Roe Vs Wade / Unborn victims of violence Act?

Question

One states that an unborn baby is not worth anything and can be disposed of without reguard.

The other one says that killing an unborn child can be punishable by a (second) charge of murder.

Both are laws, but the both clearly contridict eachother. So which is it?

If a man attacked a pregnant woman and killed her, he would be charged with (two) counts of homocide.

But if someone wants to murder their baby. Oh it's fair game..Its ok if the mom wants to.
But what about the father? Can the father charge her with homocide of their infant? Is it not his baby just as much hers?

So who is right?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act?
or
Roe vs. Wade?

Answer 1

Because of the way we try to please groups such as Feminist groups, Roe V. Wade would be at the top. Yes it is unfair that a mother can decide to get an abortion and not even inform the father of it. It is unfair that the father can't press charges against her because of it. It is unfair that a future human can be disposed alongside medical waste as if it had no meaning. It is unfair that a person can get charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman but a mother can't for killing her unborn child.

Answer 2

If the woman was at the stage in the pregnancy that makes the pregnancy viable then YES its two counts.

There have been many cases of custody of fetus for want of a better word when a father wants the child and the mother wants a termination, so far they have come down on side of the host parent ie the pregnant woman. however this is a very contentious area in law and ethics and I can see a case soon that will go in favour of the male...`

However consider this scenario:
a woman is walking home and is attacked by a gang of more than 1 male , all illegal immigrants some with aids or other diseases, she falls pregnant. They are overheard saying
This will keep us in the country as I know she will be pregnant, (hes been stalking her)
He demands his rights as a potential father of the child of the criminal act and demands she has to have the child and he wants to stay in the country, what then do her rights matter. She will be abused by a system that is patriarchical and in a country or state that says its illegal for a termination she will be forced to give birth to a child from an illegal act that is hated and despised for all its life???

Ethics and morals should be kept out of any court were pregnancy is an issue, sadly men still make the rules to subjigate women.

Answer 3

To resolve this conflict, you have to understand a few things.

One is that the UVVA is an attempt to protect the life of the unborn, to grant them the protection of the laws.

The other is that Roe v. Wade totally assumed away the life of the unborn, focusing only on the rights of the mother.

The resolution to the conflict is that the question of when a life, unborn or otherwise, is to be granted the protection of the laws is for the legislature of the states. It is not a federal question, and it is not a judicial question.

In other words, Roe v. Wade was wrong when they decided to even hear it, no matter what they might have decided.

Answer 4

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), replaced right into a U.S. preferrred courtroom case that resulted in a landmark judicial opinion approximately privateness and abortion interior the united states.[a million] in accordance to the Roe determination, maximum regulations against abortion violated a constitutional stunning to privateness decrease than the Due technique Clause of the Fourteenth modification. the determination overturned all state and federal regulations outlawing or limiting abortion that have been inconsistent with its holdings. The oftentimes happening protecting of Roe v. Wade replaced into that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "element at which the fetus turns into ‘possible,’ that's, probably waiting to stay outdoors the mummy's womb, albeit with synthetic help. Viability is frequently located at approximately seven months (28 weeks) yet might take place until now, even at 24 weeks."[a million] The Unborn victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public regulation 108-212) is a usa regulation which defines a violent attack on a pregnant women individuals as 2 different crimes: one against the girl herself, and the different against her fetus. as to the call of the regulation there might seems to be a conflict. in spite of the fact that there are no conflicts as to the contents of the regulation and the jurisprudence made on roe vs wade.

Answer 5

They are not inconsistent.

First, they are not both laws. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision that held that state criminal abortion laws violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects individual's against State action that infringes on their privacy. It controls what kinds of laws can be passed. There is specific mention in the opinion of the need to balance the competing interest of mother and unborn fetus. The Court articulates a trimester test that attempts to find that balance -- with little if any room for regulation in the first trimester, regulation intended to protect the health of the mother permissible in the second trimester and allows for regulation that prohibits abortion to occur in the third trimester. (I'm paraphrasing here, go to the source and subsequent decisions to clarify).

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act paints a broad brush by defining an "unborn child" (the victim) as any homo sapiens at any stage of development carried in the womb. This raises the ire of the pro-choice lobby because it codifies as law the notion that a fetus is a human life at the point of conception.

The UVVA passes muster (at this writing) under Roe V. Wade by explicitly identifying "abortion" as an activity that cannot be prosecuted. That exclusion is available only where the abortion is obtained with the consent of the mother or an individual authorized to act on her behalf.

So to look at your hypotheticals:
If a man attacks and kills a pregnant woman and causes the death or bodily unjury to the fetus he could be charged under the UVVA for the death/injury of the fetus as well as the murder of the pregnant woman. Note that he need not kill the woman to be charged under the UVVA.

If a father, without the consent of the mother, kills the fetus he could also be charged under the UVVA. You can't force the mother of your child to have an abortion if she doesn't want one.

The mother's right to an abortion is still protected under Roe v. Wade (and governed by the trimester test and balance of interest between the mother and the child).

So, yes. If the mother wants an abortion (suibject to the limitations of Roe v. Wade) she is within her rights to have one. Nobody can force her to have one and nobody can force her to not have one. The interests being balanced are the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus.

We Dad's don't get a vote. But the interest is privacy not procreation.

Answer 6

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a "slippery slope" move to work toward making abortion illegal. Although Carl Sagan called "slippery slope" arguments fallacious, he did not reckon with politics and social behavior.

This Act would get people thinking that violence against fetuses is the same as violence against people. After a few years of public acceptance, then more attacks against Roe v. Wade can be made.

Answer 7

Roe vs. Wade
A man will only be charged with 2 counts of homicide if he attacked the pregnant woman and killed her IF
The unborn child could have survived outside of the womb without any assistance. it is the clause of the "born alive" rule. If this had not been the case, then it would criminalize abortions which would as you recognize affect Roe vs. Wade

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

Answer 8

Many would say the unborn victims of violence act was created to undermine the right to choose.
However no-one is going to be charged in violation of that act for having a legal abortion done w/in the time frames allowed by law.

Answer 9

I have a problem with the UVVA because I think it will lead to an attempted reversal of Roe V. Wade. It scares me to think our government is slowly getting us ready for the day when it will be okay to outlaw abortion. We've seen the laws in many states get more and more restrictive on access to abortion. What will happen after that? Will there be government officials checking your pregnancy status to make sure you don't have an abortion? Or to make sure they can jail you if you do? Where will it end? With birth control be next? Will we have to go back to the days of the rhythm method and hoping your lucky this time? If you don't think this kind of thing can happen just check out what happened in Romania during Nicolai Ceausescu's reign. Women lived terribly controlled lives with no say over their own bodies. Everytime we accept one more control, one more restriction, we get closer and closer to an authoritarian/dictatorial government which leaves us with no rights of our own.

Answer 10

If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy it is her choice there is NO act of violence, it is an act of free will.