Fetal Rights=Discrimination Against Men
 

Hello Ladies,

I wanted to pose this question to get some opinion's on an issue I just finished discussing with some friends of mine. This is the thing, I'm sure you all have heard of Lacy and Connor's law, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence(Fetal Homocide) law.
I'm sure some of you have probably discussed it, but I just got an opinion on it that quite frankly made me wonder.

My friend argues that this law discriminates against men. His argument is that if you kill a woman, who may not know she's pregnant herself, let alone you as the attacker, and you are charged with two murders; this penalizes men because they can't get pregnant, making the life of a woman more valuable than that of a man.

I told him, it has nothing do with the life of the man nor the woman, the law simply considers the fetus to have a life as well. Regardless of your opinion on the law, that is what it states. So, how is this discriminatory against men? Should the fetus be considered non-living because a man can't carry it, therefore giving it the status of life is unequal protection under the law?

What are your thoughts?

Please forgive me for crashing, but my understanding is that this law only goes into effect when the murderer knows that the woman is pregnant, or if she is obviously pregnant. I could be wrong, but that was the original language of the bill.

Actually here is an excerpt from the bill

"Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 or Laci and Conner's Law - Provides that persons who commit certain Federal violent crimes (conduct that violates specified provisions of the Federal criminal code, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or specified articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ) and thereby cause the death of, or bodily injury to, a child who is in utero shall be guilty of a separate offense. Requires the punishment for that separate offense to be the same as provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother (or in the case of a UCMJ violation, to be such punishment as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for such conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother).

Declares that such a separate offense does not require proof that: (1) the person who committed the offense knew or should have known that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (2) the defendant (or accused) intended to harm the unborn child. Prohibits imposition of the death penalty for such an offense. "

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Sorry for the crash, and sorry for this being slightly off topic,, but what happens if (completely hypothetical situation) a woman is on her way to have an abortion and she is mugged and killed. Does the fetus still count as a person?

Yep, according to the portion right underneath what I last posted. Regardless of the mother's intent, it is still a person. She could have changed her mind upon entering the buliding, the agressor took that right away. This is the clause which they said the pro-choice people should agree with. It's ultimately the choice of the mother.