Amazon.com Widgets

Does the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA), Protecting Fetal Rights, Threaten Abortion Rights?

  • Did they happen to consider the mother's rights?

    I don't believe abortion should be an option unless
    -The mother is clearly not fit to have the child. Studies have shown that if the mother is living in adversity, the child is more likely to engage in criminal activity and perform poorly in school
    -The mother and child are at risk of dying during birth, or
    -The fetus is three months or older. By this stage, the fetus is not yet a living person.

  • Yes, the UVVA is an attempt to back door abortion.

    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a trick in order to attempt to make abortions unconstitutional. People should not be threatening abortion rights. We do not need anymore bratty children running around unattended. The world needs more abortions and less protection for kids. Lets abort some of these bad pregnancies.

  • No but it demonstrates that prior laws were not intended to apply to the unborn human.

    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 would not be required if all prior laws were intended to apply to every human from the point of conception. This legislation does not redefine the unborn human as a citizen. It just defines the punishment for those who terminate it (or attempt to terminate it) against the will of the mother. This reinforces the host mother's authority over her own body.

  • It does not treaten abortion rights.

    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) does not hurt or infringe on women's rights to an abortion. People who believe that have not looked at the UVAA hard enough or a just hearing stuff from other people and not bothering to form their own opinion. The UVAA protects the fetus that has turned into a human, and is not just a glob of cells.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.