Abortion and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act…?
ByQuestion by USSoldierL: Abortion and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act…?
How is it that abortion is legal in this country, but at the same time we have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.
Why is it that a uterus is only considered human if it was the victim of a “violent act”, but not if the mother doesnt want it?
Somebody explain this to me.
Well then…if I dont understand the difference, I would like it explained to me. That was my question.
What makes life begin at birth? Simply being outside of the womb? The existance of fuctional body parts? THAT is where life begins? So its not that the baby already has blood flowing through its body, a beating heart, and growing body parts…its the fact that it has all of that but now its outside. I just dont understand that logic.
If somebody is charged with killing a mother and her unborn child, that in itself acknowledges that it is life. But it suddenly is NOT life when we are talking about abortions, just another body part? I’ve never heard of somebody being sent to prison for killing a body part.
Best answer:
Answer by Cody
keep up the good work my friend! We might still be able to save this piece of shit country!
Give your answer to this question below!
Related posts:
8 Comments
May 12th, 2011 at 1:48 am
Should be pretty clear. I am sorry you can not understand the difference.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:49 am
Liberals don’t consider it a life if it inconveniences them in any way.
Hope that clears it up.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:53 am
Liberal logic at its finest.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:54 am
Ask the Supreme Court
May 12th, 2011 at 2:48 am
If it is shown that the mother intends on giving birth, then that is considered a protected person. For example, the young lady from here in Chicago that was killed during the act of terrorism in TX, was back on American soil to have her baby. That baby is a 14th person killed even though it had not yet been born. It has more to do with the mother’s intent.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:24 am
The act you are referring to was pushed through by lunatic pro-lifers whose true agenda is to make it the first step in banning abortions for everyone
May 12th, 2011 at 3:31 am
If your prego and you get into a car accident and your not wearing a seat belt they can charge for harming a unborn baby.
Horrible law the abortion law is.
People who get one should also have a hysterectomy
and never have the chance to have children again,
sever cases might be different.
May 12th, 2011 at 4:05 am
Millions of “innocent” babies have been murdered by abortion doctors
whose only interest is their fee for doing so. If you watch the probe
(on a sonogram) reaching in to grab the baby and tear it to pieces, you
would see how the baby fights for it’s life trying to get away from that
murdering probe. I think if women could see a real abortion with tiny
little fingers and toes being scraped out like gutting a squirrel, chicken,
or deer, they might just change their minds. They only think of themselves
and an unwanted baby. Birth control is cheap and easy to get, so why
can’t they avoid abortion by using one such method? The unborn has a
beating heart (life) so it definitely is a baby. I guess abortion is a convenience
thing for the uncaring mother, but gals carrying a wanted baby know they
are carrying a real life baby that will cry out with it’s first breath of air.