, last April prosecutors in Stanislaus County, California, charged Scott Peterson with the murder of his wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son, Conner. (See www.nrlc.org)

Prosecutors say that Laci and Conner Peterson were killed on or about December 23 or December 24, during the eighth month of pregnancy. The bodies of the two victims were recovered and identified separately after washing up on the shores of San Francisco Bay.

This case has drawn increased attention to the expanding national debate over unborn victims of violence, which is now coming to a head in Congress. 28 states have already enacted laws that recognize unborn victims of at least some violent crime, during some or all of the period of pre-natal development.

Even though unborn victim laws have had no impact on the legality of abortion, these laws are opposed by many pro-abortion advocacy groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW), NARAL and Planned Parenthood, along with allied lawmakers. However, numerous federal and state courts have ruled that laws recognizing unborn victims of violent crimes do not violate any provision of the Constitution, and do not conflict with Roe v. Wade or other U.S. Supreme Court rulings mandating legal abortion.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (now commonly called "Laci and Connor's Law"), which has been introduced by Sen. Mike Dewine (R-OH) in the Senate and by Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) in the House of Representatives, would apply the two-victim principle to FEDERAL crimes of violence. However, the bill would not impose the federal death penalty. The bill does not apply to legal abortion.

This is another one of those common-sense measures that radical liberals violently oppose every time it comes up for passage, with no rationale or reasoning whatsoever (despite the fact that 3 national polls show that about 80% of the public believes the law should recognize the killing of a "fetus" in a crime as HOMICIDE, and a solid majority believes this should be true throughout pregnancy). Only this time, with your help, it actually has a chance to pass and be signed into law by President Bush!

ACTION ITEM: The House version of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is set to be voted on THIS THURSDAY, Feb. 26. This Act would hold criminals liable for conduct that injures or kills an unborn child. Currently, 28 of our States already have criminalized the killing and injuring of unborn victims during a crime. This Act would not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would it impose such a law in a state that has not enacted one. Rather, the bill applies only to unborn children injured or killed during the course of already-defined federal crimes of violence. We live in a violent world and, sadly, sometimes -- perhaps more often than we realize -- even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts.

As Sen. Dewine stated in introducing this bill, "The fact is that it is just plain wrong that our Federal Government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder... As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children. We must close this loophole."

Conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, and just plain common-sensical folks across the country agree, especially since the events surrounding the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. Click "Go! above to send a message to your Representative and Senators, which will also be copied to President Bush, telling them to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act when it comes before them.

**********

if this law is passed, at least something good will have come out of this horror.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a pretty important initiative, nanci. I hope all our representatives take a good look at it.

However, I disagree that it should make a difference whether a woman is pregnant or not when she is murdered. I realize there are multiple victims provisions, heinious crimes provisions, etc., but murdering a woman should be as bad as murdering a pregnant woman. The murderer should fry either way.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The country is getting too soft. Many juries will not give a death sentence.

Watching Nova tonight there were about 200 people in the United States who betrayed the United States by helping to get information about the atomic bomb to Russia. There were even people in government involved. Maybe there will be a written form of this Nova program, so we can see a list.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>> The murderer should fry either way. <<<


i'm with you all the way on that, rd ...

however, i do believe it is important that the murder of a pregnant woman be tried as a double murder, if for no other reason than the fact that that unborn child is a human being who has lost his/her life, just like the mother who is murdered has lost hers. john donne was right ... no man is an island, and the bell that tolls for dead unborn children tolls for us all.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello nanci, the unborn baby is a very important piece of property, and no one has a right to deprive the mother and father and other family members of having that baby born.

It is like destroying someone's house, but much much worse than that.

Governor Jerry Brown in California was against the death penalty, but I wrote him a letter saying that people are executed every day of the year, and the people against the death sentence don't say anything about that. The executed people are the ones who are murdered, and the murderers are then protected by the people who are against the death sentence.

If people are against the death sentence why aren't they concerned about all of the people who are murdered?

I talked to Jerry Brown once, but only briefly. He came into a building where I was working. I voted for him.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am on several of Senator Dianne Feinstein's email mailing lists. She has a slightly different version of a law providing for stronger penalties for killing or injuring a pregnant woman.


To: FEINSTEIN-ISUES@EMAIL-LISTS.SENATE.GOV
Subject: Crime, Guns, Public Safety: Senator Feinstein Seeks Tougher Penalties For Injuring or Killing a Pregnant Women and Her Fetus
From: "Feinstein, Feinsteinpress (Feinstein)" <Feinsteinpress@FEINSTEIN.SENATE.GOV>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:58:09 -0500


Senator Feinstein Seeks Tougher Penalties
For Injuring or Killing a Pregnant Women and Her Fetus

March 23, 2004

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced the
introduction of legislation today to increase penalties for offenders
who commit violent federal crimes against pregnant women and cause their
pregnancies to be terminated or interrupted.

Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) has introduced similar legislation designed
to deter and punish criminals, but it also has the effect of defining
life as beginning at conception. Senator Feinstein's bill, however, does
not define when life begins, thereby accomplishing the same goal without
entangling the issue in the controversial abortion debate.

"Someone who attacks a pregnant woman, and damages or destroys her
pregnancy should receive a tougher penalty for these horrible crimes,"
Senator Feinstein said. "This bill focuses on the harm to the woman's
pregnancy rather than defining when human life begins. It is simply not
necessary to get involved in the issue of how to define when life begins
in order to punish those who commit grievous acts against pregnant
women."

The Motherhood Protection Act was introduced Monday. It would allow
prosecutors to "double charge" a defendant for a crime against a
pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.

The first charge would be for harm to the woman and the second charge
would be for harm to the pregnancy. Thus, a separate offence is created
based on the harm to the pregnancy.

More than 300,000 American women are subjected to domestic violence
during their pregnancies each year. Additionally, homicide during
pregnancy and in the year following birth is the leading
pregnancy-related cause of death among women in the U.S., according to
the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"We have heard many heart wrenching stories about women whose
pregnancies were terminated and about how the individuals who
perpetrated those attacks remain unpunished for their crimes," Senator
Feinstein added. "These attacks sicken me. I believe that people who
attack pregnant women and terminate or harm their pregnancy must be
punished harshly."

Under an earlier agreement, the Senate will soon consider the Feinstein
and DeWine bills. "I find it deeply troubling that the United States
Senate will be given six and half hours to debate and decide on the
deeply divisive issue of when human life begins without so much as a
committee hearing or a markup."

###

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I saw where the Laci and Conner provision that nanci posted about was passed in the Senate a couple of months ago, but not sure what the outcome was. I think it had broad support.

Personally, I don't think it should make a difference or not whether a woman is pregnant or not if she is murdered. The murderer should die either way. To me this is stuff to keep lawyers busy when we should be doing stuff to help investigators be more successful.

In other words, the cart is before the horse. We as a country are spending time talking because talk is cheap. Putting the systems into place to catch these murderers and prosecute them for murdering a woman, pregnant or not, is not. I'd like to see more action in our government at all levels and less talk. You can only execute a murderer once. Lawyers are always making things unnecessarily complicated. :)

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from www.modestobee.com (fair use)

'Laci's law' tests mother's lobbying skills
By MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU
Last Updated: March 25, 2004, 07:28:37 AM PST

WASHINGTON -- Politics has become acutely personal for Sharon Rocha, as the mother of slain Modesto woman Laci Peterson learns the congressional ropes.

With the Senate scheduled to vote as early as today on legislation dubbed "Laci and Conner's law," Rocha has been showing her hard-earned skills as a grass-roots lobbyist.

She's been appearing with Republican senators at Capitol Hill stakeouts, delivering taped messages and writing the kind of pointed letters designed to put lawmakers on the spot.

"I believe the vast majority of Americans are in agreement that when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, a double homicide has been committed," Rocha declared in one recent letter. "It is time for those who make the laws to listen to us."

The legislation she champions, similar but not identical to laws in place in California and other states, would recognize fetuses as separate victims in federal crimes committed against pregnant women.

Rocha is not the only grieving family member to be lobbying for the bill this week, though she probably has the highest profile.

The National Right to Life Committee helped coordinate the visits of a half-dozen other family members who have their own sorrowful tales to relate, such as the Kentucky couple whose daughter was murdered in January while five months pregnant.

"It does bring another dimension to the debate," Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said of the family members' visits. "It cuts through some of the legalisms that the other side throws up."

Rocha got involved with the issue last year, when she asked Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Melissa Hart to rename the legislation after Laci and Conner Peterson. She has stayed involved ever since.

For instance, when the House last month passed the bill by a 254-163 margin, it was Rocha whose taped message was chosen for playing by the bill's sponsors.

"Two people, Laci and Conner, would be here with us today if they had not been murdered," Rocha's message said. "There were two victims in this crime, not one."

Also, it was Rocha who accompanied Republican senators Tuesday when they appeared before reporters at a Capitol stakeout, held after the weekly GOP policy lunch.

Sometimes the appeal doesn't work.

Rocha talked by phone with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein about the legislation, but did not sway her. Feinstein will be offering the most closely watched amendment to the bill; it would stiffen penalties for killing or injuring a pregnant woman, but would not specifically identify a fetus as "a child, who is in utero."

Feinstein declined to predict Wednesday how her amendment will fare, though she acknowledged "it's a tough vote."

She maintains that the most important thing is to "punish those who commit grievous acts against pregnant women," rather than to step on a slippery slope toward reconsidering abortion.

Feinstein added that she doesn't like that the Senate bill is being taken up without the benefit of Senate committee hearings.

In return, Rocha declared that she is "dismayed" that Feinstein and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer were "standing in the way" of the overall bill.

Tactically speaking, supporters of Laci and Conner's law want the Senate to avoid any changes in the measure that's already been passed by the House. That way, the legislation can go straight to the White House without negotiations.

California and 28 other states have fetal homicide laws, which is why Scott Peterson is facing two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife and their unborn son. But state laws differ in how the laws are put together.

California's law protects a fetus that has passed the "embryonic stage" of seven or eight weeks. Twelve other states similarly limit the protection to a particular stage of fetal development. Fetal homicide laws in 16 states cover the fetus every step of the way. The federal legislation would protect a fetus "at any stage of development, which is carried in the womb."

Bee Washington Bureau reporter Michael Doyle can be reached at 202-383-0006 or mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see now the status of the bill. A murdered woman is still a murdered woman whether pregnant or not. Pregnant women shouldn't be given any more consideration that a woman who isn't pregnant if either one is murdered. I will fight for the right of murdered women who aren't pregnant to be treated just the same as any other murdered woman or man.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Senate passed it, so it will be law now when Bush signs it.

rd

from Associated Press (fair use)

Senate Passes Fetus Protection Bill
Mar 25, 8:46 PM (ET)
By JIM ABRAMS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Thursday to make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during commission of a violent federal crime, a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn.

The 61-38 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act sends the legislation, after a five-year battle in Congress, to President Bush for his signature, which he promised to provide.

"Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims - the mother and the unborn child - and both victims should be protected by federal law," the president said in a statement applauding congressional passage. The House passed the bill last month.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the bill was "powerful because this act is about simple humanity, about simple reality."

But abortion rights lawmakers contended that giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother sets a precedent that could be used in future legal challenges to abortion rights.

It was the second big win for social conservatives, who last year pushed through protections for the unborn with enactment of the so-called partial birth abortion ban. That ban is now tied up in the courts.

The Senate cleared the way for passage with a 50-49 vote to defeat an amendment, backed by opponents of the bill, that would have increased penalties for harm to a pregnant woman but did not attempt to define when human life begins.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Bush's opponent this fall, interrupted his campaign schedule to vote yes on the amendment. He voted no on final passage.

The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

"This bill recognizes that there are two victims," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Americans, he said, "intuitively know that there is a victim besides the mother."

The key obstacle was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have imposed the same tougher penalties for attacks on pregnant women as outlined in the DeWine bill but made no attempt to define the beginning of life.

Feinstein said that by defining when life begins, the bill was "the first step in removing a woman's right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability." She said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.

The Senate also defeated an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., that would require employers to give unpaid leave, and states to pay unemployment benefits, to women when they or family members are victims of domestic or sexual violence.

Supporters of the bill have named it after Laci Peterson and her unborn child, Conner, victims in the highly publicized murder case in California. California, one of 29 states with an unborn victims law, is trying Peterson's husband, Scott, on double murder charges.

Laci Peterson's stepfather, Ron Grantski, said at a Capitol Hill news conference that he and Laci's mother had received several hundred thousand sympathy cards and "they all mourned our loss of Laci and Conner - not Laci and the fetus."

The Senate bill covers 68 federal crimes of violence, such as drug-related shootings, violence at an international airport, terrorist attacks, crimes on a military base and threats against a witness in a federal proceeding.

It would specifically exclude prosecution of legally performed abortions - a fact supporters cite in arguing that the bill would not undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

"The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."

Groups on both sides of the abortion issue lobbied hard on the legislation.

The Christian Coalition of America said votes for either the Murray or Feinstein amendments would be regarded as negative votes on its annual congressional scorecard of lawmakers.

On the other side, NARAL Pro-Choice America delivered more than 130,000 petitions to senators urging defeat of the bill.

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said NARAL president Kate Michelman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade."

---

The bill is H.R. 1997.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

looks like sharon rocha passed the test to her lobbying skills ...


Thursday, March 25, 2004

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (search) on Thursday, following House passage last month of a bill that would make it a crime to harm a fetus during a violent federal crime.

But the bill, meant to further penalize someone who attacks a pregnant woman, has energized partisans on both sides of the abortion issue.

"They want to make this bill about a woman's right. What on earth does this have to do with a woman's right to choose? Nothing," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

The bill, which will now be sent to President Bush, is also called "Laci and Conner's law" after Laci Peterson (search), the murdered California woman whose unborn son was to be named Conner. The vote has become a top priority of anti-abortion organizations and abortion-rights groups.

The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child, "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

"This bill recognizes that there are two victims. There is the victim, the mother who was assaulted, and there is the victim, the unborn child: He was either injured or killed," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

Tracy Marciniak, who was days away from giving birth when the father of the child brutally beat her, traveled to Capitol Hill to support the bill.

"My son was five days from full-term, and for them to tell me my son was nothing, it's just wrong," Marciniak said. "Where were my child's rights when he was ripped from my womb and killed, and I was told he was nothing?"

Bush strongly supports the bill.

The Senate cleared the way for passage of the bill by narrowly defeating an amendment, 50-49, that would have given more comfort to abortion rights lawmakers. The measure would have increased penalties on assailants but maintained that an attack on a pregnant victim was a single-victim crime.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who authored the amendment, feared the implications of the bill. "If this result is incorporated, it will be the first step in removing a woman's right to choice," she said. Feinstein said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.

Supporters of the legislation countered that it is not about abortion, but about protecting pregnant women.

**********
looks like there are some lefties, including but not limited to senators dianne feinstein and john kerry, who are suffering through a maalox moment or three tonight ... they might want to stock up before november, as this is only one early indicator of the extent to which the silent majority so feared by the left wing is beginning to find its voice. i find it disturbing that a man who desparately wants to be the most powerful man in the free world is so willing to just ignore the reality of baby conner's dead body floating around in the san francisco bay, not even willing to consider the little guy a human being, just to make sure he gets the votes of the women out there who sidestep accountability for their sexual behavior by killing the babies they conceive. thank you, God, that with all his shortcomings george bush is not willing to trade dead babies for votes ... i guess we've come to the point where our vote is literally a matter of life and death.

and, yes, i am well aware that there are medical circumstances in which a mother's life depends on killing her baby, and i support her right to make that heartbreaking decision whenever it is at issue ... so do every single one of the anti-abortion legislative proposals, for that matter ... but there are a heckuva a lot more babies being killed to protect their mother's lifestyle than there are to protect her life. i have to wonder, too, where we turned some kind of corner in our national moral standards that we now live in a land where the very same people who don't even consider conner to be a person will fight to their last breath to protect the one who took his life and his mother's life from facing his own death in punishment for his crime.


nanci


**********
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

'Laci and Conner's law'passes major hurdle
Kerry opposes unborn-victims act as threat to abortion rights

Posted: March 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

In a move seen as a victory for pro-life advocates, Senate Democrats have agreed not to filibuster a bill that ensures crimes against a pregnant woman count as two victims.

The agreement between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., means only a simple majority is needed to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called the bill "one of the many pro-life pieces of legislation that cross the abortion divide in this country."

"Regardless of whether they are pro-life or pro-abortion, 80 percent of Americans believe that crimes against a pregnant woman should count two victims," he said.

However, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry opposes it, regarding the bill as a threat to abortion rights.

"The law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to terminate her pregnancy," Kerry says.

President Bush has said he will sign it.


The House of Representatives passed the bill Feb. 26 by a 254-163 vote. The House previously had approved similar legislation, but it never came up when Democrats controlled the Senate. In the Republican-controlled Senate, it had not advanced due to fear of a filibuster, which would require 60 votes to overcome.

Some Republicans say, however, two amendments proposed by Democrats are an attempt to gut the bill, reported LifeNews.com

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proposes not defining an unborn child as a person and only slightly increasing penalties for attacking a pregnant woman. Kerry has said he supports Feinstein's amendment.

The mother of Laci Peterson – the murdered pregnant woman in the high-profile Modesto, Calif., case – opposes Feinstein's amendment.

Sharon Rocha said her daughter knew Conner, the unborn child, was her son, "and I know it, too."

"Two people, Laci and Conner, would be here with us today if they had not been murdered," Rocha said. "There were two victims in this crime, not one."

The House version of the bill is known as "Laci and Conner's Law."

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., wants to attach a 157-page amendment to the bill that would promote domestic violence programs funded by employers.

"The attempt to attach this massive bill is clearly an attempt to mire the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in issues that are entirely distinct," said Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life legislative director, according to LifeNews.com.

Johnson said the Murray amendment, if approved, would force many supporters of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to vote against it, possibly leading to its defeat.
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am against abortion - I see it as the murder of a helpless little person. Very sad. I agree with nanci that women must be accountable for their behaviour, but sometimes vulnerable women or girls are raped or otherwise pressured into having sex. I don't see abortion as a solution in those cases, though. I met a young woman who was made pregnant by her stepfather when she was 12. Her mom and stepfather made sure she got an abortion - but that is all she got. No counseling, no protection from the abusive situation. And a decade or so later she still felt guilt over the abortion.

I think that cases where an abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health are rare - that is, if she knows she has a bad heart or bad kidneys, she would probably avoid pregnancy in the first place. What do you have to say about this, Kate?
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The vote was 50-49, strict party line vote. I am for the right of the mother to have an abortion. There are going to be those that vote against Democrats because they don't believe in that right, and so be it. We're not going to be able to make them happy standing by the majority who want the choice. That's the way it goes. It's one of those things people come down hard on one way or the other.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>> It's one of those things people come down hard on one way or the other. <<<


you're certainly right about that, rd ...

and i am one of the folks holding the belief that abortion at any point after conception takes a human life. however, i also have great respect for other folks' right to hold their own beliefs and to act on them, so i do not support outlawing abortion altogether. instead, i want to see my money protected from bearing the costs of abortion in any way, shape or form ... i don't want my tax money paying for abortions performed on women whose medical costs are covered by state or federal governments, and i don't want my insurance premiums or the cost of my own medical care being affected in any way by the costs associated with abortion. i don't even want my tax money going to any medical or social service facility that provides any kind of abortion related services, with the sole exception of emergency care when a botched abortion endangers the mother's health ... and yes, a woman who has aborted her baby is still a mother, she's just the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one, as a blood test of her hormone levels would readily prove.

before anybody has a hyssie fit over what a cold hearted monster i am to support leaving all those promiscuous women out there on their own with no way to pay for their deadly birth control, let me point out that tax dollars are not the only way to pay for abortion services. in addition to the option of raising funds to pay for abortions howard dean style, getting a few dollars here and a few dollars there from ordinary folks who want to support the cause, there seem to be an awful lot of rich folks out there taking a stand for a woman's right to choose to kill her baby, so they could chip in to sweeten the pot for women seeking abortion on demand. the hollywood set, for instance ... a crowd of pro-abortion types who could easily pay for a major percentage of the annual cost of abortion services all by themselves ... could contribute and/or raise funds that would be held in trust and disbursed to pay for abortions for any woman who wanted to abort her baby but couldn't afford the cost.

in addition to the 'true believers' paying for the costs of abortions, pro-abortion doctors could discount or contribute their services, or even form their own insurance companies [like the american medical association has done with blue cross/blue shield] so that women could just buy abortion insurance the same way they buy birth control pills, but without needing a prescription. establishing and maintaining the physical facilities necessary for providing abortion services could be handled by pro-abortion property owners deeding the required buildings over to the cause, or at least providing clinic space rent free, just to take the pressure off the rich pro-abortion folks who would be forking out cash as they put their money where their mouth is around a woman's right to choose. i'm a woman, and i have a right to choose, too ... i choose to not spend my money helping women kill their babies when the people who think that's just fine could and should be the ones paying that cost. there are remarkably few genuinely unsolvable problems in the world at large, but there are precious few people out there who are willing to put their money where their mouth is in order to achieve a solution.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am against abortion, except to save the life of the mother. There is one aspect of abortion that does not seem to get much consideration, when a baby is killed before it is born that means that all the relatives of the mother and father have lost a family member.

Since many family members are related to an unborn baby should not the family members get a chance to vote on whether an unborn baby is going to be killed? If a vote of all family members was necessary there might be fewer abortions.

Jerry Falwell has a home for unwed mothers, which is never mentioned much, and some of the mothers keep their babies and some of the babies are adopted out. Falwell told of one case where the Father of the mother was also the father of the mother's child. This was a case of incest, but the baby was adopted out just like the other babies. I think that Falwell said that the adopting parents were aware of the child's background.

I could preach a sermon here, but I won't. Do we really have Freedom of Religion?

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group