Battle looms in Statehouse over fetal homicide measure

A showdown may be looming over fetal homicide laws, as a group pushing to criminalize the killing of the unborn is again preparing to introduce legislation at the Statehouse. Full Story
First Prev
of 37
Next Last
Whit

Rochester, VT

#1 Aug 20, 2009
What a flagrant liar. Of course these advocates of women being enslaved to the government as reproductive vessels look at every effort they make as a "steppingstone to overturning Roe v. Wade." Their bad faith is immediately apparent in their attempt to define fetuses as legal persons. The exact same legal outcome could come simply by defining a criminal act that results in loss of a fetus as worthy of life in prison, or whatever punishment is desired. It can still be defined as a fetus, not a person. All that needs to be redefined is the punishment.

Of course, even then, it needs to be clearly defined in the statute that abortion performed at the request of the woman bearing the fetus can never be considered criminal. Put in strong language to that effect, and I'd even support the death penalty for any criminal act resulting in loss of a fetus. Try to define a fetus as a legal person, though, and you're obviously in favor of enslaving women. We in Vermont have always taken strong exception to slavery.
Joe

Chester, VT

#2 Aug 20, 2009
can't have it both ways, either the woman driving the car is guilty of killing the unborn or she isn't if mothers & doctors can legally do it.

suppose using the same logic I can delibertly kill my say 10 year old or hire somebody to do it and it's legal, but if a stranger does it by accident they violated the law.

That is what people are asking for, make it legal for them to delibertly choose to kill the unborn, but illegal for somebody else to do it by accident.

slavery, that is a good one, people are a slave to their own bodies, need a hint on how not to need an abortion ?
morgan

Stillwater, ME

#3 Aug 20, 2009
Incredible. Instead of abolishing the patriarchy, which would mean REAL equality for women, we simply redefine words, so that a "baby" becomes a "fetus". "Fetuses" will never be able to vote or give money to any one, so, as the most genuinely innocent on earth, they are the ones who are killed to allow partial political change. Our Roe/Wade sophistry ensures that women are still second-class in every other way, but we throw them a sop and call it "reproductive rights". The concept of abortion is the biggest lie that women have ever been sold. In a truly gender egalitarian world, there would be no need for it. And the woman who lost her babies in the car crash would at least be honored as losing her babies, not simply as losing some biological tissue, like a wart or tumor.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#4 Aug 20, 2009
morgan wrote:
Incredible. Instead of abolishing the patriarchy, which would mean REAL equality for women, we simply redefine words, so that a "baby" becomes a "fetus". "Fetuses" will never be able to vote or give money to any one, so, as the most genuinely innocent on earth, they are the ones who are killed to allow partial political change. Our Roe/Wade sophistry ensures that women are still second-class in every other way, but we throw them a sop and call it "reproductive rights". The concept of abortion is the biggest lie that women have ever been sold. In a truly gender egalitarian world, there would be no need for it. And the woman who lost her babies in the car crash would at least be honored as losing her babies, not simply as losing some biological tissue, like a wart or tumor.
Incredible, you actually try to make the argument that re-criminalizing abortion is a step towards gender equality?

That's twisted.
morgan

United States

#5 Aug 20, 2009
You didn't understand. I never said anything about criminalization. Try to stop projecting and see outside the box.
Anemone

Marlborough, NH

#6 Aug 20, 2009
Abortion is the voluntary termination of pregnancy decided upon by the mother and her health care provider.

The proposed leglislation is addressing the mother who has a pregnancy terminated against her will and through the intervention/action of another party.
Anemone

Marlborough, NH

#7 Aug 20, 2009
legislation that is.

Because some of you will bring this into play, I consider miscarrage of the unborn baby a somewhat random act of nature.
Joe

Chester, VT

#8 Aug 21, 2009
Anemone wrote:
Abortion is the voluntary termination of pregnancy decided upon by the mother and her health care provider.
The proposed leglislation is addressing the mother who has a pregnancy terminated against her will and through the intervention/action of another party.
so if I deliberately run over my kid it's ok but if my kid runs out in the street and gets hit my a car the driver is guilty of a crime, fasinating logic.

I talked it over with my financial advisor and it was concluded it was best to terminate my childs life so I would have a better quality of life.

PS
I don't really care about abortion or what they do to the driver, it's just fasinating to see the logic people use.
Anemone

Marlborough, NH

#9 Aug 21, 2009
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
so if I deliberately run over my kid it's ok but if my kid runs out in the street and gets hit my a car the driver is guilty of a crime, fasinating logic.
I talked it over with my financial advisor and it was concluded it was best to terminate my childs life so I would have a better quality of life.
PS
I don't really care about abortion or what they do to the driver, it's just fasinating to see the logic people use.
I have never seen a baby in utero bust out of the womb and run anywhere Joe. Notice Joe, I said pregnant mother.
Joe

Chester, VT

#10 Aug 21, 2009
Anemone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never seen a baby in utero bust out of the womb and run anywhere Joe. Notice Joe, I said pregnant mother.
and I said something like 10 year old

so in your mind if the kid can't run it's ok to kill it as long as it's ok with the parent ?

If it's ok for people to delibertly kill their own kids, it shouldn't be a crime if somebody else does it by accident.

what next put grandma on the hit list, hey you can't kill my grandmother, but I can if she becomes a burden on me.

all abortion comes down is is kill the kid before it becomes a burden, so if the mothers are allowed to kill their kids how could anyone arrive at the conclusion there is something wrong with it if somebody else does it by accident ?

using the same logic people should be able to punch pregnant woman in the gut to kill their unborn before they become a burden on the taxpayers by enrolling in school. Might as well declare open war on children if a expectant mother is allowed to kill them so they don't become a burden on her, why not society at large killing them so they don't become a burden on taxpayers ?

We have some weird thing called equal treatment under the law, it's either killing or not killing, being related to the victim doesn't change that fact or does having the ok from a relative to kill change the fact.

I don't care one way or the other besides equal treatment under the law should matter. If it isn't killing for the mother & doctor to delibertly do it, than how could anyone conclude it's killing it somebody else does it by accident ?
Anemone

Marlborough, NH

#11 Aug 21, 2009
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
and I said something like 10 year old
so in your mind if the kid can't run it's ok to kill it as long as it's ok with the parent ?
If it's ok for people to delibertly kill their own kids, it shouldn't be a crime if somebody else does it by accident.
what next put grandma on the hit list, hey you can't kill my grandmother, but I can if she becomes a burden on me.
all abortion comes down is is kill the kid before it becomes a burden, so if the mothers are allowed to kill their kids how could anyone arrive at the conclusion there is something wrong with it if somebody else does it by accident ?
using the same logic people should be able to punch pregnant woman in the gut to kill their unborn before they become a burden on the taxpayers by enrolling in school. Might as well declare open war on children if a expectant mother is allowed to kill them so they don't become a burden on her, why not society at large killing them so they don't become a burden on taxpayers ?
We have some weird thing called equal treatment under the law, it's either killing or not killing, being related to the victim doesn't change that fact or does having the ok from a relative to kill change the fact.
I don't care one way or the other besides equal treatment under the law should matter. If it isn't killing for the mother & doctor to delibertly do it, than how could anyone conclude it's killing it somebody else does it by accident ?
Though I have heard people say, "I believe in abortion until the age of 5". I would not agree with that opinion would you? I think that most people understand that we currently have laws that differientiate between maturational stages in development, circumstances and intent. This is why we have juvenile and family court is it not? Manslautgher, negligent homicide, vehicular homicide, DUI resulting in death, murder one, capital murder, murder with a plea on insanity or extuenuating circumstances, self defense.....are all charges that could be filed for killing another person. So Joe if you intentially get into your car and run over your kid, then that would be murder. However I would suspect that the person who killed these pre-term babies did not do so intentially even if she was on drugs. But she did kill them and that should result in charges for those deaths. One would think that the DUI resulting in death would be appropriate especially since we can not legally abort a 6 month old pre-term baby in this country without extenuating circumstances. If the pre-born babies were in the first trimester then perhaps I could see your point.
morgan

United States

#12 Aug 21, 2009
Anemone - You are not the norm for this forum: your sensitivity shines through your words. I am curious if you would agree that if each gender behaved equally responsibly for procreation, that abortion would not be such a polarizing issue, because it would reflect gender parity, not gender imbalance? And that ANY political issue that cheapens life is inherently wrong? Can you, or any one else out there, agree that we need to change the basic tenor of this argument to eliminate the unspoken gender imbalance that we live with and so often ignore?
Anemone

North Troy, VT

#13 Aug 22, 2009
I am not entirely sure what it is you are saying here, but I submit this. Males and Females are different, I celebrate that fact while at the same time thank the good lord I am one and not the other.
Joe

Chester, VT

#14 Aug 22, 2009
Anemone wrote:
<quoted text>
Though I have heard people say, "I believe in abortion until the age of 5". I would not agree with that opinion would you? I think that most people understand that we currently have laws that differientiate between maturational stages in development, circumstances and intent. This is why we have juvenile and family court is it not? Manslautgher, negligent homicide, vehicular homicide, DUI resulting in death, murder one, capital murder, murder with a plea on insanity or extuenuating circumstances, self defense.....are all charges that could be filed for killing another person. So Joe if you intentially get into your car and run over your kid, then that would be murder. However I would suspect that the person who killed these pre-term babies did not do so intentially even if she was on drugs. But she did kill them and that should result in charges for those deaths. One would think that the DUI resulting in death would be appropriate especially since we can not legally abort a 6 month old pre-term baby in this country without extenuating circumstances. If the pre-born babies were in the first trimester then perhaps I could see your point.
Late term abortion should be an option right threw their teens years.

so what happens next time when some woman loses a 1 month old fetus in a car wreck that is somebodies elses fault or her own, jail for that person under another new law or jail for the mother if she is at fault in a car accident and her unborn child is DOA

I can just see the headlines, mother of 2 young children with another one in the oven crashes going out to get diapers and kills the one in the oven and is facing jail time.

I'm sure there are already enough laws on the books to punish the young woman in this case who will have to live with what she did for the rest of her life on top of it so will more jail time one way or the other really matter ? She isn't going to get away with it right now.

everytime something happens some politician can spin for self promotion it usually ends up affecting other people the law was never ment to affect.
Anemone

North Troy, VT

#15 Aug 22, 2009
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Late term abortion should be an option right threw their teens years.
so what happens next time when some woman loses a 1 month old fetus in a car wreck that is somebodies elses fault or her own, jail for that person under another new law or jail for the mother if she is at fault in a car accident and her unborn child is DOA
I can just see the headlines, mother of 2 young children with another one in the oven crashes going out to get diapers and kills the one in the oven and is facing jail time.
I'm sure there are already enough laws on the books to punish the young woman in this case who will have to live with what she did for the rest of her life on top of it so will more jail time one way or the other really matter ? She isn't going to get away with it right now.
everytime something happens some politician can spin for self promotion it usually ends up affecting other people the law was never ment to affect.
Jow, did we not just see this in the Turky hunting accident where the father shot his son?
Candid

West Dover, VT

#16 Aug 22, 2009
I'm glad that support for unborn human babies is picking up.
Candid

West Dover, VT

#17 Aug 22, 2009
Anemone wrote:
Abortion is the voluntary termination of pregnancy decided upon by the mother and her health care provider.
The proposed leglislation is addressing the mother who has a pregnancy terminated against her will and through the intervention/action of another party.
Abortion is the voluntary killing off of an inconvenient child.
Anemone

Wolcott, VT

#18 Aug 23, 2009
Candid wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion is the voluntary killing off of an inconvenient child.
I do not disagree with you. But this is not just about my beliefs, it is about the convictions of an entire nation. The courts / law of this democracy say differently as a whole then I say as an individual. I have done here what I can to show that pre-term babies can be protected/ respected from the second trimester on under a new law and at the same instance preserve existing abortion laws. What viable solution do you propose?
Joe

Chester, VT

#19 Aug 23, 2009
Anemone wrote:
<quoted text>
Jow, did we not just see this in the Turky hunting accident where the father shot his son?
was dick cheney in the state with his son ?

I saw the story and it's another example of an accident, but what if the guy had shot some yuppie womans 5 year old daughter, the witch hunt would be on and some politicians would be yelling for stricter punishment so he/she could make political points with the voters.

Driving is risky, yet most people think it will never be them and set up their lives to drive,drive,drive. Most people choose the car lifestyle and if they put some thought into reducing their risk they could live just fine and spend a lot less time at risk on the road.

all the car ownership statistics for fuel milegage and cost of ownership are based on 15,000 miles a year, if people lived close to work and found jobs near stores they could drive less than 5,000 miles a year. So basicly for most people it's their own choice to expose themselves to the risks of the road. Personal choice knowing the odds.
New Clear Waste

Brattleboro, VT

#20 Aug 23, 2009
Candid wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion is the voluntary killing off of an inconvenient child.
Oh, so why don't you pass a law against it, that's a simple solution.

And then you can visit countries where abortion is illegal. It still happens, but women and doctors get thrown in jail. Dangerous quacks perform abortions in back alleys.

Or study the U.S. when abortion was illegal here. Same thing.

If a woman wants to be un-pregnant, no law is going to stop her. Never has, never will.

If you don't like abortion, work for sex education, so that unwanted pregnancies don't happen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 37
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vermont Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Urban gangs quiet but active in Vermont (Sep '10) 15 hr markey the masshole 12
Despite calls to slow down, NRC grants Vermont ... (Mar '11) Sep 23 The NRC is a joke 344
Ex.-Gov. Douglas' memoir tackles gay marriage veto Sep 2 Sir Andrew 2
Ex-Gov. Douglas' memoir tackles gay marriage veto Sep 1 nhjeff 2
Gay marriage fight returns (Apr '09) Aug '14 carlina 76
Doug Racine out at Vermont Agency of Human Serv... Aug '14 Anne O Toole 2
Smoking around children becoming illegal Aug '14 Ho Lee Chyt 5

Vermont Government People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE