I thought that a fetus was not a 'person' with rights (in other words, a potential murder victim).
This is only for TWI purposes that a fetus is not considered a person with rights. This isn't a precedent for murder (attempted murder maybe). There have been other successful cases procecuted for murder recently, but only in cases where a person ended up killing a fetus while injuring (or killing the mother). Abortion has not been considered murder for legal purposes.
"In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. "
(Keep in mind that I agree with you on a moral point)
What makes this so dangerous is that this is just another legal precedent that gives a fetus personhood. And if a fetus, through legal precedent is assigned 'personhood,' then Roe v Wade may have grounds to be overturned.
If my memory is correct (and I don't have the time to research it at the moment) this case isn't setting a precedent. Didn't the Peterson case have similar charges?
The intent is to differentiate between those who wish to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth v. those who do not. I think one would have to read the specific wording of the law before one could be certain of the likelihood that such laws could set a precedent that would challenge Roe v Wade. The news article writes it as "attempted murder of an unborn child" but the statute itself could be worded quite differently.
In either case, I am happy to see one more violent offender behind bars instead of running loose upon society.
The intent is to differentiate between those who wish to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth v. those who do not.
What difference would that make?
The unborn child is either legally a person or legally not a person.
It can't be both ways--- or sometimes one way, sometimes the other---
I was interested in a similar case about 10 years ago when a murderer was charged with two counts of murder when he killed a pregnant woman, but in the days before I had internet accesibility the local paper never followed the story beyond the initial charges--I would be interested in hearing how that or any similar cases played out.
The unborn child is either legally a person or legally not a person.
It can't be both ways--- or sometimes one way, sometimes the other---
mstar, I agree with what you are obviously thinking, but some pretty interesting twists can be made in a legal sense. It would be "1984" style, that is, the unborn simultaneouslyis and is not a person. depending on the purpose (s) of those who are making a particular legal case. In other words, yes, there are those who want to have it both ways. Even on these forums, I have seen abortion described as murder because, presumably, TWI was directly or indirectly responsible, yet as not murder by the same person in other circumstances.
Another difficult issue is the exception for whatever abortion prohibitions exist or might be proposed for rape or incest. Very reasonable to most if you are not dealing with the unorn asa living person. But if the unborn
is a life, then that is saying someone's life is worthless because of how they were conceived.
Interesting that he pled guilty to attempted homicide. Looks like it wasn't just attempted if the story is accurate. Plea bargain?
Another difficult issue is the exception for whatever abortion prohibitions exist or might be proposed for rape or incest. Very reasonable to most if you are not dealing with the unorn asa living person. But if the unborn is a life, then that is saying someone's life is worthless because of how they were conceived.
Since my mother was raped and I was a product I would say I'm grateful at 15 she didn't abort me.
This is just for information...I don't intend to start a ruckus here.
When I was a babe, I was prohibited by law from having a bank account until I was a full year old. I could not have a life insurance policy until the same time. Perhaps it was the large number of early infant deaths at that time. My father could take me as a dependent on his income tax at the moment I drew breath.
We had savings accounts with no social security numbers, we didn't need those until we started working and our employer needed the # to deposit our with holdings to.
Today an infant can get .... number and a bank account and daddy can't take the child as a deduction without such a number.
Caution, snide remark follows.....perhaps legally, person-hood is determined by whether or not ....# can rightfully be assigned! So that means....at what precise moment during gestation can such a number be assigned? My guess would be about 24 1/2 weeks which is the earliest possible time for birth to occur with a possibility of survivability outside the womb. I told you it was a snide remark!
So when pregnant couples refer to their unborn progeny as "my son or daughter" are they speaking metaphorically? figuratively? Literally?
I don't believe that in my lifetime this will ever be settled to everybody's satisfaction, so the only thing we have is the court's legal treatment of the "preborn" witch is how many anti-abortionists refer to such a developing human.
The idea of forcing a woman of any age to carry the products of conception due to rape is absurd and inhumane. If she decides to carry the child, that's fine. But to force it upon her ads insult to injury. First forcibly rape her, then forceably inseminate her then force her to 9 months of continuing changes in and to her body, to say nothing of what the outside world will do to her. I suppose next you will expect her to abandon any semblance of normal life to support this "foreigneor".
There are women who will do this willingly because of their own convictions, but it isn't humane to subject every female to that standard. We have to treat prisoners of war better than that!
As I posted above, it all depends on the curcial question of life...are we dealing with the unborn as a life or not? And that is the question posed on the original post of this thread. To describe the guy's actions as terrible and inhumane is, well, an understatement, a no-brainer, or both. The described pleas by his wife and mother for leniency are something I don't understand and will not get into here, especially since simply anger management and not mental illness is mentioned as the reason. But who will argue that his actions were in any way excusable? The problem is, for murder or attempted mrder, we mst be dealing with a living person. If we are, then it is inhumane to end that life only because of how it was started...if we are [/i]not dealing with a life, then the situation is obviously different.
One more thing...I don't believe that the beginning of life changes over the years just because of the scientific advances of our doctors and scientists..that is, the beginning of life changes with the the increasing ability of coctors to enable a premature infant to survive after a decreasing amount of time after conception. Conceptin and birth are two unchangeable points. But I guess it is human nature to have to find middle ground when two sides are so opposed.
I find fault with both sides of the issue. The 2 extremes each yield the same result: they care about what happens to "life" during the pregnancy. Pro life cares about the fetus, and pro choice cares about the woman's right to choose, but after the birth occurs nobody cares anymore about either "life". Those extreme people just want their 15 minutes of fame and the abortion issue gives them the vehicle to make their "power play",
As for whether a fetus is a person with rights or not, no it isn't, but the mother certainly is. If Jesus could say of Judas Iscariot, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born!" then why can't a mother make the same choice?
I honestly don't think the issue is whether or not a fetus is a living being. Many times the courts have found people guilty of murder for killing a fetus. The issue is whether or not a mother has an overriding right to legally terminate the fetus..
I don’t see this issue as having much bearing on abortion law. Even if we accept that currently legal abortion is “homicide of an unborn child,” that doesn’t mean that it is immoral or should be illegal. Under the most narrow of definitions, homicide is legal in some circumstances and even considered by most to be morally imperative in a few circumstances. A broader definition merely adds various circumstances to consider. The circumstances themselves have already been considered in law. It is legal for a doctor to perform ethically and legally accepted medical procedures. It is illegal for someone to assault a woman and harm or attempt to harm an embryo or fetus she is carrying. The latter need not have bearing on the former, whether the harm is considered actual or attempted “homicide of an unborn child” or not.
I don’t see this issue as having much bearing on abortion law.
It obviously has a bearing on opinions about abortion law, given that so many on both sides are wrapped up in whether the unborn/fetus is a living person or not. And, as such, I'm sure that the question isn't even going to come close to going away.
Recommended Posts
moony3424
This is only for TWI purposes that a fetus is not considered a person with rights. This isn't a precedent for murder (attempted murder maybe). There have been other successful cases procecuted for murder recently, but only in cases where a person ended up killing a fetus while injuring (or killing the mother). Abortion has not been considered murder for legal purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually, the Supreme Court has said:
"In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. "
(Keep in mind that I agree with you on a moral point)
What makes this so dangerous is that this is just another legal precedent that gives a fetus personhood. And if a fetus, through legal precedent is assigned 'personhood,' then Roe v Wade may have grounds to be overturned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morgan
If my memory is correct (and I don't have the time to research it at the moment) this case isn't setting a precedent. Didn't the Peterson case have similar charges?
The intent is to differentiate between those who wish to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth v. those who do not. I think one would have to read the specific wording of the law before one could be certain of the likelihood that such laws could set a precedent that would challenge Roe v Wade. The news article writes it as "attempted murder of an unborn child" but the statute itself could be worded quite differently.
In either case, I am happy to see one more violent offender behind bars instead of running loose upon society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
What difference would that make?
The unborn child is either legally a person or legally not a person.
It can't be both ways--- or sometimes one way, sometimes the other---
I was interested in a similar case about 10 years ago when a murderer was charged with two counts of murder when he killed a pregnant woman, but in the days before I had internet accesibility the local paper never followed the story beyond the initial charges--I would be interested in hearing how that or any similar cases played out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
mstar, I agree with what you are obviously thinking, but some pretty interesting twists can be made in a legal sense. It would be "1984" style, that is, the unborn simultaneouslyis and is not a person. depending on the purpose (s) of those who are making a particular legal case. In other words, yes, there are those who want to have it both ways. Even on these forums, I have seen abortion described as murder because, presumably, TWI was directly or indirectly responsible, yet as not murder by the same person in other circumstances.
Another difficult issue is the exception for whatever abortion prohibitions exist or might be proposed for rape or incest. Very reasonable to most if you are not dealing with the unorn asa living person. But if the unborn
is a life, then that is saying someone's life is worthless because of how they were conceived.
Interesting that he pled guilty to attempted homicide. Looks like it wasn't just attempted if the story is accurate. Plea bargain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Since my mother was raped and I was a product I would say I'm grateful at 15 she didn't abort me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
This is just for information...I don't intend to start a ruckus here.
When I was a babe, I was prohibited by law from having a bank account until I was a full year old. I could not have a life insurance policy until the same time. Perhaps it was the large number of early infant deaths at that time. My father could take me as a dependent on his income tax at the moment I drew breath.
We had savings accounts with no social security numbers, we didn't need those until we started working and our employer needed the # to deposit our with holdings to.
Today an infant can get .... number and a bank account and daddy can't take the child as a deduction without such a number.
Caution, snide remark follows.....perhaps legally, person-hood is determined by whether or not ....# can rightfully be assigned! So that means....at what precise moment during gestation can such a number be assigned? My guess would be about 24 1/2 weeks which is the earliest possible time for birth to occur with a possibility of survivability outside the womb. I told you it was a snide remark!
So when pregnant couples refer to their unborn progeny as "my son or daughter" are they speaking metaphorically? figuratively? Literally?
I don't believe that in my lifetime this will ever be settled to everybody's satisfaction, so the only thing we have is the court's legal treatment of the "preborn" witch is how many anti-abortionists refer to such a developing human.
Edited by krysilisLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
P.S. this is just my opinion:
The idea of forcing a woman of any age to carry the products of conception due to rape is absurd and inhumane. If she decides to carry the child, that's fine. But to force it upon her ads insult to injury. First forcibly rape her, then forceably inseminate her then force her to 9 months of continuing changes in and to her body, to say nothing of what the outside world will do to her. I suppose next you will expect her to abandon any semblance of normal life to support this "foreigneor".
There are women who will do this willingly because of their own convictions, but it isn't humane to subject every female to that standard. We have to treat prisoners of war better than that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
As I posted above, it all depends on the curcial question of life...are we dealing with the unborn as a life or not? And that is the question posed on the original post of this thread. To describe the guy's actions as terrible and inhumane is, well, an understatement, a no-brainer, or both. The described pleas by his wife and mother for leniency are something I don't understand and will not get into here, especially since simply anger management and not mental illness is mentioned as the reason. But who will argue that his actions were in any way excusable? The problem is, for murder or attempted mrder, we mst be dealing with a living person. If we are, then it is inhumane to end that life only because of how it was started...if we are [/i]not dealing with a life, then the situation is obviously different.
One more thing...I don't believe that the beginning of life changes over the years just because of the scientific advances of our doctors and scientists..that is, the beginning of life changes with the the increasing ability of coctors to enable a premature infant to survive after a decreasing amount of time after conception. Conceptin and birth are two unchangeable points. But I guess it is human nature to have to find middle ground when two sides are so opposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I find fault with both sides of the issue. The 2 extremes each yield the same result: they care about what happens to "life" during the pregnancy. Pro life cares about the fetus, and pro choice cares about the woman's right to choose, but after the birth occurs nobody cares anymore about either "life". Those extreme people just want their 15 minutes of fame and the abortion issue gives them the vehicle to make their "power play",
As for whether a fetus is a person with rights or not, no it isn't, but the mother certainly is. If Jesus could say of Judas Iscariot, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born!" then why can't a mother make the same choice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I honestly don't think the issue is whether or not a fetus is a living being. Many times the courts have found people guilty of murder for killing a fetus. The issue is whether or not a mother has an overriding right to legally terminate the fetus..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I don’t see this issue as having much bearing on abortion law. Even if we accept that currently legal abortion is “homicide of an unborn child,” that doesn’t mean that it is immoral or should be illegal. Under the most narrow of definitions, homicide is legal in some circumstances and even considered by most to be morally imperative in a few circumstances. A broader definition merely adds various circumstances to consider. The circumstances themselves have already been considered in law. It is legal for a doctor to perform ethically and legally accepted medical procedures. It is illegal for someone to assault a woman and harm or attempt to harm an embryo or fetus she is carrying. The latter need not have bearing on the former, whether the harm is considered actual or attempted “homicide of an unborn child” or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
It obviously has a bearing on opinions about abortion law, given that so many on both sides are wrapped up in whether the unborn/fetus is a living person or not. And, as such, I'm sure that the question isn't even going to come close to going away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.