I was reading a magazine article about that pregnant lady who had gone missing about a month ago. They had found her and her unborn baby, and the boyfriend was convicted. He was charged with murder of both his girlfriend AND her unborn baby.
How is it that he was charged with murder of the unborn baby? Isn't it the same concept of abortion (especially Partial-Birth Abortion)? If abortion is not murder, then how come ending the life of a fetus IS?
P.S. I'm a pro-lifer. I'm not sticking up for this guy. I just want you opinions (especially legal opinions)!
Answer:
In our country, it is only legal to murder a fetus if IT'S OWN MOTHER does it...sick pups, eh?
It depends on how far into the pregnancy the woman is. If the fetus is developed enough to where it could survive outside the womb, then it's considered murder.
Because in that state, the law states that if a baby is ABLE TO SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB, if someone causes the death of that baby, they can be charged with murder. But ONLY if the baby is far enough along to be able to survive outside. She was like 36 weeks pregnant and so the baby had a better than 90% chance of surviving if born at that time.
Most abortion advocates will say that a fetus becomes a child after 5 months (24 weeks)
The difference is the intent of the pregnant woman. If the woman decides to get an abortion it is her decision. If she is murdered and her fetus terminates, it was not her intent.
While I don't necessarily agree with the idea that involuntary termination of someone's fetus should be considered the same as murder, I do think there is logic behind making it a crime while allowing abortion.
There is an difference between an abortion and murder. Abortion is an choice that u make about not wanting this child @ all but being murder while ur pregnant is not ur choice, u have no control over that.
She was ready to have that baby within a week so it is human.
This varies by state. In California, the fetus is considered another person, but I think that's not usually the law elsewhere. A fetus isn't automatically a "person" until it's born... unless the law specifies otherwise.
I disagree with the court on this one... I'm VERY pro-choice, and I don't think he should be charged with the murder of a fetus. In fact, I think he did the fetus a favor: Isn't it better to die without knowing anything of the world, not knowing what you're missing, than to be born the child of the guy who was crazy enough to murder his girlfriend, and the woman dumb enough to sleep with a guy that crazy? He saved the baby from what I'm shore would have been a life of misery and suffering. I for one don't think killing a fetus is wrong, especially in a world this obscenely overpopulated. Give me thumbs up if you agree with me!
REALLY?? So many of you actually disagree with me? What it is about the human condition that causes us to cling so desperately to every possible shred of human life? With anti-abortionism, fear of aging, keeping people alive as vegetables for years on end... and ultimately this overwhelmingly intense and illogical fear of death.
Everywhere on earth, in every species except for humans, life and death is a matter confronted daily. Each day is a quest to find food to maintain one's own survival, and often times that results in the necessity to claim another life. Simultaneously, one worries about their own life, and fears bigger predators. For all of the animal kingdom, this is a normal part of existence. So why is it such a big issue for humans?
And why do humans ultimately fear death at all? It seems that humans illogically fear anything that is unknown to them. It also seems that statistically, in cases where a person is fearing an unknowns simply because it is an unknown, there is most often nothing to fear at all. So then death, being the ultimate unknown, is simply feared. People so rarely consider the possibility that death is not unpleasant... maybe it's just another experience, and for all any of us know, maybe it's downright pleasant. So why must we fear death so, and spend so much of our time, lives, and energy trying to evade a force that is inescapable and that we have no evidence is even a bad thing?
Because that baby is just alive as the parent is. We think that because the baby isnt walking and talking its not alife. The day that baby was conceived in the womb it had a soul. The safest place on earth should be in a mothers womb. America has been demoralized with the fact that life can be taken by anyone who freely wants too. God is the giver and taker of life. We are not our own, we are bought with a price.
(He hasn't been convicted, he has only been charged. Please make a note of it.)
When a pregnant woman is murdered, the accused is charged with the murder of the unborn child as well. It's the law.
When an unborn child is murdered by the mother it's "her decision" a.k.a. "abortion", and no crime has been committed. It's the law.
Why? Because Democrats %26 Liberals have a double standard for everything including the murder of unborn children.
Don't listen to the Democrat's hype!
Vote Republican!
The woman was almost nine months pregnant. The baby would have been considered full term had it been born. It was no longer a fetus, it was a human being. I am also pro life. But I am pro choice.
Very smart observation! I too am a "pro-lifer" and am a member of the American Life League with Judie Brown as President or Chairperson or whatever her specific title is, and I recommend you visit their website at www.ALL.org. And you'll love her new book "Saving Those Damned Catholics" which is not a condemnation of Catholics, only the "pro-choicers". It's a great book to read and you'll see just how strong she and the organization is in all their pro-life / anti-abortion work is. Thanks for your great question. God Bless you.
Keep in mind that he was not convicted of both murders, he was charged with them. The burden will be on the state to convince a jury that the fetus was viable and it's death meats the standard for murder. It's simple really. If the jury says it was two murders, then it was two murders. An appellate court may overturn the verdict but until and unless that happens, the jury rules.
If your wondering what the difference is between that and what happens when a woman chooses to abort, it was the Supreme court that ruled in Roe v Wade that made a woman's right to chose the law of the land. How you feel. How I feel. Doesn't really matter does it? The law's not asking our opinion.
This is called 'relativism' meaning that the life only has value according to the determination of mother...or person carrying the fetus, if the baby is unwanted. The age of the fetus is not taken into consideration if the woman lives, and even if she DOESN'T live, if the father or family is involved and it's clear that the woman wanted to continue with the pregnancy, the attorney general or district attorney can most certainly choose to attempt to prosecute the case, and will probably win.
well to me if a woman is pregnant i dont care how far along she is ..its murder.even abortion is murder and any woman who has abortions should go to prison.....
This is specifically determined by the statutory definition of a "life in being", in the state where this occurred. For example, in Arkansas you cannot do this because a "life in being" is only possible where a baby is live-birthed. If the baby doesn't take a single breath on its own, then it isn't alive. Other states have other rules.
"Killing a fetus" isn't he same thing as "killing a person" which would be murder. Even if the law defines it as murder, it's not murder in the case of abortion because court decisions like Roe v. Wade say it's not. That's inconsistent, yes, but it's the law, and the law is inconsistent all the time.
Now, if you want to accuse a person of being inconsistent for supporting this law against killing a fetus while also being pro-choice, that's a different story. You'd have a case there. I still think you'd lose the case, because as I noted above, you can oppose someone else killing someone's fetus without their permission without defining it as murder.
Historically it has never been a double murder to kill a pregnant women, as homocide required that the person be alive. Even when abortion was illegal in this country it was not murder, it was a crime, but did not carry the same punishment as murder.
Since Roe v. Wade the pro-life lobby has managed to convince states to make killing a pregnant women double murder. This has been done purely for political reasons. To create an inconsitancy for agurment purposes such as the one you are making.
It really does nothing punshment-wise. One murder carries the same sentence as two, defendant do not go to jail twice as long becaue it is single act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment