CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Fetal assault or Federal assault?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fetal assault or Federal assault?

post #1 of 17
4/27/03 at 11:28am
Thread Starter 
Ok, now I'm as protective politically of the unborn's right to live as I will ever be and need to be. But please, to try making assault of any sort a <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/115/wash/Harming_fetus_in_assault_on_mo%3A.shtml" target="_blank">FEDERAL CRIME</a>?
Quote:
Harming fetus in assault on mother should be federal crime, White House says
By Associated Press, 4/25/2003 17:50
WASHINGTON (AP) The White House urged Congress on Friday to pass a law making it a federal crime to harm a fetus during an assault on its mother, a subject currently in the news in connection with a California murder case.

The House passed legislation in 2001 supported by President Bush that would make it a criminal offense to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The Senate never took up the measure.

Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer declined to comment specifically on the California case in which Scott Peterson has been charged with murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child.

But asked whether it is appropriate for the husband to be charged with two murders, Fleischer responded that the president believes that ''when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.''

Peterson pleaded innocent on Monday. Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant, disappeared on Christmas Eve, and the bodies washed ashore last week in San Francisco Bay, three miles from where Scott Peterson had said he was fishing.

California law permits a murder charge for a fetus if a pregnant woman is slain.

''The president calls on the House and calls on the Senate to again pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act,'' Fleischer said.
BUT A FEDERAL CRIME??

Reply
post #2 of 17
4/28/03 at 10:55am
Wouldn't that just be a law that would supercede any state laws saying it wasn't assault? I don't think it would change anything - they'd still try it in court, but they may have a chance to go to Fort Leavenworth instead of a state prison.
Reply
post #3 of 17
4/28/03 at 11:02am
Australia is a country heading into the global shitter probably faster than even a Dubya could drive it, but I find its stance on the legal status of the fetus pretty sound:

To wit, until it breathes, it's not alive.
Reply
post #4 of 17
4/28/03 at 11:06am
Bush is a dildo. A big, pink, knobby dildo with two bends in it that everybody looks at on the high shelf but never buys.
Reply
post #5 of 17
4/28/03 at 11:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Englebert:
Australia is a country heading into the global shitter probably faster than even a Dubya could drive it, but I find its stance on the legal status of the fetus pretty sound:

To wit, until it breathes, it's not alive.
That's not at issue here. What IS at issue is a Governmental stance on taking away the State's jurisdiction over a crime classification that was previously administered at the State level! State's Rights, dammit! Go ahead, chip away at our system one headline at a time...
Reply
post #6 of 17
4/28/03 at 11:51am
one of these days, I'm sure of it, Dan Quayle will go to the Senate/Congress and request that emergency powers be given to Bush.

The circle will be complete. or something.
Reply
post #7 of 17
4/28/03 at 11:57am
Thread Starter 
Two things are absurd about that statement:
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Dan Quayle has about as much say in Congress as I do.
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The same absurdities were expressed about Bill Clinton.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Clever statements are just that...clever. Stupid statements can do actual damage.

Reply
post #8 of 17
4/28/03 at 12:11pm
mheh. monday mornings are rife times for absurdity, especially after getting off a shitty shift at work.

But really, how long before the next election comes along that Bush will pull some stunt to extend his stay at the White House?

He and his administration have displayed on too many occasions its disregard for what the public wants favoring their own agenda's instead.

As a canadian visiting this fine country, I have my doubts and fears concerning your president. Not that things are any better in Canada with Chretien having a stranglehold on politics up there with no real opposition.

But technically, Canada doesn't have the might or military power to enforce world altering policies. America does, and they already have.
Reply
post #9 of 17
4/28/03 at 12:13pm
State's rights is a joke of an argument. This isn't the 1700s. In 2003 we have to be uniting people as much as possible, not seperating them based on made up boundaries.
Reply
post #10 of 17
4/28/03 at 6:41pm
Thread Starter 
So let me get this straight: You'd favor then, a National or Federal murder charge/statute? Or have I misread your retort?
Reply
post #11 of 17
4/28/03 at 6:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
But really, how long before the next election comes along that Bush will pull some stunt to extend his stay at the White House?
Again -at the risk of allowing the thread to derail- I have to respond: The same EXACT things were said about Bill Clinton! It's never going to happen I tell you! I thought those assertions were stupid then, and they're just as stupid now. There would practically be armed overthrow if any President tried to stay in office one more day than is prescribed in the Constitution.

Besides, 8 years as President takes a huge toll on a man, his family, and a Nation quite frankly. It's a full-time yet temp job.
Reply
post #12 of 17
4/28/03 at 8:17pm
I saw this thread topic and thought you were referring to CHUD appendage Fetal Films.

My bad.
Reply
post #13 of 17
4/28/03 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Kronos, Last of the Barbary Pirates:
So let me get this straight: You'd favor then, a National or Federal murder charge/statute? Or have I misread your retort?
There are federal murder statutes. Do you mean specifically in the situation of fetal assault? I think that it's a stupid law whether it's on the state, federal, or shire level.

I also think that back when it took weeks for people to travel places it made sense that different states would be run really differently. But in 2003, when it's six hours to California, we need to be one nation with one set of laws. America shouldn't be balkanized.
Reply
post #14 of 17
4/28/03 at 11:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Do you mean specifically in the situation of fetal assault?
I mean in most any murder case -barring those which are Federal in nature such as the killing of a Federal agent, etc. Whether one agrees or disagrees with any sort of Fetal Assault law is really neither here nor there. Making a Federal Fetal Assault law takes away the State's jurisdiction over this sort of thing. which is wrong.

Yes, we are no longer a several week trek from one end of the country to the other. On the other hand we are a Federation of States which are endowed with certain rights. Not the least of which is enforcement of their own laws. If it were any other way -a Nation with no individual State borders- there would be utter bedlam and chaos. No way could the Federal Government administer a Nation effectively with no State lines/governments.

What shocked me the most here was this out-of-the-blue-knee-jerk reaction to the latest headlines.
Reply
post #15 of 17
4/29/03 at 12:33am
Fetal Assault is a GREAT band name.
Reply
post #16 of 17
4/29/03 at 1:51am
That's the name of a really crappy local band, no shit.
Reply
post #17 of 17
4/29/03 at 2:31am
AWESOME.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Fetal assault or Federal assault?