Okay boys and girls, let’s talk about fetal homicide.
In April of 2004, President Bush signed into law the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” That law made it a crime to harm an embryo or fetus at ANY stage of pregnancy during an assault on a pregnant woman. At this moment, about 36 states had similar laws on their books.
The first thing I gotta say is kudos to the pro-lifer movement. I mean, they come up with some great names for legislation, don’t they?
Second, I’m confused about this law.
So, if I understand it correctly: if a woman is carrying something in her belly that she wants to carry and that something dies because of someone else, then that other person can be prosecuted for the death of that something? But if that something is not wanted if that other person is an abortion doctor then that doctor can go in and terminate/kill/abort that same something and that would be perfectly legal? In other words, the determinative factor here is whether or not that something was wanted or not? One last time: if a pregnant woman was driving to the abortion clinic to get rid of her pregnancy and someone hit her car and caused the death of the unborn child, then that other driver can be convicted of manslaughter? And if there was no accident, minutes later the abortion doctor could do the same and suffer no consequences?
I can remember vividly when this legislation was introduced in the Congress. The immediate, joint (and private) reaction of the pro-choice community was “Holy Shit, what do we do now?” Were they ready to argue that if an 8 month old fetus died because of a third party, then the prosecutors should ignore that “baby?” You can imagine the discussions about how they should argue against that one.
Ultimately, however, they got language put in the bill that made it clear that the doctors could not be prosecuted if they were performing an abortion. That was pretty clever. Of course, the other side had to accept that language because if the effect of the law was to outlaw abortion outright, then the law would have been ruled unconstitutional.
Still, the pro-choice groups cringed when the bill came up for a vote but they did not really push their allies on Capitol Hill on this one because they knew it was a very, very tough vote. So, the bill passed by wide margins in the House and the Senate.
But there is one problem that still exists. There is now a law on the books that says that the person who committed this new crime could be punished for intentionally killing “a human being.” In other words, the U.S. Congress has now recognized that the fetus/baby in utero – no matter at what stage – is a “human being.”
In the grand scheme of things it might seem like a small thing. But at some point in the future, some clever pro-life lawyer will be arguing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and they will be able to say that the Congress has recognized that even a 5 week fetus is a “human being.”
The pro-choice groups did get language protecting abortion doctors, which was the short term victory. But in the long run, they may second guess the fact that they let the Congress go out and personalize the fetus. That might come around and bite them in the ass one day. And the reason why they let it go is because the pro-choice movement can talk about “choice” all they want but they still cannot talk (without stuttering) about ABORTION.
January 6, 2011 at 10:05 am
One of the strongest allies the so-called “pro-lifers” have in their dysfunctional self-help program is the picture of the smiling baby. Because humans are intelligent enough to abstract from a well-cared-for, healthy, happy nine-month-old to a cytoblast, it is fairly easy fot the so-called “pro-lifers” to make the pitch that the two are the same; hence, fetal homicide laws. And of course from there, it’s only a slightly bigger job to convince the public that abortion is murder.
Until the media start focusing on how little the so-called “pro-lifers” actually care for real human life rather than the romantic idealization of fetal life and childhood, women are going to have an uphill battle in being able to care for their families.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Isn’t there any way, Pat, you can convince the boss here to bury Chuckles somewhere down below, before he has a chance to muddy the waters?
All I can say about your post is — another fabulous.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm
let me see if i have this straight….
you come onto a pro-choice blog, glorify your stalking tactics and people that kill grandfathers in churches as they welcome others to worship, as though this person with the gun was offering an human sacrifice, yet you want a man who says something you disagree with to be censored????
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
i’ll be back later.
i need to spend some time in the smallest room of the house.
dunkle, there is just something about your posts that make me need to take an eye watering, plant wilting, paint peeling dump.
*grabs magazine*
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 6:14 pm
No wonder they kicked you off Facebook.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:55 pm
in all fairness to the admin on that page, there were several of them running it.
personally, i think one of them banned me, and then thought better of it, but some glitch left me unable to post.
i also know that a number of people, bother lifers and choicers protested this strongly.
but as fate has it, i came here and also to kate’s blog, both of where the free speech of opposing views are welcome as long as they are put in a respectful manner.
so it ended up for the best for me anyway.
and when FB shut down abortion.com’s page without warning due to antis crying about it, i stood with that same group.
i will stand up for the right to free speech for someone even if i know they wouldn’t do it for me.
that’s just how i roll, dunkle.
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 10:42 am
Way too much info, Rogie….:)
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:20 pm
sorry. i figured if dunkle can talk his form of crap on a regular basis, it would be acceptable to hand it back to him.
i stand corrected. 🙂
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 10:41 am
Thanks, John, for the compliment. I hear what CG is saying but I still dont think that if the entire public bought into the abortioncentrism theory then that would resolve the confict. It ain’t never gonna be resolved….
LikeLike
March 2, 2013 at 7:03 am
In that case, Pat, you’ll always have a job.
LikeLike
March 2, 2013 at 11:57 am
It’s funny how we sometimes respond to comments made two years ago! Thanks, Charles, for being a “loyal” reader and commenting on these posts. Regards…..
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Ugh!
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 11:56 am
Pat in #2– resolving the conflict: You”re right, it will never be resolved because too many people need to use hatred of abortion as a way of dealing with their own death.
However, it can be marginalized much the way the hatred the Copperheads, Know-Nothings and KKK– with their hatred of Irish, Catholics and blacks– were marginalized by a society which came to understand their– how shall I put this?– evil.
Aborticentrism drives the so-called “pro-lifer” to be heedlessly cruel towards children and families. Now, wait for the turtle to speak:
LikeLike
January 9, 2011 at 9:11 am
“Aborticentrism drives the so-called “pro-lifer” to be heedlessly cruel towards children and families.”
From my observations over the past six years, the overwhelming majority of prolifers who lurk outside abortion clincis are seemingly intentionally cruel. They disregard the call for kindness, humility and patience.
LikeLike
January 9, 2011 at 9:33 am
More than that, tnsdh, they can’t think beyond the present to what happens after those children are born. They are emotionally and spiritually crippled, driven by their compulsion to get the monkey off their back.
LikeLike
January 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Damn, Chuckles: “…after those children are born.” Now we’re on the same page!
Unless we can stop those children from getting murdered before birth, they will soon become vulnerable after birth. And so will lots of other innocent human beings.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 4:30 am
Thanks for your thoushtg. It’s helped me a lot.
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Oh, geeze.
LikeLike
January 10, 2011 at 11:52 am
Rubbish.
LikeLike
January 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm
No, no, Julia! Chuckles finally said some good things!
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 11:35 am
John, i will quote something you said – “Unless we can stop those children from getting murdered before birth, they will soon become vulnerable after birth. And so will lots of other innocent human beings”.
Well, first, nobody is killing any CHILDREN, let’s make that clear to start with.
Second, yes, you are right, right after birth they will become vulnerable and loose all the innocence that a child can and should have it.
And i ask you why is that? Why after birth the children loose so much? Because people like you and all the pro lifers are stopped in a image where abortion is “killing” babies, when the truth is far from that. You don’t need to agree or disagree, just read it!
If all pro lifers were to become more active into giving teens info on how to prevent pregnancy, that FOR SURE would make the abortion numbers to start going down. If abortion was to be less attacked by people like you, FANATICS, maybe things would also get better.
A fetus that has the chance to become a baby and to be born from some kind of people that are not ready to become a parent happens to loose much more and to turn into adults that the only thing they can think about it is to do the same… so they repeat the same mistakes over and over again until one of them snap out of the ciclo and breaks the chain.
So my dear John, abortion is horrible, i agree with you as a mom and grandma. But believe me, if instead having an abortion, for the most part, teens could have more opportunity of info, i believe things could change. For the adults who have abortion, if medical assistance were to be less expensive, i also believe that numbers would go down, not only for abortion but for other diseases as well. But who is willing to do that??? Everybody is so concentrated in their lives that is easier to point fingers and hold boards saying that “a murder lives here”! Right!?
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“Well, first, nobody is killing any CHILDREN, let’s make that clear to start with.” Because of this statement, Sonia, nonsense follows. When I used that word to name people before and after birth, I was quoting Chuckles. Chuckles was even more pro-death than you. When I started in on him he would never have used that word to name pre-born people. Give me time and I’ll bring you around too.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 12:35 pm
You are really full of yourself, aren’t you, John? But you avoid Sonia’s comments with (pick one) subterfuge, blindsightedness or unadulterated insanity.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Am I missing something here? Is Charles now “pro-life” because of the ever so persuasive John Dunkle?
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 6:45 pm
maybe
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 4:34 am
130I’m no longer sure where you are geinttg your information, however good topic. I must spend a while studying more or working out more. Thanks for excellent info I used to be searching for this information for my mission.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Sonia in #8– he cannot face the issues you raise. For him, there is nothing worse than abortion, and he cannot stop himself from thinking so. It is a fixation which prevents him from valuing real human life more highly than his opposition to abortion. Google aborticentrism to find out where he’s stuck.
He has to dismiss your concerns and dismiss the needs of real children in order to act out his allegorical struggle against his fear of death. Period. He’s in a dysfunctional self-help program.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Chuckles still has relapses, though. Notice here he’s back to implying that before they are born they are unreal children.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 6:08 pm
the response is ad hominem; as I predicted: he can’t address it.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm
John, I will give you this, if I may, yes FOR ME and IN MY OPINION – I would consider a fetus my “baby” since the very first time I find out I was to be pregnant. But that is because I have the gens of being a mom, actually, all my friends when talking about me, refers to me as the “mom” of all of them, why? Easy answer, because I like being a mother, I enjoy taking care of that little one and knowing that whatever I do will make that little person a GREAT person someday in the future, but that will only happen because I have the pleasure of being a mom.
So that being said, those women who don’t have any wish in their life to become a mom, who are drug users, alcoholics, and you name it whatever else they can be, OR teens that before finding out the consequences of having unprotected sex comes motherhood or a STD – they are not READY…….. AND PLEASE step out of your shell for just a second and tell me HONESTLY, not with stupid nonsense words, if, and just if, I was to put my grandson of 3 years old right now, inside a room full of snakes, just because the whole family are experts in dealing with snakes, what do you think would happen??? So from there, even though you might say is a stupid comparison, you see that when a person is not ready to become something, bad things will happen.
Can you really say that woman giving birth to a child, no matter her age, and after putting this child in the trashcan is better than abortion?
If abortion is such a horror to all pro lifers, why don’t you all shift the gear to EDUCATION about the subject? I can upfront tell you that works… Believe me…
Just look this way; a child that grows into a Jewish house will be Jewish right? The same child, if given away, are to grow into a Christian house will become what? Jewish or Christian? I think this is a easy one even for you to answer… YES maybe later in life, when the child finds out her background she might turn gears as well, but until that she will be a Christian.
SAME THING when you educate kids from birth to become good citizens. They will grow with that thing in the back of their mind of what is right or wrong and with that things can change.
Take a bonsai for a example, you can re-direct the branches of it using wires and after a while the branches will follow the path you gave it…
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Sonia,
I laud your attempts at making a break into the concrete head of John Dunkle. Even if he agreed with you, he won’t say so because he’s a perverted addict for attention.
On another and more interesting note, I met a woman who was to be aborted because her Catholic birth father said so. That was during the 1940s. Well, this Catholic birth mother took the guy’s abortion money, moved in with a relative out west, gave birth, gave the girl up for adoption and was raised Jewish. In a funny twist of history, after she grew up became a successful lawyer, she (the abortion) returned to Chicago find her relatives including birth father. He is retired big shot, living in Florida and wants no part of her. Nor do he want anyone in his family to talk to her. All she wanted was medical history and to meet her birth family. I’ve loved this story since I heard it about ten years ago. So much for Catholics, love, abortion, blah, blah blah.
Long story short, she’s now a wonderfully adjusted middle aged woman living in Atlanta as a Jew.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Katie is right. John needs the attention which he gets by standing in front of a clinic or someone’s house. Going behind the scenes advocating for better birth control is not sexy enough.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm
LOL
Well, if the picture that was posted here while ago is really John’s picture, sorry to say but he is FAR from being sexy…
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 7:00 pm
That’s s not what she said.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 3:15 am
Nice post I was checking cstoinuounly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely helpful info specifically the last part I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this certain information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I advocate for better birth control all the time. the word is chastity. Anymore, nobody even knows what that means.
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 12:42 pm
It’s easy to promote chastity when you can’t get it up anymore…
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:14 pm
INGA SU!
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 5:34 am
touche
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 1:04 pm
well, that was an unfair dig, Pat. the more interesting point is his conversion from the practices of his youth…. What caused him to start advocating chastity?
If abortcentrism theory proves right, he will be unable to discuss his sexuality, doubly so when that conduct contradicts what he needs to believe to maintain his chosen persona.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 5:36 am
“What caused him to start advocating chastity?” I’m a Catholic! That’s what the Catholic Church advocates!
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 7:02 pm
That was not more interesting, Chuckles.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Sonia,you’re talking to a dummy. slow down. I couldn’t get past the first line!
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm
That is exactly my point… You are what you are taught. If you are born into a criminal household chances are that you will become a criminal, if you are born in a catholic household chances are that you will become a catholic as well and so on and on.
So if we, as adults that we consider to be, teach our kids how to be a gentleman/lady they will become that in the future. If we teach our boys (sons/grandsons) how to respect a woman, they will respect her even if she doesn’t respect herself.
SO if we teach our teens to take care of them we are starting a chain of things that will only bring a better future.
And yes, i agree with you that even if John are to agree with whatever i said or anybody say in this matter he won’t ever admit. Unfortunately.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Hey, while I have everyone’s attention, can you tell me how you feel about my posting a blog every three days or so? Is that about right or should I do them less or more frequently?
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I’d say every 3 days or so is about write but am speaking from my own time commitments. Your blog, Pat, is always on my top five to watch/comment.
Kate
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Thanks, Kate. I’m only in your Top Five?
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Jeez, Pat! Where do you find the energy to do one every three days? The big guys at the major papers don’t even do that, and some of them have won Nobel prizes…. Just don’t burn out!
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I dunno, charles. Maybe it’s because it’s winter and I can’ go outside. But, as you can tell, I am rather opinionated and have a lot of interesting experiences to talk about. Indeed, I’ve been approached to consider writing some kind of book based on these experiences but I just cannot imagine anyone would be interested in yet another book about abortion. Boring….
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 5:11 am
Yes he would, yes she would. There are books and then there are books!
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I think it depends on the subject…
Sometimes the content of the text is good, but not everybody gives the right attention to it… If that is the case i think you should post something else to keep the thing going. If you got the attention of everybody replying wait a few days for a new one… That is what i think.
LikeLike
January 11, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I’d say one every day, Pat, because they are so good. But I couldn’t keep up with that. One every three is fine.
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Thanks, John and Sonia for the feedback. Actually, though, sometimes I wonder if anyone besides the four or five of you is even “listening” to my stuff? I enjoy the exchanges we have but, honestly, I really wish there were more folks reading it because I think we all have some important and unique things to say. Oh well….
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:18 pm
just because there are only certain people posting doesn’t mean that they aren’t reading.
i read your blog for quite a while before posting here.
i read kate’s blog for a shorter time before i started posting there.
julie slapyawitmypalm has a good blog as well.
jajajajajaja
she and i disagree on abortion, but i LOVE how she puts trolls in their place.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 5:41 am
“slapyawitmypalm” I tried that, Rog, but couldn’t get it. I love people who put down trolls.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:29 am
because you get attention.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 10:08 am
right
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm
You know what… you are absolutely right and i will work on this!!! I have an idea…
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 7:58 pm
I hope you come up with something, Sonia, and Pat, take comfort in this: I think it was Thoreau who said if you build a better mouse trap, people will make a beeline to your door. You have built a better mouse trap. Now we have to wait to see if Thoreau was right.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 7:38 am
Thanks, Sonia, lemme know if you have any thoughts and, John, I hear what you are saying…
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:29 pm
there are various fetal homicide laws that vary from state to state.
something that is interesting is that the choicers i associate with, honor a woman’s postion of her unborn offspring.
so in that aspect, these laws put choicers in a difficult situation, because while they respect a woman’s choice to carry her baby to term, if law defines this offspring as a person at any point during the pregnancy, as some states do, i can see how they would feel that they threaten current abortion rights.
as i said, some states base their laws defining the unborn as a person at any point in the pregnancy, some at certain points, etc.
some laws have stipulations that any harm that comes to the baby must be intentional, whereas federal policy for military bases does not.
and it is not the mother that files charges, but rather the state or authorities.
so if someone is in an accident on a military base, and a woman does not even know she is pregnant and miscarries as a result, someone could be charged with manslaughter.
there are also cases of women who are battling the demon of addiction being charged with child endangerment.
i can see a lot of good in the laws, but i can also see how they are inconsistent from state to state and can cause chaos.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:52 am
It does put choicers in a difficult position, Rogie. These laws in some ways recognize the humanity of the fetus/baby/etc. And choicers have a very tough time acknowledging that that thing in there is being killed/terminated/aborted….
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 9:03 am
“that thing in there” — nope, won’t do. Try again, Pat.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 1:39 pm
rogelio, those laws only exist for the satisfaction of a percentage of the population who want others to behave as they themselves will not. If so-called “pro-lifers” went around scooping up children from orphanages, INCU’s, trash cans; if they poured their life savings into families whose only other income would be selling smack; if they were raising eight or ten children themselves and willing to take on another, all in the name of giving a child a decent chance in life, I’d respect their “fetal homicide” laws.
At the very least they should be posting bond to cover all the expenses of pregnancy for every woman, but they don’t even do that.
Don’t go romanticizing the so-called “pro-choicers.”
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm
What Chuckles is doing is saying is that unless you are great, don’t even try being good.
LikeLike
March 2, 2013 at 12:37 am
I am really inspired with your writing talents and also with
the format on your weblog. Is this a paid subject or did you customize it yourself?
Anyway keep up the excellent high quality writing,
it’s uncommon to look a great blog like this one these days..
LikeLike
March 2, 2013 at 11:55 am
Wow, UK, that’s very nice of you! I just come up with my topic on nmy own every week but am always open to suggestions. I find my more creative pieces come after a few glasses of Southern Comfort! As for the format, that’s up to the blog manager, which is not me. Thanks again!
LikeLike