• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

California Penal Code § 187:

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
California Penal Code § 187:


Quote:
§ 187. Murder defined

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.






Anyone else find some glaring inconsistancies in the law with this beauty?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not at all.
To give an analogy in another vein: Say you have a beloved pet. This beloved pet, been around a while with you, you love it like it was your kid, is old and sick. But you nurture it nevertheless. One day, the wacko neighbor, seeing your beloved on his front lawn, grabs his gun and shoots it dead. The authorities come, charge him with a few things: unlawful discharge of a firearm, extreme cruelty to an animal, and he gets some sort of conviction.....
Now, same thing but different ending-your beloved is old and sick. Your nurture it but it's suffering or whatever-not getting better, etc. You take it to the vet and he gives it drugs and it dies.
One's a crime, one's a choice.
There's no glaring discrepancy.
Need another in case you go into 'BUT A FETUS IS NOT A DOG' mode?
Say I have a condition that makes it impossible to breathe through my nose. I need expensive surgery to fix it. One day, I get mugged and the mugger punches me in the face, breaking my already bad nose. Funny, though, now I can breathe, even though my nose is crooked and swollen. It's still a crime what he did and now I need more surgery to fix the break. He took away my options criminally.
No glaring discrepancies, sorry.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The CA legal code interestingly enough, confirms that the fetus is NOT a human being.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
California Penal Code § 187:


Quote:
§ 187. Murder defined

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.






Anyone else find some glaring inconsistancies in the law with this beauty?
It's supposed to be inconsistent....it's just a chip. First you establish a fetus's rights in a far lesser degree than your goal, and slowly you chip away at Roe-v-Wade by gradually increasing the fetus's rights......even if those rights are rarely enforced.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."


It's still murder. MURDER. AND YOU CANT MURDER SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ALIVE CAN YOU STEEN?

If so please enlighten us as to how this is done.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
doughgirl said:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."


It's still murder. MURDER. AND YOU CANT MURDER SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ALIVE CAN YOU STEEN?

If so please enlighten us as to how this is done.
If you brake into someone's home and shoot them in the head, but unbeknown-st to you, they had passed away not but a few hours before you arrived, you will still be charged with Attempted 'Murder; because you tried to murder someone, but they were not alive when you made your attempt.

The key is "unlawful killing", not "alive". Steen has agreed ellswhere that a fetus is "alive", it's just not a "person".

Legally it's no different than shooting a worm.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What I don't get is how a law can say the killing of the same being is a murder if one person does it--but if a specific relative says its okay then it isn't a murder. Aren't all children at risk of their mother's consenting to their killing? It's #3 that blows my mind. I don't see how that can jive with other capital laws. I mean--why did Andrea Yates go to jail? Oh yeah---she was in Texas--not Cali.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
What I don't get is how a law can say the killing of the same being is a murder if one person does it--but if a specific relative says its okay then it isn't a murder. Aren't all children at risk of their mother's consenting to their killing? It's #3 that blows my mind. I don't see how that can jive with other capital laws. I mean--why did Andrea Yates go to jail? Oh yeah---she was in Texas--not Cali.
Your reasoning where it's going. That's why the law was written so as to start to give a fetus rights in a very restricted way.

What you just said....."all children at risk of their mother's consenting to their killing?".....that chip is the final piece.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jerry said:
Your reasoning where it's going. That's why the law was written so as to start to give a fetus rights in a very restricted way.

What you just said....."all children at risk of their mother's consenting to their killing?".....that chip is the final piece.
But Jerry......it could go either way...fetal rights or legal infanticide....:(
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
But Jerry......it could go either way...fetal rights or legal infanticide....:(
The starting line, for the modern movement, was Roe-v-Wade. If left unchallenged, pro choice-rs would not touch the issue......with the exception of a few extremists who persue exposing unwanted newborns, leaving them to die.....but they are few and far between.

The body of law has been moving away from Roe-v-Wade, slowly, gradually, giving the fetus more rights.....chipping away at Roe-v-Wade.

If Roe-v-Wade is ever fulfilled or overturned, that will not be the last word on the issue. Pro choice-rs will begin their own erosion of whatever unfavorable ruling results from the inevitable Supreme Court hearing on abortion.

Notwithstanding a profound, fundamental change in the human psyche, this issue will keep going back and forth forever.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jerry said:
Notwithstanding a profound, fundamental change in the human psyche, this issue will keep going back and forth forever.
Do you think that change of perspective is taking place--or is it just a pendulum swing?
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Do you think that change of perspective is taking place--or is it just a pendulum swing?
Well now....this is where we leave the realm of Law and enter into something ells entirely.

I am a Christian. I place faith in Jesus and God. I believe that the bible is an accurate portrayal of past events and future inevitabilities, even though any given modern translation of the ancient scriptures may not be perfect.

From my perspective, things are only going to get worse. The global calamity from which the Antichrist comes forth is nearing. Pro lifers will have bigger things to worry about than Roe-v-Wade, and pro choice-rs will have to start actually dealing with the consequences of their promiscuity when abortion-on-demand becomes unavailable through other-than-legal means.

In my mind, regarding the Grand Universal Answer to rather a fetus is a person or not, that question will be answered upon the advent of the Rapture.

When the Rapture happens, if the fetuses go, then they absolutely are people; and if they stay, then they absolutely are not people.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jerry said:
From my perspective, things are only going to get worse. The global calamity from which the Antichrist comes forth is nearing. Pro lifers will have bigger things to worry about than Roe-v-Wade, and pro choice-rs will have to start actually dealing with the consequences of their promiscuity when abortion-on-demand becomes unavailable through other-than-legal means.
That's an interesting view--abortion becomes illegal--but things get worse...I can see that happening if measures aren't taken to educate and help women and provide services to those in need.


In my mind, regarding the Grand Universal Answer to rather a fetus is a person or not, that question will be answered upon the advent of the Rapture.

When the Rapture happens, if the fetuses go, then they absolutely are people; and if they stay, then they absolutely are not people.

Well...I'm not a "Rapturist" (is that a word??) but I believe in Christ's second coming--I think it's termed amillenialist as opposed to "pre" or "post" millenialism. I have no idea if it's near or not--Paul seemed to think it was happening yesterday and it's been almost 2000 years. The Bible says to be ever ready and that's how I wish to lead my life. I wouldn't be surprised if he came 20 minutes from now or in another 2000 years but "amillenialists" believe that the millenium is Christ's rule in heaven and on earth through his Church--going on right now. So I don't know that fetuses will ascend at a "Rapture"--Christ ascended--and the dead were raised at His resurrection--but if they (fetuses--although I don't think a "soul" is a fetus or a grown human) are in heaven when I get there (hopefully) then....yeah....I see what you're saying. I think they are there, personally--the alternative doesn't jive with a God of mercy and justice IMO.

Sorry so much stuff in parenthesis...:mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom