I was reading a magazine article about that pregnant lady who had gone missing about a month ago. They had found her and her unborn baby, and the boyfriend was convicted. He was charged with murder of both his girlfriend AND her unborn baby.
How is it that he was charged with murder of the unborn baby? Isn't it the same concept of abortion (especially Partial-Birth Abortion)? If abortion is not murder, then how come ending the life of a fetus IS?
P.S. I'm a pro-lifer. I'm not sticking up for this guy. I just want you opinions (especially legal opinions)!
2007-07-05 12:30:24 · 19 answers · asked by cve5190 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Andrea Yates made the choice about not wanting her five children, too....
2007-07-05 12:52:45 · update #1
I'm sorry, he HAS NOT been convicted, only charged.
2007-07-05 12:54:31 · update #2
In our country, it is only legal to murder a fetus if IT'S OWN MOTHER does it...sick pups, eh?
2007-07-05 12:34:57 · answer #1 · answered by sage 4 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Keep in mind that he was not convicted of both murders, he was charged with them. The burden will be on the state to convince a jury that the fetus was viable and it's death meats the standard for murder. It's simple really. If the jury says it was two murders, then it was two murders. An appellate court may overturn the verdict but until and unless that happens, the jury rules.
If your wondering what the difference is between that and what happens when a woman chooses to abort, it was the Supreme court that ruled in Roe v Wade that made a woman's right to chose the law of the land. How you feel. How I feel. Doesn't really matter does it? The law's not asking our opinion.
2007-07-05 12:47:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Killing a fetus" isn't he same thing as "killing a person" which would be murder. Even if the law defines it as murder, it's not murder in the case of abortion because court decisions like Roe v. Wade say it's not. That's inconsistent, yes, but it's the law, and the law is inconsistent all the time.
Now, if you want to accuse a person of being inconsistent for supporting this law against killing a fetus while also being pro-choice, that's a different story. You'd have a case there. I still think you'd lose the case, because as I noted above, you can oppose someone else killing someone's fetus without their permission without defining it as murder.
2007-07-05 13:57:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is called 'relativism' meaning that the life only has value according to the determination of mother...or person carrying the fetus, if the baby is unwanted. The age of the fetus is not taken into consideration if the woman lives, and even if she DOESN'T live, if the father or family is involved and it's clear that the woman wanted to continue with the pregnancy, the attorney general or district attorney can most certainly choose to attempt to prosecute the case, and will probably win.
2007-07-05 12:51:59 · answer #4 · answered by IRSmart 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Historically it has never been a double murder to kill a pregnant women, as homocide required that the person be alive. Even when abortion was illegal in this country it was not murder, it was a crime, but did not carry the same punishment as murder.
Since Roe v. Wade the pro-life lobby has managed to convince states to make killing a pregnant women double murder. This has been done purely for political reasons. To create an inconsitancy for agurment purposes such as the one you are making.
It really does nothing punshment-wise. One murder carries the same sentence as two, defendant do not go to jail twice as long becaue it is single act.
2007-07-05 14:40:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because in that state, the law states that if a baby is ABLE TO SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB, if someone causes the death of that baby, they can be charged with murder. But ONLY if the baby is far enough along to be able to survive outside. She was like 36 weeks pregnant and so the baby had a better than 90% chance of surviving if born at that time.
2007-07-05 12:34:55 · answer #6 · answered by slushpile reader 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is specifically determined by the statutory definition of a "life in being", in the state where this occurred. For example, in Arkansas you cannot do this because a "life in being" is only possible where a baby is live-birthed. If the baby doesn't take a single breath on its own, then it isn't alive. Other states have other rules.
2007-07-05 13:14:59 · answer #7 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very smart observation! I too am a "pro-lifer" and am a member of the American Life League with Judie Brown as President or Chairperson or whatever her specific title is, and I recommend you visit their website at www.ALL.org. And you'll love her new book "Saving Those Damned Catholics" which is not a condemnation of Catholics, only the "pro-choicers". It's a great book to read and you'll see just how strong she and the organization is in all their pro-life / anti-abortion work is. Thanks for your great question. God Bless you.
2007-07-05 12:44:03 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The woman was almost nine months pregnant. The baby would have been considered full term had it been born. It was no longer a fetus, it was a human being. I am also pro life. But I am pro choice.
2007-07-05 12:43:53 · answer #9 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It depends on how far into the pregnancy the woman is. If the fetus is developed enough to where it could survive outside the womb, then it's considered murder.
2007-07-05 12:34:29 · answer #10 · answered by dirtymartini 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because that baby is just alive as the parent is. We think that because the baby isnt walking and talking its not alife. The day that baby was conceived in the womb it had a soul. The safest place on earth should be in a mothers womb. America has been demoralized with the fact that life can be taken by anyone who freely wants too. God is the giver and taker of life. We are not our own, we are bought with a price.
2007-07-05 12:39:24 · answer #11 · answered by Gabe F 1 · 5⤊ 3⤋