Officials urged to charge cop who allegedly strangled pregnant woman with murdering unborn baby

[Doug64]

Officials urged to charge cop who allegedly strangled pregnant woman with murdering unborn baby

SharePro-life activists are calling for a former Stoughton, Massachusetts police detective, alleged to have murdered a young woman after having sexually abused her for years, to…

catholicvote.org

Pro-life activists are calling for a former Stoughton, Massachusetts police detective, alleged to have murdered a young woman after having sexually abused her for years, to also be charged with murdering her unborn baby....

The legislation reads under the section titled “Protection of unborn children”:

Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury … to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), however, opposed the federal legislation over the concern that it would be the “first federal law to recognize a zygote (fertilized egg), a blastocyst (pre-implantation embryo), an embryo (through week 8 of a pregnancy), or a fetus as an independent ‘victim’ of a crime, with legal rights distinct from the woman who has been harmed.”

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Officials urged to charge cop who allegedly strangled pregnant woman with murdering unborn baby

SharePro-life activists are calling for a former Stoughton, Massachusetts police detective, alleged to have murdered a young woman after having sexually abused her for years, to…

catholicvote.org

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

Do you support allowing pregnant women to drive alone in the HOV lanes?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Officials urged to charge cop who allegedly strangled pregnant woman with murdering unborn baby

SharePro-life activists are calling for a former Stoughton, Massachusetts police detective, alleged to have murdered a young woman after having sexually abused her for years, to…

catholicvote.org

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

I think abortion should be legal up to 2 years out. You really can't tell right away if it was a good decision.

 

[Grand Mal]

I think abortion should be legal up to 2 years out. You really can't tell right away if it was a good decision.

Eat 'em while their bones are still soft!

 

[HonestJoe]

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

Nobody supports killing babies. It is perfectly possible to recognise an unborn fetus as being an individual human being with value while still accepting abortion as justifiable or even necessary in many circumstances. Playing games with a tragic killing as a thinly-veiled attempt to promote a religious position on abortion is disgusting.

 

[Doug64]

Do you support allowing pregnant women to drive alone in the HOV lanes?

Considering that the mother and baby occupy the same seat, no. Any point to make that is actually relevant?

Nobody supports killing babies.

This is a lie, the number of people in this nation that support killing babies numbers in the millions.

It is perfectly possible to recognise an unborn fetus as being an individual human being with value while still accepting abortion as justifiable or even necessary in many circumstances.

And most pro-lifers accept legal abortions in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is at stake. But that doesn’t describe the vast majority of abortions.

Playing games with a tragic killing as a thinly-veiled attempt to promote a religious position on abortion is disgusting.

So to be clear, you don’t believe that unborn babies have any inherent value as human beings independent of their mothers?

 

[Grand Mal]

Considering that the mother and baby occupy the same seat, no. Any point to make that is actually relevant?


This is a lie, the number of people in this nation that support killing babies numbers in the millions.


And most pro-lifers accept legal abortions in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is at stake. But that doesn’t describe the vast majority of abortions.


So to be clear, you don’t believe that unborn babies have any inherent value as human beings independent of their mothers?

A 10 year old rape victim, with a 10 year old pelvis, was forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get her pregnancy terminated because the state of Ohio required her to carry to term.
You guys don't get to claim any moral high ground.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is a lie, the number of people in this nation that support killing babies numbers in the millions.

No, nobody supports killing babies. Supporting the existence of abortion is not the same as supporting killing babies. Anyone who supported killing babies wouldn't limit it to the unborn after all.

And most pro-lifers accept legal abortions in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is at stake. But that doesn’t describe the vast majority of abortions.

So they support "killing babies" (by your definition), just in more limited circumstances. I'm not convinced that is especially firm ground for an argument.

So to be clear, you don’t believe that unborn babies have any inherent value as human beings independent of their mothers?

Unborn babies certainly do have an inherent value as human beings independent of their mothers. That is far from being the only relevant factor, moral, legal or practical, that needs to be considered regarding abortion, either in individual cases or in general principle.

The statement of mine you were actually replying to was criticising "Catholic Vote" (and by extension, you) for using a tragic crime to promote a position on abortion.

 

[Doug64]

A 10 year old rape victim, with a 10 year old pelvis, was forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get her pregnancy terminated because the state of Ohio required her to carry to term.
You guys don't get to claim any moral high ground.

Considering that, as I said, most pro-lifers support exceptions for rape/incest and risk to the life of the mother (which would cover that 10-year-old twice over), yers, we can—certainly more than those that support abortion right up to the point of birth.

No, nobody supports killing babies. Supporting the existence of abortion is not the same as supporting killing babies. Anyone who supported killing babies wouldn't limit it to the unborn after all.

Considering that the definition of “baby” includes the unborn, yes they do. And those that support it only do so as a means to an end rather than an end to itself—they consider the mother’s autonomy to be more important than the baby’s life.

So they support "killing babies" (by your definition), just in more limited circumstances. I'm not convinced that is especially firm ground for an argument.

Yes, it’s called nuance. There are very few issues that are purely black and white. In this case, most pro-lifers acknowledge that women shouldn’t be forced to go through a pregnancy they didn’t choose to risk (which isn’t the same as assuming responsibility for the life created through their own assumption of risk), so long as the abortion is carried out early enough.

Unborn babies certainly do have an inherent value as human beings independent of their mothers. That is far from being the only relevant factor, moral, legal or practical, that needs to be considered regarding abortion, either in individual cases or in general principle.

The statement of mine you were actually replying to was criticising "Catholic Vote" (and by extension, you) for using a tragic crime to promote a position on abortion.

So you have no problem with the law itself—that recognizes the baby as a separate entity, with harm inflicted on them worthy a separate penalty? Because that’s what this law does, and all the pro-lifers want is that the law be enforced. It’s the pro-choicers that oppose the existence of the law itself, on the ideological grounds that unborn babies are things, not people … not that much different from the antebellum slave owners, except that the unborn aren’t economically useful.

 

[Gordy327]

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

Actually, neither the Constitution or federal law recognizes the unborn as separate persons. The unborn are literally physically attached to and dependent on the woman gestating it. So no, they are not "separate," physically or legally. Neither do they have any rights. And what is their "value" exactly? Value according to whom or what metric?

Considering that the mother and baby occupy the same seat, no. Any point to make that is actually relevant?

So if a born child can sit on the parent's lap and they would not be eligible for the HOV lane?

This is a lie, the number of people in this nation that support killing babies numbers in the millions.

Killing babies is already illegal. Who's supporting that?

And most pro-lifers accept legal abortions in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is at stake. But that doesn’t describe the vast majority of abortions.

So what? There's no legal basis or justification for abortion restrictions at all.

So to be clear, you don’t believe that unborn babies have any inherent value as human beings independent of their mothers?

If they're unborn, they are not independent. And what is their "value" again? Explain or quantify this "value!"

Considering that the definition of “baby” includes the unborn, yes they do. And those that support it only do so as a means to an end rather than an end to itself—they consider the mother’s autonomy to be more important than the baby’s life.

"Baby" is an umbrella term to describe a child from birth to toddlerhood. The proper term for the unborn (after 8 weeks gestation) is 'fetus.' Applying the term "baby" to then unborn is just an emotionally appealing or common used term.

Yes, it’s called nuance. There are very few issues that are purely black and white. In this case, most pro-lifers acknowledge that women shouldn’t be forced to go through a pregnancy they didn’t choose to risk (which isn’t the same as assuming responsibility for the life created through their own assumption of risk), so long as the abortion is carried out early enough.

Who says a woman is obligated to endure gestation regardless of the reason? By legal precedent, no one can be compelled to have their body or bodily resources used to support another.

So you have no problem with the law itself—that recognizes the baby as a separate entity, with harm inflicted on them worthy a separate penalty? Because that’s what this law does, and all the pro-lifers want is that the law be enforced.

The law does no such thing. The law only applies when harm is inflicted against the pregnant woman, thus forcibly harming her and removing her choice.

It’s the pro-choicers that oppose the existence of the law itself, on the ideological grounds that unborn babies are things, not people … not that much different from the antebellum slave owners, except that the unborn aren’t economically useful.

That's because fetal homicide laws are illogical and are based more on emotion than reason.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, it’s called nuance.

But you're only considering the nuance for "your side". If abortion is "killing a baby" it remains "killing a baby" regardless of why it is being carried out. There are just different opinions on the circumstances under which that killing can or should be carried out anyway. The very fact it is nuanced is why such simplistic rhetoric (in any direction) is just wrong.

So you have no problem with the law itself—that recognizes the baby as a separate entity, with harm inflicted on them worthy a separate penalty?

As you say, it's nuanced, and this is even before looking so much wider than just abortion. I totally agree with the concept that violent crime against a pregnant woman that also causes harm to the child is worthy of additional penalty, but I also agree with those who say it is not necessary to legally define a fetus as a fully independent individual to achieve that, and that it is perfectly clear that the push in that direction is intended to influence the abortion question rather than provide any better protection or recompense for the victims of violent crime.

Because that’s what this law does, and all the pro-lifers want is that the law be enforced. It’s the pro-choicers that oppose the existence of the law itself, on the ideological grounds that unborn babies are things, not people … not that much different from the antebellum slave owners, except that the unborn aren’t economically useful.

I couldn't care less about the idiots who would label themselves or others "pro-life" or "pro-choice". Again, that directly contradicts the idea of nuance you brought up yourself. If there was an easy answer, we'd all be using it already.

 

[Lursa]

Officials urged to charge cop who allegedly strangled pregnant woman with murdering unborn baby

SharePro-life activists are calling for a former Stoughton, Massachusetts police detective, alleged to have murdered a young woman after having sexually abused her for years, to…

catholicvote.org

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

Who supports killing babies? Starting a thread based on some dystopian concept isnt very solid ground for credibility.

 

[phoenix2020]

Eat 'em while their bones are still soft!

Since they’re eating the dogs, the cats and the pets, JD Vance might as well start eating babies as well.

 

[quip]

Officials urged to charge cop who allegedly strangled pregnant woman with murdering unborn baby

SharePro-life activists are calling for a former Stoughton, Massachusetts police detective, alleged to have murdered a young woman after having sexually abused her for years, to…

catholicvote.org

Naturally, those that support killing babies oppose anything that recognizes those babies as separate people with their own value as human beings.

Rather sad that the thrust of this article ultimately digressed into political partisanship:

Severino said adding the second charge is no simple feat, given the Biden-Harris administration’s unwavering support of abortion:​

​

It will take political pressure for them to charge what they should have done from the very beginning … Under the current administration, there isn’t a snowball’s chance that they would support an Unborn Victims of Violence Act charge given their radical pro-abortion policies.​

Makes one wonder about the true motivation for this piece. Was its inspiration shaped from human empathy or was this tragedy a convenient opportunity for an anti-abortion stump speech?

Given your bombastic reaction... seems the latter was cause for motivation.

 

[collected]

So what? There's no legal basis or justification for abortion restrictions at all.

It has already been adjudicated (in the US) under Dobbs that abortion bans have legal basis and justification. The Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Therefore your statement is false.

 

[collected]

Do you support allowing pregnant women to drive alone in the HOV lanes?

No because HOV is meant to encourage people to carpool. The law could be changed to allow born persons as those counting toward the HOV lane while unborn persons don't count.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

No because HOV is meant to encourage people to carpool. The law could be changed to allow born persons as those counting toward the HOV lane while unborn persons don't count.

So now you're saying that fetuses don't have the rights as any other citizen BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BORN?? Why is that?

 

[collected]

So now you're saying that fetuses don't have the rights as any other citizen BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BORN?? Why is that?

Yes, children don't have the same rights/privileges as other citizens as well. For example, children are unable to bear firearms even though it's a constitutionally protected right. Additionally, driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Gordy327]

It has already been adjudicated (in the US) under Dobbs that abortion bans have legal basis and justification. The Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Therefore your statement is false.

All Dobbs did was remand abortion to the states. But no legal justification has been defined for abortion restrictions.

No because HOV is meant to encourage people to carpool. The law could be changed to allow born persons as those counting toward the HOV lane while unborn persons don't count.

Why the double standard? Either the unborn are persons or not? If they are persons, then technically it is carpooling.

 

[weaver2]

[URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/inherent']
Cambridge Dictionary: inherent: existing as a natural and permanent quality of something or someone:
[/URL]
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inherent
Dictionary.com: inherent: adjective. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute;

And most pro-lifers accept legal abortions in cases of rape/incest and when the life of the mother is at stake. But that doesn’t describe the vast majority of abortions.
So to be clear, you don’t believe that unborn babies have any inherent value as human beings independent of their mother

If abortion is OK in cases of rape, incest or life and health of the mother then the fetus is not inherently valuable and you are picking and choosing based on popular culture which fetuses you will advocate for and which are OK to abort.

You are simply voting yourself in as chief arbiter as to which women get to abort. I do not believe any conservative male is the best person to decide which women are allowed to abort and which are required to give birth. How about we let women and their families decide whether or not they can care for a child or another child.

Or better yet, start a program giving all women access to highly effective contraceptives that women control and reduce the need for abortions.