Why I became a Republican...

[Care4all]

As I understand it, the charge can come based on the woman's intent. Has nothing to do with that arbitrary "viable" term.

Yes, you're right, I was wrong... I just found it!

Text of the Law
The operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:

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.

The provision amending the Uniform Code of Military Justice is functionally the same, except for minor technical points.

 

[jillian]

Funny, considering you support the political party which believes exactly that.

Is that what you think anti-discrimination laws and pay parity are?

You make kind of a goofy analogy. Doesn't show much analysis. Can't say I'm surprised,though.

 

[JeffWartman]

So it is like I said, both theories believe in some sort of supreme being or God the Created or assisted in the creation of man... right?

That doesnt sound all that different?

It's barely in the same ballpark.

You can believe in intelligent design without being a Christian.

 

[JeffWartman]

Is that what you think anti-discrimination laws and pay parity are?

Please show me where I referenced any of those issues. Thanks.

 

[Larkinn]

On the contrary, The Big Bang has everything to do with biochemical evolution on Earth. Cosmologists think that soon after the Big Bang, the Universe was composed mostly of hydrogen. Galaxies and stars condensed from small gravitational irregularities. Stars were born, lived, and died, sometimes (if larger than two solar masses) exploding heavier elements into space. These heavier elements were formed through the process of nuclear fusion as stars "burned" their fuel. New stars condensed and incorporated these heavier elements. This process repeated over and over again. This is how relatively heavy elements are formed, such as carbon; without which life as we know it would be impossible. Biochemical evolution on Earth is a necessary result of chemical evolution in the Universe. Inextricably linked, both processes continue today, and will for billions of years into the future.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin03

They are two different theories. They are not dependent on each other. Hence, they are very different. One is explaining the creation of the universe, and the other is explaining how the various life forms on this planet came to be (sort of...it doesn't do a great job at explaining how the first life form existed imo...)

originally posted by Alu
That link supplies no evidence of evolution... Its all theory...

Thats why its called "The THEORY of Evolution" there is no actual evidence.

Jeff already explained this, but it bears repeating...theory means it is not proven, not that there is no evidence for it.

 

[jillian]

Jeff already explained this, but it bears repeating...theory means it is not proven, not that there is no evidence for it.

I'd also add that scientific theory is not the same as "I have a theory" (meaning guess....). It means it has been subjected to the scientific method and analyzed and that there is a significant amount of proof.

And scientific theories are not the same as unscientific "guesses"....particularly if those guesses are based on religious dogma.

 

[Alucard]

It's barely in the same ballpark.

You can believe in intelligent design without being a Christian.

And you can believe in creation without being a Christian also...

The bottom line is, both theories rest on a foundation that supports the idea that a supreme being created man...

 

[JeffWartman]

And you can believe in creation without being a Christian also...

The bottom line is, both theories rest on a foundation that supports the idea that a supreme being created man...

With completely different results.

Islam and Christianity both mention Jesus in their holy books. Doesn't mean they are the same religion.

 

[Mr.Conley]

And a lot of us bailed on the Dems for the same reason. The fact is, NEITHER party represents, we the people. They represent their own self-interest, and a partisan political battle contrived to keep us so busy fighting amongst ourselves we're not supposed to notice them divying up the goods.

I largely agree with you. However, at this point I believe the Democrats are more in line with the beliefs of their constituents then the Republicans, especially after this immigration debacle.

 

[onedomino]

They are two different theories. They are not dependent on each other. Hence, they are very different. One is explaining the creation of the universe, and the other is explaining how the various life forms on this planet came to be (sort of...it doesn't do a great job at explaining how the first life form existed imo...)

Incorrect. go back to school and take some organic chemistry. Read about self organization in complex systems. Biochemical evolution on Earth is a direct result of chemical evolution in the Universe. Life forms on Earth reside on the spectrum of chemical evolution that has proceeded from the simple to the complex over billions of years: from hydrogen, to helium, to carbon, to organic chemistry, to self replicating molecules, to viruses, to bacteria, to multi-cellular organisms, ect. I am not talking about some antedulivian 1859 theory based on bird observations. I am referring to the modern theory of evolution which is described with biochemistry and its subset molecular genetics.

 

[jillian]

How come if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with Two homicides yet we still live in denial that abortion is murder...

Because in the wake of the Lacy Peterson case, the idealogues thought it a good idea to use the opportunity to pass that law so more idealogues would raise the argument you raise.

Got it?

 

[jillian]

Please show me where I referenced any of those issues. Thanks.

Then pray tell us what other issues you were referring to.

 

[manu1959]

Because in the wake of the Lacy Peterson case, the idealogues thought it a good idea to use the opportunity to pass that law so more idealogues would raise the argument you raise.

Got it?

law existed before the lacy peterson case....odd in one of the most liberal states....what if you killed the "baby" in the first trimester?

 

[Annie]

law existed before the lacy peterson case....odd in one of the most liberal states....what if you killed the "baby" in the first trimester?

agreed. though I was too lazy to look up the law.

 

[jillian]

law existed before the lacy peterson case....odd in one of the most liberal states....what if you killed the "baby" in the first trimester?

I don't recall that being the case... but if so, I stand corrected.

As for a person making a personal choice, Roe is pretty clear, it's about when the governmental interest supercedes the individual's.

 

[manu1959]

I don't recall that being the case... but if so, I stand corrected.

As for a person making a personal choice, Roe is pretty clear, it's about when the governmental interest supercedes the individual's.

i am pretty sure the law existed or they couldn't have charged him....plus the entire state of caliliberials would have gone nuts....all i recall them doing is wanting to see scott dead......they were partying in the streets when he was convicted.....wonder if the same people will try to save him when he is executed.....

 

[jillian]

i am pretty sure the law existed or they couldn't have charged him....plus the entire state of caliliberials would have gone nuts....all i recall them doing is wanting to see scott dead......they were partying in the streets when he was convicted.....wonder if the same people will try to save him when he is executed.....

There's a big difference between wanting someone convicted and wanting them executed. That case actually worried me because the blood lust was so palpable. I mean, it was a horrific crime, but I've never understood why the nature of the crime made people clamor for the conviction of a specific individual as opposed to convicting someone who is beyond any question the bad guy.

(That said, I think Peterson was rightfully convicted, but no one knew the facts prior to the trial and they were already screaming for his head).

 

[manu1959]

There's a big difference between wanting someone convicted and wanting them executed. That case actually worried me because the blood lust was so palpable. I mean, it was a horrific crime, but I've never understood why the nature of the crime made people clamor for the conviction of a specific individual as opposed to convicting someone who is beyond any question the bad guy.

(That said, I think Peterson was rightfully convicted, but no one knew the facts prior to the trial and they were already screaming for his head).

i remember the people cheering, crying with joy and clapping when the judge sentenced him to death .... there are some twisted folks in this world ....

 

[jillian]

i remember the people cheering, crying with joy and clapping when the judge sentenced him to death .... there are some twisted folks in this world ....

That there are..... *sigh*

 

[red states rule]

There's a big difference between wanting someone convicted and wanting them executed. That case actually worried me because the blood lust was so palpable. I mean, it was a horrific crime, but I've never understood why the nature of the crime made people clamor for the conviction of a specific individual as opposed to convicting someone who is beyond any question the bad guy.

(That said, I think Peterson was rightfully convicted, but no one knew the facts prior to the trial and they were already screaming for his head).

The bastard murders his wife and unborn child - and you don't understand why people wanted him to get the death penalty, and were happy when he got it

This is a perfect example of why the left is seen as soft on crime. Thanks Jilly for making the point so clear for all to see