Is it hypocritical?

[DashingAmerican]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

 

[JayDubya]

No, no, it makes sense, obviously because simply having a vagina means you can arbitrate whether a living Homo sapiens is worthless subhuman property to be burned to heat hospitals or a human being with rights.

Didn't you know that?

 

[WillyPete]

The stories I am seeing don't say how far along the pregnant lady was. It sorta makes sense if she was beyond the point where abortion would be a legal option.

I don't know the guy's record but if this is a first time thing, murder seems extreme for a drunk driving accident.

Throw the book at him, sure, but doesn't murder require "malice aforethought?"

 

[JayDubya]

The stories I am seeing don't say how far along the pregnant lady was. It sorta makes sense if she was beyond the point where abortion would be a legal option.

I don't know the guy's record but if this is a first time thing, murder seems extreme for a drunk driving accident.

Throw the book at him, sure, but doesn't murder require "malice aforethought?"

Getting drunk and behind the wheel IS malice aforethought.

Triple homicide. Murder charges are appropriate.

 

[WillyPete]

Getting drunk and behind the wheel IS malice aforethought.

Triple homicide. Murder charges are appropriate.

If it's as cut and dried as you suggest, why does Alabama have "Criminally Negligent Homicide while driving under the influence" laws on the books? <Link>

I'd wager they are overcharging to try to force a plea arrangement. This may be entirely appropriate, or it might be abusive, depending on the details.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

Personally, I don't see this as hypocritical at all because you're basically talking about two groups of people with two different sets of agendas/views.

In the case of abortion, it is generally the more liberal among us who view the "unborn child" as merely a set of cells not yet human or deserving of human rights and therefore no "person" is murdered.

In the case of prosectors, it is generally the more conservative among them who view the "unborn child" as a winner in prosecution strategy and is used to play at the hearts of jurors - "this monster snuffed out the life of a child who never had the chance to live". I remember it being used in California in the Scott Peterson case in order to secure the ability to seek the death penalty under "special circumstances" laws - he murdered his pregnant wife, thus two "people" were killed, creating the "special circumstances".

In order to be truly hypocritical you'd have to prove that the prosecutors are pro-choice or pro-abortion and/or you'd have to prove that any juror who voted to convict on the charge of murdering the "unborn" child was pro-choice or pro-abortion.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I have wondered this too. If you kill an unborn baby when you kill the mom and get charged with two murders why is it not murder if the mom decides to kill the unborn baby? Makes no sense to me, it is a life or it is not. Make up your mind.

 

[1750Texan]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

First of all, most likely, the person is being charged with man-slaughter not murder. Murder would be him running down the woman on purpose.

Secondly, most likely the state made a state law making it a criminal offense in harming the fetus. [feticide] is causing the death of a fetus. The fetus is not a person, but is protected as potential human life.

Lastly, most abortion laws recognize potential human life at viability of the fetus[20-24 weeks]. Abortion is lawful before viability. Abortion is lawful after viability[late term abortion] in the case of servere fetal deformaties or in protecting the life of the woman.

Im not sure the New station got the story correct.
http://www.alabamas13.com/story/251...e-after-unborn-child-dies-in-traffic-accident

I would not rely too strongly on this account. The news account said one of the two women was 2 years old. I dont think there is great oversight on the reporting at this station.

KiAnthony Davis, 22, was involved in a vehicle crash shortly after 3 a.m. New Years' Day, that killed a 2-year-old woman and a 45-year-old woman, one of which was pregnant.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

Well, it is in the context of America's larger abortion debate (which is primarily about whether a ZEF is a person). And that's done intentionally. The purpose of pushing these laws is to try to get ready for a Row challenge.

But America's politics are not necessarily rooted in consistent ethics or philosophy. It is not necessarily hypocritical in that context.

If we assume for the purpose of debate that a ZEF is a person, it still has no right to encroach on a woman's body without her consent. No person does. It could therefore by killed via abortion, and this would be classed as self-defense, or justified homicide.

So, if a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy, she has given consent, and if we assume a ZEF is a person, then an outside person killing it could be considered "murder."

But given that we have no reason consider a ZEF a person, and our laws generally reflect that (including not just Row, but also laws regarding functionality of born persons), I don't see any reason why abortion would or should be classified this way.

 

[DashingAmerican]

Personally, I don't see this as hypocritical at all because you're basically talking about two groups of people with two different sets of agendas/views.

In the case of abortion, it is generally the more liberal among us who view the "unborn child" as merely a set of cells not yet human or deserving of human rights and therefore no "person" is murdered.

In the case of prosectors, it is generally the more conservative among them who view the "unborn child" as a winner in prosecution strategy and is used to play at the hearts of jurors - "this monster snuffed out the life of a child who never had the chance to live". I remember it being used in California in the Scott Peterson case in order to secure the ability to seek the death penalty under "special circumstances" laws - he murdered his pregnant wife, thus two "people" were killed, creating the "special circumstances".

In order to be truly hypocritical you'd have to prove that the prosecutors are pro-choice or pro-abortion and/or you'd have to prove that any juror who voted to convict on the charge of murdering the "unborn" child was pro-choice or pro-abortion.

Circumstances don't change whether or not someone is a person. Assuming the fetus was still at an age that it could be aborted, then how is this murder? In the eyes of the government it's not a person, so how is the guy being charged?

 

[DashingAmerican]

Well, it is in the context of America's larger abortion debate (which is primarily about whether a ZEF is a person). And that's done intentionally. The purpose of pushing these laws is to try to get ready for a Row challenge.

But America's politics are not necessarily rooted in consistent ethics or philosophy. It is not necessarily hypocritical in that context.

If we assume for the purpose of debate that a ZEF is a person, it still has no right to encroach on a woman's body without her consent. No person does. It could therefore by killed via abortion, and this would be classed as self-defense, or justified homicide.

So, if a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy, she has given consent, and if we assume a ZEF is a person, then an outside person killing it could be considered "murder."

But given that we have no reason consider a ZEF a person, and our laws generally reflect that (including not just Row, but also laws regarding functionality of born persons), I don't see any reason why abortion would or should be classified this way.

That doesn't answer, if the zef is not a person, why the man is being charged for murder.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

That doesn't answer, if the zef is not a person, why the man is being charged for murder.

I told you; these laws are specifically designed to set the stage for a Roe challenge by creating a precedent of ZEF's being legally treated as persons. It is hypocritical by design.

 

[Koros]

If it's as cut and dried as you suggest, why does Alabama have "Criminally Negligent Homicide while driving under the influence" laws on the books? <Link>

I'd wager they are overcharging to try to force a plea arrangement. This may be entirely appropriate, or it might be abusive, depending on the details.

Which is one of the reasons people need to stop accepting plea deals. Pleas don't benefit the accused, they ONLY benefit the state.

But, as to the OP, yes it is hypocritical...if the unborn is at the same gestational development stage as would be legally allowed to be aborted. If that is the case (and I don't know if it is), then the unborn is either a person (in which case abortion should be disallowed) or not a person (in which case it isn't murder if the unborn is killed in the process of killing the mother).

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

No, no, it makes sense, obviously because simply having a vagina means you can arbitrate whether a living Homo sapiens is worthless subhuman property to be burned to heat hospitals or a human being with rights.

Didn't you know that?

Ah so you heard about the UK hospitals? You know, at least the bodies where put to some use instead of throw in the garbage can.

 

[calamity]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

Simple, abortion is the exclusive choice of the mother, not some butthead who crashed into them.

 

[Cardinal]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

I think the woman's choice may have something to do with it.

 

[AJiveMan]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

Rest of story please.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I have wondered this too. If you kill an unborn baby when you kill the mom and get charged with two murders why is it not murder if the mom decides to kill the unborn baby? Makes no sense to me, it is a life or it is not. Make up your mind.

The unborn are obviously life's like the rest of the lives we destroy every day to make room for the human lives pro lifer's want relentlessly born. The question is, do they matter? or not? As for the rest of your claim, it has to do with what bush signed when he got elected back into office. However though when debating someone like myself who happens to live in Canada where our law is not inconsistent in this matter, bringing this up is pointless since when it comes to actual debate, it doesn't matter what the law says about it at the moment. You wouldn't for example say to someone who is in Belgium that ''child euthanasia is illegal in my country'' while discussing to the Belgium guy about child euthanasia where it is legal in his country.

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

Like I told Sawyer, it has to do with what your president bush signed in on when he got re elected and you should know what it is so I don't see why you would be asking that question.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

That doesn't answer, if the zef is not a person, why the man is being charged for murder.

Because your law is being inconsistent on the matter saying killing the ''ZEF'' is murder in these particular circumstances while in the case of abortion is not. Glad I don't live in the USA so when those like yourself want to pull the law into a debate about a topic, it doesn't work with me since I'm in Canada where this is not the case. If you want to have an actual meaningful discussion about personhood, just let us know.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I think the woman's choice may have something to do with it.

It could be it, I mean pro choicers should actually like it so no one can take away the choice of the women to carry full term or not without suffering some type of penalty for depriving the women the right to decide if she wants to carry full term or not. That's one way to look at it which is what I think your indicating here correct?

 

[Cardinal]

It could be it, I mean pro choicers should actually like it so no one can take away the choice of the women to carry full term or not without suffering some type of penalty for depriving the women the right to decide if she wants to carry full term or not. That's one way to look at it which is what I think your indicating here correct?

Would you mind rewording that for me?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

The same way that it is illegal for you to shoot my dog but I can take her to the vet and have her euthanised.

In my country, though, the unborn does not have personhood at all.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Would you mind rewording that for me?

Pretty much pro choicers should love the law bush signed in in your country as it protects the women's decision to abort or not and if someone takes that choice away they would suffer repercussions. Is that more clearer for you?

 

[Cardinal]

Pretty much pro choicers should love the law bush signed in in your country as it protects the women's decision to abort or not and if someone takes that choice away they would suffer repercussions. Is that more clearer for you?

No. Maybe I'm unbelievably dense, but your wording is like spaghetti to me.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

No. Maybe I'm unbelievably dense, but your wording is like spaghetti to me.

I know, sorry about that but I can't find another way to word it.