Im pro-choice and even I have to say yes. I heard that California law has never tried a case like this (considering the death of an un-borne fetus murder), is there any legal precidence for this type of double murder?
Presuming you’re talking about the Petersen case -
do we know that the baby was un-born?
Wasn’t the body of the baby found at a distance from the mother?
If the mother wants it, it is.
The baby would be fully developed and could live outside of the mothers womb.
I believe most everyone would agree on this.
I think that this is the law that Peterson is charged with offending:
Other states have laws similar to this, but I don’t know if anyone has ever been prosecuted under them.
Yes, it’s a baby…
The baby was most likely born(dead) post-mortem
If mom views the fetus as an individual, (and most mothers who want to carry the child to term ‘do’), then that is an individual person IMO.
Yes, when the baby is viable outside of the womb, and/or when the baby is killled against the mother’s wishes. Both these things apply in the Peterson case, so damned straight it’s a baby.
My son was born at 31 weeks. You do the math.
‘If the mom thinks it’s a baby it’s a baby’ —???
Please. Mommy doesn’t decide those issues my friend. Otherwise I’d be an eggplant.
Look, if you want to call an 8 month fetus a baby go ahead, but it’s odd to call it a person just because of what the mother thinks of it.
Ah, therefore, if a child is born at 31 weeks, it’s not really a baby and deserves no legal protection! Or maybe it deserves no legal protection the day before it was born!
This will finally make my point that RoevWade is the best legal tool the pro-lifers have.
Read the whole thing, not just the summary and conclusion. It should be an eye-opener for everyone on both sides.
And why should this be the case, rather than basing its “babyhood” on its intrinsic qualities?
… And it’s odd to call it anything just because of “mom’s” opinion on the matter. Why is mom’s opinion even an issue here?
Dogface: You (and apparently some others) are glossing over two very important items that matter in regards to the case that generated this thread:
[list=1][li]Once the birth has occurred, the one born is now a person by law.[/li][li]The law relating to homicide in California does not say baby; therefore, it is irrelevant if the fetus is or is not a baby. What the law says is fetus[sup]1[/sup]. Remember one can kill someone’s pet dog and it’s not murder, although the legislature could amend the law relating to homicide to make it so. In the twenty-some states which do not have a fetal homicide law, killing a fetus is not murder. In those states which have such a law, it is if the killing qualifies for prosecution under such law.[/li]
NOTE: I am NOT equating a human fetus in utero with a pet dog. I am merely pointing out that what matters is what the law states–NOT what someone’s feeling about the situation is.
[sup]1[/sup]Robb. SDMB, GD Forum, 04-21-2003 04:50 PM PDT.
[/list=1]
Your mother thinks you’re an eggplant?
The point at which a fetus/infant becomes a person or “deserves” legal protection cannot be determined with absolute precision and is always going to be a matter of opinion. But the law has to draw the line anyway–in a number of different curcumstances–and this cannot always be done with consistency to absolutist principles. Pragmatism counts for a great deal. If I think it’s absurd to treat a 12 week old fetus as a though it were a person and you think it’s absurd to treat an 8 1/2 month old fetus as though it were nothing, then let’s split the difference.
The law cited by Robb makes a distinction between a fetus harmed or killed during an assault on a woman and a fetus killed during an abortion because that’s a distinction that needs to be made. If a woman is pregnant and has placed a lot of stake in her upcoming motherhood, we don’t want some thug to get away with killing her unborn whatever. But if a woman is facing a crisis pregnancy, we do want her to be able to nip the problem in the bud ASAP.
No one is clamoring for the right to elective abortions in the final days of pregnancy, so tight restrictions here isn’t a problem. Yet we do allow exeptions in cases of severe comlications because there there is a need. And even many staunch pro-lifers are willing to make exceptions in cases of rape or incest, meaning that they too are willing to accept a bit of pragmatism.
Our laws should strive for as much consistency as possible, but when principles collide, accomodations and compromises must be made in order to make them workable in the real world.
That is significantly different than;
Unless you equate the wants of the woman a crisis. If that is the case, every year I write a check to the IRS we are in crisis mode and I demand my representatives make a law allowing the abortion of said crisis, because of my wants.
[nitpick]SCOTUS seems to disagree with you when they said they “need not determine when a fetus becomes a person” (paraphrasing from memory) [/nitpick]
Bullshit
If people are saying (even in this thread) that the status of the organism in the uterus depends solely on the “mother’s” opinion…then that is exactly one of the rights that they wish to have.
(I’m not claiming that all or most pro choice folks are of this opinion. I am[ claiming that there are significant numbers of pro choice folks who would want that right up to AT LEAST delivery. AHunter has even stated that his preference would be to have the “mother” have the right to make the decision about the status of the newborn, after it is born, but before the cord is cut.)