Feminists, do you support Unborn Victims of Violence Act?
ByQuestion by Jonus: Feminists, do you support Unborn Victims of Violence Act?
which basically states:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. 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”.
Ahhhh dear Fiona even the infamous NOW is against this one, because even they admit they would be hypocrites by supporting this act and still be pro-choice.
http://www.now.org/press/04-01/04-26-01.html
Helena, are you pro-choice as well, suppose not.
How can anyone be pro-choice and support this act is beyond me.
@Spanx
The Supreme court can overrule it’s own ruling.
Best answer:
Answer by The Dez Pirate
No.
There is a point where the concerns of the child outweigh those of the mother. But it has to be a child first.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Related posts:
- Abortion and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act…?
- Why is it considerd murder when someone does something to cause a womans unborn child to die?
- Abortion and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act…?
- Do pro-choicers agree or disagree with this law?
- South Carolina Ranks Among Worst States In Domestic Violence
5 Comments
May 16th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Absolutely.
Edit – no I am pro-life.
May 16th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Yes! still a child even though you cannot not tough or see in physical form. if you get a sonogram you see the baby!
May 16th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Yes and I support abortion.
May 16th, 2011 at 10:32 am
“How can anyone be pro-choice and support this act is beyond me.”
You mistake women for rational beings.
May 16th, 2011 at 10:53 am
No, no such law would be passed up here anyway because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1989 that a fetus is not a person. Only persons have legal rights.
*No, because their ruling was based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (like your American Constitution) AND the Quebec Charter.
Its all about “personhood” and an embryo/fetus is not a person in law.
An embryo/fetus merely has the potential to become a person, both courts reached the same conclusion, and that was it.