Originally posted by OmnislashThat is exactly what I am tryin to say. Thanks, Omni 😀.
I disagree. I can understand your point in that this may be used as a legal precedent for the value of an unborn childs "life". However, the mother gave no consent for the child to be denied life, and as such I believe that regardless of your view (pro-life/pro-choice) it is important to recognize the value of the unborn childs existence, especially so late in the pregnancy.
Originally posted by wibThis is the million dollar question. I am unaware of any law that currently defines this, and as such this is the big question that we as a society have to determine.
So where do we draw the line? She was 8 months pregnant so we call it a double homicide.
What about 6 months pregnant?
How about 4 months pregnant?
3 weeks pregnant?
1 day?
Where's the line in the eyes of the law? And I'm asking because I really don't know.
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightI have little doubt that attempts will be made to tie them together. It is my hope that they will not prevail in these attempts. While I am "pro-life", I also hold the belief that the main reason we have not reached a middle ground on the issue is due the the extremists on each end. As such, I strongly disagree with such an attempt as I view it to be irrelevant to the real issue and nothing more than an excuse to further a political/moral agenda. Even if the ground is gained by my own philosophical camp, I disagree with it being obtained by these means and considered it both unproductive and dishonourable. Just my opinion though. 🙂
This case doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with abortion, it was a crime of violence. (I can hear it now though, "abortion *is* a crime of violence" etc etc) Whether the antis can tie this to abortion is an interesting speculation.
Originally posted by bbarr
If he had thought there was a moral difference between the two cases, I would have continued. He claimed there was no such difference, but that he was worried about the effects of this precedent on abortion law generally. How can I argue with his opinion on the possible precedential effects of this case? I have no reason to think that he's incorrect about ...[text shortened]... uld make a huge difference to abortion law, or the effects of this case could be negligible. 😕
"Fair enough, thanks for clarifying"
😛 😵
2 edits
Originally posted by OmnislashOmnislash: "I have little doubt that attempts will be made to tie them together ... "
[b]I have little doubt that attempts will be made to tie them together. It is my hope that they will not prevail in these attempts.
These issues ARE tied together, whether we like it or not.
Omnislash: "It is my hope that they will not prevail in these attempts."
Who are "they" ? The exstremists on both sides ?
Originally posted by mateulose
I understand, but I don't want Bush to use this as ammo, but because the case was so popular for whatever reason, I'm sure this will be used as future ammo. Somewhere, G.W Bush is giving a smug senile smile over this, it's such a sad situation.
Not really. If you are to legally consider a foetus a person with legal rights at a particular point in time, then that person should be granted those rights under all circumstances once it reaches that age. As such a man can still commit a murder by stabbing a pregnant woman, even though the woman actually survives and the foetus doesn't.
In this particular case however the murderer did not know whether he was was killing an person or just a bunch of meaningless cells (irrespective of how much of a person it represented). As such it should not be considered murder. As we're clearly not giving a foetus full rights until it actually vacates the body of the woman, this is further reason to downgrade the charge of murder.
Originally posted by pcaspianSo is that actually the law in the U.S? A fetus isn't a human being until it leaves the womb and is actually born alive?
Originally posted by mateulose
[b]I understand, but I don't want Bush to use this as ammo, but because the case was so popular for whatever reason, I'm sure this will be used as future ammo. Somewhere, G.W Bush is giving a smug senile smile over this, it's such a sad situation.
Not really. If you are to legally consider a foetus a person w ...[text shortened]... ually vacates the body of the woman, this is further reason to downgrade the charge of murder.
[/b]
And if that is the law, how could they convict Peterson of a double murder?
There are thousands of murders in the US every year. I'm sure some of those murdered are pregnant women. I wonder what the rulings have been in those cases?
And now I'm back to my original problem, where do we draw the timeline? One minute it's just a fetus or a bunch of nerve endings, and the next minute it's an American citizen. Where's the line...
1 edit
Originally posted by wibDifferent states have different protections for fetuses. In California, where the Peterson case was tried, the relevant statute is as follows:
So is that actually the law in the U.S? A fetus isn't a human being until it leaves the womb and is actually born alive?
And if that is the law, how could they convict Peterson of a double murder?
There are thousands of murders in the ...[text shortened]... e next minute it's an American citizen. Where's the line...
California Penal Code § 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." The words "or a fetus" were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Supreme Court later interpreted "fetus" to apply "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." (People v. Davis, 1994) In addition, Penal Code § 190.2(3) makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder, and the California Supreme Court ruled that fetal homicide is included under this provision as well (People v. Dennis, 1998).
-NRLC
Recently, Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which applies only to federal crimes, and which protects any in utero entity which is a living member of the species Homo Sapiens. Murder is not a federal crime unless it occurs on federal lands. I'm not sure what lands are considered federal lands, I think Indian Reservations qualify, but don't quote me on that.
Originally posted by bbarrThanks for the info bbarr.
Different states have different protections for fetuses. In California, where the Peterson case was tried, the relevant statute is as follows:
California Penal Code § 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." The words "or a fetus" were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Suprem ...[text shortened]... h protects any in utero entity which is a living member of the species Homo Sapiens.
Well I must say that all sounds open to interpretation, but about what I expected from politicians and lawmakers. They seem to like that.
"beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." So I guess if the embryo is less than 7 weeks you can't actually kill it since it's not considered alive. If it's more than 8 weeks it's murder.
I suppose if it's between 7 and 8 weeks development they let the doctor(s) performing the autopsy decide. I wonder how they deal with the issue of every woman having different gestation periods, plus embryos developing differently at various rates. One 8 week old embryo may be far less developed than another woman's 7 week old.
Very interesting...
Originally posted by darvlayWow, I actually agree with Chancremechanic. At eight months the kid was completely viable - being born a month premature isn't even that unusual. Becoming a fully-fledged human life is a gradual process over which we impose an arbitrary cut-off for the purpose of abortion law. But there's nothing about the act of birth in itself which adds to that process at all.
Wow, I acutally agree with Mateulose. I can't believe they charged him for the murder of the unborn child, that's ridiculous.
It's ghastly to think that all the publicity and exploitation this case has experienced was due simply to the fact that the victim was pregnant. I'm glad it's over and I hope nothing becomes of this gross error on the part of the judge.
Rich.
Basicly, none of this makes sense, the law needs to be universal for all to understand it, either a foetus is an American citazen with U.S citazen rights, or it's simply not a citazen. This 7-8 weeks empryo thing is rediculous, first of all, feti develop at different stages dependant on the foetus, and such a empryo at that time is 100% dependant on it's mother, there's no way to early labour such a foetus without destroying it. And how exactly can this work? Are you telling me that if someone kills a pregnant woman 6 weeks in, that's just one murder, but if that killer waited a week later, it's suddenly a double wammy homocide, ie: death penalty, crime? The purpose of the law is to maintain order, and this is very, well, DISORDERLY.