Man convicted of murdering unborn child. (1 Viewer)

[Revolutionary]

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5522651

This will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of activists in favor of total legalized abortion.

 

[Duke]

If you ask me: Don't Panic. It's only Texas. :2razz:


Duke

 

[FallingPianos]

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5522651

This will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of activists in favor of total legalized abortion.

several states have enacted laws where if an unborn is killed in a manner other than an induced abortion, it can be counted as murder. another pro-life law that makes no sense.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

several states have enacted laws where if an unborn is killed in a manner other than an induced abortion, it can be counted as murder. another pro-life law that makes no sense.

I agree; this should be counted as an incredibly horrible case of assault against the mother -- I mean, he stomped on her stomach? Pregnant or not, that's grotesque. He should get the maximum possible penalty for that attack, not for murder. Killing a fetus is either murder or it isn't; our laws say it isn't.

 

[Jerry]

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5522651

This will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of activists in favor of total legalized abortion.

Why wasn't he charged with practicing medicine without a license?

 

[ngdawg]

And this week's winner of the "Really Dumb Question" trophy is:

Why wasn't he charged with practicing medicine without a license?

Find a doctor who uses stomping as a surgical technique:roll:
To make it even easier, I'm sure you can find several passages in your guide book about punishing those who, during the act of violence, kill the unborn, right?

 

[Nemi]

I agree that he should be punished for assault against the mother rather than murder...

This will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of activists in favor of total legalized abortion.

I think it's the opposite of that, actually. If abortion was not legal, then who knows? people might use this method instead. Now that's scary. :shock:

 

[Duke]

Yeah, forget about coat hangers, this is much more efficient. :doh


Duke

 

[Jerry]

And this week's winner of the "Really Dumb Question" trophy is:

Find a doctor who uses stomping as a surgical technique:roll:
To make it even easier, I'm sure you can find several passages in your guide book about punishing those who, during the act of violence, kill the unborn, right?

...hit a nerve I did.

Amputation and decapitation is fine, but don't anyone dare suggest secondary blunt force trauma...:roll:...that view is completely up-side-down.

 

[Jerry]

Yeah, forget about coat hangers, this is much more efficient. :doh


Duke

Heh....

"NO -- STOMACH -- STOMPINGS!!!!"

 

[Duke]

Heh....

"NO -- STOMACH -- STOMPINGS!!!!"

Don't worry, Jerry. I don't think that stomach stompings will become common procedure until surgical abortion is banned.


Duke

 

[Revolutionary]

Wasn't his intent to kill the baby? What if he had done this the day before delivery? Laws like this are brilliant as they clearly demonstrate the strange reasoning of those who support taking the lives of babies (based solely on their geographical location).

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Wasn't his intent to kill the baby? What if he had done this the day before delivery? Laws like this are brilliant as they clearly demonstrate the strange reasoning of those who support taking the lives of babies (based solely on their geographical location).

What strange reasoning? He assaulted the mother, and caused serious damage. If he did it the day before delivery, he would have been guilty of assaulting the mother, and doing serious damage. It's sick, either way.

 

[talloulou]

What strange reasoning? He assaulted the mother, and caused serious damage. If he did it the day before delivery, he would have been guilty of assaulting the mother, and doing serious damage. It's sick, either way.

Roe vs Wade allows states to make very late term abortions illegal.

None of it makes sense but if a guy is gonna stump on a womens stomach I say throw the book at him and call the crime whatever you want.

 

[Jerry]

Don't worry, Jerry. I don't think that stomach stompings will become common procedure until surgical abortion is banned.
Duke

I expect to see boots right next to the wire hangers.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Legalese

"Legalese"

Roe vs Wade allows states to make very late term abortions illegal.
None of it makes sense but if a guy is gonna stump on a womens stomach I say throw the book at him and call the crime whatever you want.

Roe vs Wade provided State option for third trimester abortion. Other cases extended it to third trimester.

Now, in cases involving pregnancy, the law for assault could be modified so that the penalty could be as stern as murder. The legislation has not taken that route because it would require a formal recognition for the legal distinction of birth present in the US 14th amendment.

 

[Revolutionary]

What strange reasoning? He assaulted the mother, and caused serious damage. If he did it the day before delivery, he would have been guilty of assaulting the mother, and doing serious damage. It's sick, either way.

CoffeeSaint, you would not charge the man with murder if he assulted the woman just before delivery? Is the baby undeserving of legal recognition? The guy is not being thrown in jail for life for assult -- it is for killing the baby in the womb. The irony is that if the woman had wanted to child dead she could have obtained a legal abortion in quite a few states. So is the personhood or protection of the child solely contingent on what the woman wants?

 

[Sara]

Hi, l think it was very wrong to step on her stomach to kill the baby!
He could have went in another way. Like abortion or just to talk to the wife and decide whats the best for the baby and themselves. He didn't have to kill an innocent little child that wasn't even born yet. And he also might had hurt the lady while he stepped on her.
Its good that he got prison, but not for the rest of his life, thats too long.
Right it was wrong, right he hurt the lady and everything, but did he really deserve life time in prison?
He maybe really didn't want the child, and did the unborn child a favor to not come to this world. Because the baby maybe wouldn't have a good life, no dad and maybe not that good money.
Still its good that he got prison but every human being deserve a second chance, people make misstakes and thats only normal. But you also have to learn of your mistakes and not make them all over again, one by one.
What l mean is, that he deserved prison but not that long.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

CoffeeSaint, you would not charge the man with murder if he assulted the woman just before delivery? Is the baby undeserving of legal recognition? The guy is not being thrown in jail for life for assult -- it is for killing the baby in the womb. The irony is that if the woman had wanted to child dead she could have obtained a legal abortion in quite a few states. So is the personhood or protection of the child solely contingent on what the woman wants?

No, I would not charge the man with murder if he did this the day before delivery. The crime he was charged with and convicted of was the wrong crime, and to that extent, this is a miscarriage of justice; murder is the unlawful killing of a person, and a fetus is not a person; as you point out the woman could have had the fetus killed legally, so how can it be murdered illegally? Though you are exaggerating when you say the woman could have the baby aborted the day before delivery; there isn't a doctor in the world that would perform an abortion that late in the pregnancy. At any rate, the man went to jail, so the outcome was acceptable, IMO.

Personally, I think the mother should be the one to determine the child's value, and that's the only reason I don't rail against this kind of thing; if the mother wants the child, then it has value and status that she grants it, and anyone who kills it against her will should be guilty of a crime -- though not the crime of murder. Who else should determine the value of the fetus if not the mother? Who else gets a vote in controlling the woman's body?

 

[Revolutionary]

CoffeeSaint, are you seriously saying that a child's geographical location combined with simple whims of the mother determine if someone is human or not and deserving of legal protection?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

CoffeeSaint, are you seriously saying that a child's geographical location combined with simple whims of the mother determine if someone is human or not and deserving of legal protection?

Are you seriously trying to start this debate? Are you seriously doubting that I could think that? Are you seriously considering changing my mind by acting shocked and appalled by my morality?

Yes, a child's "geographical location" (and what a lovely way to describe motherhood, for someone who sems to revere it -- like a mall sign with a dot saying "You Are Here") and the "whims" of the mother are exactly what should determine a child's value. They should have no legal bearing on whether the child is a person or not, but morally, the only one who has a right to determine a child's worth is the person who is solely responsible for keeping it alive, a position she cannot surrender to anyone else, until after birth. Then society can take a hand.
Legally, a fetus cannot receive protection from the law until it is born; tell me, how would you protect a fetus's right to liberty? If the fetus is a person, does that mean the mother is guilty of wrongful imprisonment? I don't think so, which means that the fetus should not be LEGALLY considered a person until it has a life separate from what its mother grants it.

 

[Felicity]

Hi all--don't know if you'll remember me... but...

the only one who has a right to determine a child's worth is the person who is solely responsible for keeping it alive,

heh...heh.... I thought it took a village...??? I mean, does the mother grow her own produce etc...chop her own firewood to keep warm? We are all interdependent for our survival in any number of ways large and small. Is a single mother who has a two year old any less "solely responsible" for her charge than a woman carrying a human in her womb? If you think so, what is the difference?

a position she cannot surrender to anyone else, until after birth. Then society can take a hand.

Well, she can. It's just that the baby doesn't survive if it's done too early (it's called an abortion) and if it could survive....well, legally Mom can kill her progeny prior to natural delivery. Why is it that society CAN'T step in prior to this arbitrary point called "natural birth?" And does that mean that two of my children, who were born as a result of induced labor, really don't have basic human rights since it wasn't "natural" delivery? I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies in your line of thinking...not really looking for you to answer.

Legally, a fetus cannot receive protection from the law until it is born;

True...but then, legal doesn't necessarily indicate moral.

tell me, how would you protect a fetus's right to liberty? If the fetus is a person, does that mean the mother is guilty of wrongful imprisonment?

Giving life support is "wrongful" (a very "loaded" word I would disagree with) imprisonment? And anyway...So far it's illegal in most places to aid a person in committing suicide--tell me...how would a fetus communicate that he or she wants to die?

I don't think so, which means that the fetus should not be LEGALLY considered a person until it has a life separate from what its mother grants it.

arbitrary determination. I have another (more conservative) point of human development to suggest: how about conception?

 

[Saboteur]

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5522651

This will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of activists in favor of total legalized abortion.

You're right it does.... Forcing the termination of a pregnancy of someone who wants a child. Why, it's just as bad as forcing the full development of a pregnancy of someone who doesn't want a child!:shock:

 

[FallingPianos]

are you seriously saying that a child's geographical location combined with simple whims of the mother determine if someone is human or not and deserving of legal protection?

geographical location has nothing to do with it. it doesnt matter whether its located in portland or in littlerock. what matters is its biological dependence on its mother.

 

[Revolutionary]

Saboteur states:

You're right it does.... Forcing the termination of a pregnancy of someone who wants a child. Why, it's just as bad as forcing the full development of a pregnancy of someone who doesn't want a child!

Even the typical moral relativist would have problems with that position!

And Star2589:

geographical location has nothing to do with it. it doesnt matter whether its located in portland or in littlerock. what matters is its biological dependence on its mother.

I think you know what I mean. If a child in the second term of pregnancy were delivered prematurely, and the doctor slammed its head against the wall, he would face murder charges. If the same doctor was performing a second term abortion he can crush the skull while it is still in the uterus and all he will get for it is a payment.

However, as to your comment on what city or state you are in let's extend this moral relativism a bit. In many countries you can have an abortion legally, and in many countries it is considered a crime. So if you are in Dublin or Lisbon a child in the womb is considered a child -- in London or Amsterdam it isn't. Then again slavery is legal in some African countries and in other countries it isn't. The legality of a practice does not make it moral.