Man Tricks Girlfriend Into Getting Abortion; Faced Life Sentence for Murder

[Jeff]

This makes sense( I guess ) seriously how can you have a abortion because the fetus isn't a baby but yet you can be charged for the murder of a fetus the same age? I am posting this not so much to take a stance but to see what others think when it is explained like this.

For the record I believe the guy that tricked his Gf has to be guilty of something.



Liberals say that an unborn baby is not actually a person. That’s why we can end an unborn baby’s life “legally.” It’s not murder, because murder is illegal. Abortion is legal; therefore, it must not be murder. Q.E.D.If it’s not a person, then why is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered, and her unborn child also dies, the murderer is charged with a double homicide? I thought it wasn’t a person. Didn’t the Supreme Court “settle” that issue over 40 years ago?


http://lastresistance.com/4547/man-tricks-girlfriend-getting-abortion-faced-life-sentence-murder/

[revelarts]

It's Legal Double think. we've managed to get some states to make laws to protect the growing babies from attack and enforce murder and manslaughter law on those that kill the baby of a pregnant women.

the law recognizes the truth that the there's a growing child in the womb not "just a bunch of cells".

Abortion should be illegal as well but for now we just have to deal with the legal double think on the issue.
similar to the idea that was ok for slave owner to kill a black slave in Georgia but the same black man if set free in New York city if he were killed by the former slave owner would now be charged with murder.

the laws are not consistently turning on the fact that it's a Human being in all the cases above.
the laws are turning on the ideas of property rights, location and personal "choices" instead of the hard fact of Individual human rights.

[Missileman]

This makes sense( I guess ) seriously how can you have a abortion because the fetus isn't a baby but yet you can be charged for the murder of a fetus the same age? I am posting this not so much to take a stance but to see what others think when it is explained like this.

For the record I believe the guy that tricked his Gf has to be guilty of something.




http://lastresistance.com/4547/man-tricks-girlfriend-getting-abortion-faced-life-sentence-murder/

The guy is a scumbag, but plead guilty to prescription charges. The DA can charge murder all day long, he would never have gotten a conviction for it against a 6-7 week old fetus.

[fj1200]

This makes sense( I guess ) seriously how can you have a abortion because the fetus isn't a baby but yet you can be charged for the murder of a fetus the same age? I am posting this not so much to take a stance but to see what others think when it is explained like this.


It's Legal Double think.

Not necessarily. It sounds like a property argument to me. It can be argued that the woman is the one in a position to decide the life rights of an unborn child.


The DA can charge murder all day long, he would never have gotten a conviction for it against a 6-7 week old fetus.

That would depend on the law.

[revelarts]

Not necessarily. It sounds like a property argument to me. It can be argued that the woman is the one in a position to decide the life rights of an unborn child.



Then why can't be argued that the woman is the one in a position to decide the life rights of a newborn child FJ?

[fj1200]

Then why can't be argued that the woman is the one in a position to decide the life rights of a newborn child FJ?

A newborn? Because once a child has achieved the sainted age of cooing and cuteness it receives the benefits of state protection.

[revelarts]

A newborn? Because once a child has achieved the sainted age of cooing and cuteness it receives the benefits of state protection.

ok yeah, that may as well be it.
The property angle doesn't work.

I don't know what the law is for the case in question here
but Here's a law that's similar.


"To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes."

"This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004’’ or
‘‘Laci and Conner’s Law’’."

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN....
..‘‘CHAPTER 90A—PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN...
‘‘Sec.
‘‘1841. 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 (as defined in section 1365) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty
of a separate offense under this section.
‘‘(2)(A) 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 punishment is to be the same as... because it's her property or

‘‘(d) As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means
a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is
in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’’.

‘‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally
kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead
of being punished..."


I'm not seeing any reference to the mothers ownership in these clauses.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide....[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act

[fj1200]

ok yeah, that may as well be it.
The property angle doesn't work.

I don't know what the law is for the case in question here
but Here's a law that's similar.

I'm not seeing any reference to the mothers ownership in these clauses.

Of course they don't reference that, I was speaking more to a natural rights perspective. If the child is not granted the the right to life then that leaves the child as property. In the case of these type laws that's the only thing that makes sense; the mother's attitude determines it's status.