The below quotes are from two DU threads that are old.
One can be found here:
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies.The other here:
Do You Think A Person Who Kills A Woman Who Is Pregnant Should Be Charged with 2 Homicides?theorist (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 08:23 PM
Original message
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies
SAN JOSE – A man who was arrested for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend was being held on a murder charge Sunday following the death of the fetus the woman was carrying, police said.
The 25-year-old woman was 18 weeks pregnant when the male fetus was delivered dead Saturday, said San Jose Police Sgt. Steve Dixon. She was hospitalized early Saturday after she told police that her boyfriend, Clifford Beane Watkins, allegedly choked her and kicked her in the stomach at a local motel, he said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-...
So what do the DUmbasses think of charging this guy with homicide? Well, based on how butt-hurt they got over the guy who killed some sea turtle eggs you'd think they'd be all for the murder charge. Surprisingly enough, some of them are for it.
Egalitariat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think the earliest anyone's been born and survived was in
the early 20's. As in weeks.
I'm sure this thread is going to turn in a referendum on abortion laws, but the mother did not choose to terminate this pregnancy.
I'm glad they're going to prosecute this dude for murder. The choice was not his.
The above post also answers the age old question of when is murdering a child really murder. The answer is apparently that it is murder if the mother does not CHOOSE to do it. In other words, if a mother chooses to kill her baby it is not murder. If someone else murders the baby without the mothers okay then it is murder. Confusing ain't it.
But wait just a minute, a DUmmie realizes that considering the murder of any unborn baby an actual murder maybe could be used to limit their hobby of unborn baby killing.
aikido15 (637 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Exactly...
that's why John Kerry voted against the Lacy Peterson Law...if a fetus is considered a person in a murder charge, then abortion would be considered murder. Scott Peterson got the shaft and his case will be used by pro-lifers now to push their stupid agenda.
That nice, polite and caring young man, Scott Peterson, who murdered his wife and unborn baby was given the shaft so we mean ole pro-lifers can push our stupid agenda of halting their hobby of murdering unborn babies.
hollywood926 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Are you high?
Scott Peterson murdered TWO people. Laci intended to have the child and therefore it was murder. It would have been murder at ten weeks if she intended to have the child. It's HER choice, not anyone else's. That's the whole point of the pro-choice movement!
Same goes with this case.
democraticrevolution (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. You make a good point
I hear what you are saying about intent. In this case the man who is being charged with murder should be charged if the mother intended to have the baby which looks like she did.
Two more DUmbass chime in that if the mother wants the unborn baby murder then the baby is just a bunch of cells that is acceptable to kill, BUT if the mother doesn't want the unborn baby murdered it magically becomes an actual baby and murdering it murder.
Spin, DUmbasses, spin.
But another DUmbass realizes that such think, as convoluted as it is, may hurt their unborn baby killing past time.
Sandpiper (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. You've constructed a fine house of cards
But here's the problem with your reasoning.
The textbook definition of murder is: the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.
What you're proposing is, a fetus is a human being in a case such as this, but not a human being for abortion purposes.
Not only is there no chance in hell that this reasoning would withstand judicial scrutiny, but you've also armed the anti-choice movement with the argument they need to get abortion outlawed: If a fetus is a human being in some cases, it's a human being in all cases.
But never fear, yet another DUmbass has an answer that will solve everything.
wickerwoman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
60. Isn't this why we have aggravated assault laws?
Murder charges aren't the only ones on the books. People are acting like it's murder or getting off scot-free. In fact, if the evidence is there he could be doing a significant stint for aggravated assault.
Women have a choice about whether or not they want to carry the baby. They do not have the ultimate authority to decide who is a human being and who isn't. Hinging it all on the woman's intention is an extremely slippery slope. Not only is it almost impossible to prove what the woman intended, it also invests her with the God-like power of confering humanity on another being. It would be a complete legal disaster.
See? Now it's all solved. If you beat the hell out of a pregnant woman enough to kill her unborn baby then it is AGGRAVATED assault. If you beat the hell out of her but don't kill her unborn baby I guess it's just plain old assault. Or maybe friend assault. I wonder what it would be if she wanted to kill the baby and you beat the hell out of her enough to grant her wish and kill the baby? Would that be okay? Just plain old assault? Aggravated assault?
Then there is some entertainment consisting of several DUmbasses having a slap fight that I haven't brought over.
Finally a DUmbass comes up with a real answer to the question at hand.
Erika (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. Does the IRS consider a fetus a dependent for tax purposes?
No.
Is the taliban right in America willing to force a woman to give birth against her will? That is the real question. Will they declare themselves the moral factor to determine the fate of her body?
Do men play any role or responsibility?
The wacky right wingers might decide a woman must carry a fetus to birth unless the fetus occurred through rape or incest. Does this fact change the rights of the fetus or the mother? How will the taliban rule in the gray areas. Do the taliban belong in women's reproductive rights.
This issue is typical of the wacky right. I had my good Republican friend say she would vote against the right of abortion as a method of birth control. We've been friends for years. When I brought up she paid for her step-daughter's abortion years ago, she bristled. She said "that was different", her step-daughter had been on drugs at that time and that is why she paid for the abortion. I said "ok".
This last election ended our friendship.
I suppose this means that if the IRS doesn't count the unborn baby as a dependent then it is open season on unborn babies. Boo for killing deers for food!!!! Yea for killing unborn babies for sport!!!!!
Have I mentioned lately that I despise the DUmbasses? By the way, I apologize to my fellow Cavers if I have offended any of you by calling DUers DUmbasses but calling them primitives and DUmmies just doesn't get my thoughts across sometimes.
Uh Oh! We're now going to have a DUmbass solve the problem completely by using the Bible. We all know how great and vast their knowledge is when it comes to the Bible so I'm sure all of us mean pro-lifers are going to be put in our place. Ready? Here it comes....
daleo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-26-04 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
20. Here is a verse from the Bible, that seems to cover the case
Basically, it seems to say that killing the woman is murder, but making her lose the fetus is not a capital crime. FWIW.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm
Exodus 21:22 If men strive an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
One source comments that because some Bible translations (KJV, RSV) use the phrase "woman with child" that God considers a fetus to be a human child. 3 But other translations render the phrase simply as "pregnant woman" and make no direct reference to the fetus.
This verse describes a situation in which a man, who is fighting another man, accidentally hits a pregnant woman, and causes a termination of her pregnancy. The following verse, 23, explains that if the woman died, the guilty man would be executed by the state. The accidental killing of a woman under these circumstances was considered a capital offense, because she was a human person.
Verse 22 is confusing. The key Hebrew word "yatsa" literally means to "lose her offspring." 4 This has been translated in different Bible versions as:
A miscarriage: This would imply that the fetus died immediately as a direct result of the accident. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that the woman does not die), the man responsible would have to pay at a fine. The amount would be set by her husband and approved by the judges. This would imply that the death of the fetus was not considered to be the death of a human person. If it were, then the man responsible would be tried for murder and executed. However, because the fetus had possible future economic worth to the father, he would have to be reimbursed for his loss.
premature birth: This implies that the fetus is born earlier than full term. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that neither the woman nor the baby dies) then the man would pay a fine. One possible interpretation of this passage would be that if the premature baby died, then the man responsible had killed a human person, and would be tried for murder. The verse is ambiguous at this point.
Let me make sure that you understand that the DUmbass has concluded that the Bible says that killing the woman is murder, but making her lose the fetus is not a capital crime.
Now let's take a look at the actual verses. I know. I know. We shouldn't question the Biblical wisdom of the most depraved congregation of people since Sodom and Gomorrah, but let's do it just to say we did.
Exodus 21: 22-23
Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,Hmmm. If a man hits a pregnant women and causes her to give birth prematurely and no other injuries results the assailant must pay a fine BUT if there is further injury, like maybe the baby dying?, the assailant should be put down for good.
Could the DUmbass be wrong? Surely not as they have such a good track record when it comes to Biblical knowledge.
A couple of DUmbasses pat the incorrect Bible quoting DUmbass on the back. Then they drift back to the government.
You know, all of this spinning is causing me a headache. If you get some time go check out the two DUmbass links. They are amazing and show the DUmbasses in all of their filth.
