Interesting story. I know what this will turn into eventually, but it begs the question, should he be charged with murder? The law being what it is, does not currently consider an in utero person a person seeing as how you can go down to your local clinic and kill it for a modest fee.
Should this guy be charged with murder according to the law? I say NO.
In reality he did commit murder, but not according to the law…The law should be consistent.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If I remember correctly, there has been a few people convicted of double homicide when the murderer knew that the woman was pregnant.
Bring out the stones.[/quote]
I think Scott Peterson was one of the more recent, high-profile instances of this.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Apparently this issue is black and white.
But yes, murder of an unborn if the intention of the mother was to carry to term.
This issue here is pretty obvious. If it’s a person when it is wanted, why is it suddenly not a person when unwanted?[/quote]
Wisdom is best when simply stated…This is exactly the problem…The law contradicts itself. Whether or not a person is wanted does not increase or decrease his humanity…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Apparently this issue is black and white.
But yes, murder of an unborn if the intention of the mother was to carry to term.[/quote]
He’s being charged with the murder of a person, but she can walk into an abortion clinic in the same period of gestation, get it chopped up and sucked out and there is no problem. This is a problem because everywhere outside of an abortion clinic, this is murder.
The law needs to be clear, either the unborn is a person or it is not…Circumstances are irrelevant. Things are what they are, it doesn’t matter what you call them or how you feel about them in a particular moment.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about some kind of destruction of property charge? How much time does one get for destroying another person’s fingernail clippings? [/quote]
I know you are being glib but I actually think there should be a distinction in the law to avoid the contradiction. Whatever you called it though would be an open goal for the pro life lobby to attack.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I think if you kill a baby, one of your babies should be killed. Eye for an eye. Testicle for a testicle.[/quote]
I have seen you use eye for an eye several times today. Seems like you don’t understand the etymology of the phrase. The aim was not a direct retribution in kind but money of a suitable value. The aim of this lex talionis was actually to limit excessive claims.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How about some kind of destruction of property charge? How much time does one get for destroying another person’s fingernail clippings?
I know you are being glib but I actually think there should be a distinction in the law to avoid the contradiction. Whatever you called it though would be an open goal for the pro life lobby to attack.[/quote]
I don’t see how it’s possible. You’ve either taken a life, or just destroyed someone’s property. Now, that doesn’t include the direct assualt upon her person and whatever charges it may bring. But murder is out of the question. Unless we’ve agreed a life was taken, of course.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Given the advances in genetics, every time you scratch your nose you’ve committed a holocaust of millions of lives.
How about we stop pretending it’s a black and white issue here. It’s the same mentality that holds back stem cell research and stops medical advances.[/quote]
Are you claiming consciousness at a cellular level?
It is black and white. Either, the baby in utero is a person or not. That is the only question. It does not get much more basic than that. Is it a person or not? It cannot be a person sometimes and other times not, that is clearly what cannot happen…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Given the advances in genetics, every time you scratch your nose you’ve committed a holocaust of millions of lives.
How about we stop pretending it’s a black and white issue here. It’s the same mentality that holds back stem cell research and stops medical advances.[/quote]
No, it’s black and white. Either it’s murder, or isn’t.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How about some kind of destruction of property charge? How much time does one get for destroying another person’s fingernail clippings?
I know you are being glib but I actually think there should be a distinction in the law to avoid the contradiction. Whatever you called it though would be an open goal for the pro life lobby to attack.
I don’t see how it’s possible. You’ve either taken a life, or just destroyed someone’s property. Now, that doesn’t include the direct assualt upon her person and whatever charges it may bring. But murder is out of the question. Unless we’ve agreed a life was taken, of course.[/quote]
So when someone is killed by lethal injection under the control of the state has a murder been committed? What about when the life support system is switched off for a RTA victim who is in a PVS?
So when someone is killed by lethal injection under the control of the state has a murder been committed? What about when the life support system is switched off for a RTA victim who is in a PVS?[/quote]
Taking an innocent human life…But, no need to even go off on a tangent here. Is this man a murderer, or not? The abortion supporters here must say no. The loss of her child is no different than the loss of blood cells from a split lip, if he struck her. Again, charges for the assault, battery, whatever, sure. But murder of the unborn? Abortion defenders have already answered that question for us.