Welcome to Gaia! ::

On today's episode a man gave his girlfriend herbs to induce a miscarriage of a pregnancy she wanted because "he wasn't ready" and ended up charged with murder. Laci and Conner's law is based on this very premise. Could someone please explain the logic to me why the death of a wanted baby is murder while an abortion is not?

we could use this- this was a legal battle which was won, correct? could that not mean that, if that killing of a fetus was murder, then the killing of other fetuses is murder? could we not take this to the supreme court and be like "guys, look- it's a human here, but not here. change it."

Here's the whole of Laci and Conner's Law:

Laci and Conner's Law (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

H.R.1997


One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004' or `Laci and Conner's Law'.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 90 the following:
`CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN
`Sec.

`1841. Protection of unborn children.
`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.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:

1841'.

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.
(a) PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN- Subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919 (article 119) the following new section:
`Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child
`(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who 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 of title 1 cool to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
`(2) 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 accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

`(3) 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 paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
`(4) 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 sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 12 cool .
`(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) 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.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

`919a. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


There's a section that outlines who is free from prosecution, one of which includes the mother. Why is a mother permitted to kill (or have killed) her unborn child, but not anyone else? Why does her PERMISSION make a difference? Either Roe is bad law or Laci and Conner is. I vote for Roe, myself.

.::Ebonysays::.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

God being pro-choice? God accepting the killing of innocent beings that cannot think or comprehend and were placed in the hands of someone that's supposed to protect them and love them as a "choice"?

As Seraph said, with that logic, it most certainly can apply to other cases. Sick, twisted; I know. But if it works in the abortion debate, who says it can't work in a debate over the elderly? The crippled, the retarded, the social outcasts?

Ooo, I hate that argument. >(

If your intentions aren't to kill it, why are you removing it when it can't survive outside the womb too early in the pregnancy? If your intentions aren't to kill it, why not, I'unno, keep it until it can survive without you?

.::[/Ebony]::.

i love that logic. it would make them less pretty. nice.

anyone who would kill their own child loses all desirablity in my eyes.

.::Ebonysays::.

"Deformed"? Okay, I think that would be going a little far. Besides, aren't there special creams and medications for stretched skin? My mom used it often after I was born. She has some tummy now; she's a chubby mommy. 4laugh But she could still wear two-pieces after I was born; she still had a beautiful body and after using the special medication, the stretches were completely gone. She didn't even look like a mom when I was, like, three years old.

If you're eleven and are raped, okay. That's a little extreme, and I can see why abortion would be a necessary, life-saving process.

But if you're, like, in your twenties and your chances of getting hurt during childbirth are minimal, why would you want to have an abortion if it, in that situation, would be more dangerous and risky than labor? It doesn't make sense to me.

But, really. Saying "The death of the fetus is just a side-effect of the abortion process!" is like saying, "The death of the cat is just of a side-effect of my not feeding it! S'not my fault if it can't live without food."

@your latest comment: That would be an interesting thing to look up.

I'm so glad my boyfriend is Catholic and pro-life, like me. We have absolutely no disagreements in the abortion debate.

.::[/Ebony]::.

Or like a Pro-Choicer and a Pro-Lifer doing the exact same thing in a hypothetical debate guild, and only the Pro-Lifer being banned, while the Pro-Choicers go on to laugh about how the Pro-Lifer got banned. ninja

Neways, yeah. I totally agree with what everyone's said. xd It either has value or it doesn't; You can't say, "Well, it's valuable in this case, but not in this case."

On the other hand, much as it pains me to admit, there is something to the argument. I like chocolate, so if you give me chocolate, it has value to me and it's good. But say someone else doesn't like chocolate. If you give it to them, it really doesn't have value and isn't good (Or, if they are lactose intolerant, it could even be bad.)