He didn't "kill a baby"

[kiva]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025285973#post171

Or a child. Or an infant. He shot and killed a woman who was pregnant. He ended a pregnancy. He killed a zygote or a fetus. He did not kill a woman and her child and should not be charged with killing two people.

For decades anti-choice activists have used this sort of heated rhetoric to limit women's access to a safe and legal medical procedure - first women were 'killing babies', then 'murdering children'. Seeing these terms used here to encourage outrage is disheartening, and I'm hoping people will think about their language when they discuss this topic.

[Bonobo]

1. Whew, glad to see someone else noticed this glaring hypocrisy. nt

[BklnDem75]

76. Look up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[Bonobo]

78. Doesn't mean that there isn't hypocrisy

in play here.

[BklnDem75]

88. Don't really see the hypocrisy in this case

It's not an abortion issue, it's double murder.

[moriah]

93. What hypocrisy? Per the murderer, the mother begged for her "baby"'s life.

Now, I'll be honest here. I think that all the "embryo" and "fetus" language is silly. It's unborn human life. If one must duck behind scientific terms, it indicates one is uncomfortable with the choices they advocate women have in today's society. I do not believe that unborn life has precedence over a life already here. No other human being is expected to risk their life to be a heart-lung machine for another, even their own child, unless it is a pregnant woman, and I stand by that belief, even if the language isn't pleasant to use.

[CrispyQ]

106. This:

I do not believe that unborn life has precedence over a life already here. No other human being is expected to risk their life to be a heart-lung machine for another, even their own child, unless it is a pregnant woman

[moriah]

109. Glad you agree. That being said, the CHOICE to be a mother is a beautiful one.

And should be protected, including from intimate partners and gun-toting revenge-seekers, from the violence they are often targeted with due to their pregnancy.

We can't forget that the leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide.

There is a REASON for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It's not so much about the unborn child, as much as the mother's right to carry a pregnancy to term, or abort it, as SHE chooses. Not as someone chooses for her.

[kiva]

154. Language matters.

How do you think the anti-choice people were able to make the gains they have since Roe v Wade? They very deliberately started referring to babies, then children, being killed. Talking about zygotes and fetuses dying didn't rev up the support they wanted, so they changed the language. We all use the term baby or child rather than fetus in everyday discussions, but when it comes to discussing issues of life or death we need to be exact.

You may think it's silly, but using terms like 'babykiller' is how the Right has managed to restrict women's choices.

[MH1]

111. But it's irrelevant to the point that he shot a person who was running away, in the back. Twice.

He appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner for the apparent crime of burglary.


But anyway, I rec'd this thread and strongly agree with the OP - his cowardice was to kill a (maybe) pregnant woman, NOT killing her "baby". Although if she was far enough along that the fetus was viable, then we are talking semantics and it's not worth the attention it's getting. The REAL issue is that he killed someone and thinks it's A-OK.

[moriah]

115. If he gets charged with two counts of murder, I won't cry any.

Maybe had he not known she was pregnant, but the fact he knew and did it anyway, says if the UVVA applies I'll support it.

[MH1]

121. I wouldn't cry for him at all, but there is a troubling aspect for the reproductive rights movement.

The problem is that damn near everyone wants to oversimplify the whole discussion of abortion.

But the question of abortion at 5 weeks is different than preventing implantation and different than the question of abortion at 16 weeks. The question of abortion at 16 weeks is different than the question of abortion at 28 weeks.

But some want to make it all or nothing. To those people, either all "abortion" - at any point after "conception" - is "murder", or it isn't ever murder.

I think that's whacked, but it's how too many people see it. So, I don't want the law using any terminology that would equate terminating a pregnancy with murder. It is between a woman and a doctor, and if the question comes up when it would ethically be "murder", then the doctor's medical ethics should step in, she should deliver the healthy baby, and the baby given up for adoption.

[moriah]

124. I support the UVVA because it's more about the protection of pregnant women, not the baby, to me.

The leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. All too often pregnant women are killed specifically because of their pregnancy.

A penal system that recognizes this great discrepancy between rates of violence (20% vs 6% in non-pregnant women) is essential to the protection of women while they are pregnant, so they can exercise their freedom of choice.

[edgineered]

2. Good point.

Looking at things from that viewpoint sheds an entirely different light on things.

[Separation]

3. I have no dog in this hunt.

But has it even verified she was pregnant?

If she was pregnant how far along? I'm just curious.

IMO and this is just mine, if a child can survive on its own outside of the mother, that to me is considered another life. Again, just my opinion.

[kiva]

4. I was wondering about this too,

if maybe she said she was pregnant to persuade him not to shoot.

[MH1]

112. Agree on all points.

I'm as pro-choice as you'll find, but if she was headed to the hospital to give birth, then this is just a semantic argument.

AND, I have not seen where it has been verified that she was actually pregnant.

[enlightenment]

5. Very important distinction.

We cannot allow emotion to overrule logic and common sense.

[cpwm17]

6. It wasn't the gunman's choice to kill the future baby

which would have been born if he didn't commit murder. It wasn't his body or future baby so it's a double murder.

[kiva]

7. No it's not a double murder.

A fetus is not a person. A 'future baby' is not a person.

Authorities can charge him with killing the mother.

[cpwm17]

12. Abortion is the woman's choice

not the choice of a trigger happy gunman. He should be appropriately charged. Perhaps the judge can take the fact that the fetus wasn't born yet into consideration, but he did commit a worse crime by murdering her.

I know this can potentially open up a can of worms concerning the issue of abortion, but I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments. I think one should just do the right thing and charge him with double murder.

[gcomeau]

18. Which still doesn't make the fetus a person.

Murder is when you KILL A PERSON.

He killed one person, so he committed one murder. Arguing otherwise is, to be blunt, the kind of mindless reality-denying hysteria that the anti-choicers love to appeal to.

Killing one person is entirely enough to be outrages about without making up fictional reasons to get more outraged because somehow calling it one persons murder isn't satisfying enough for you.

[Union Scribe]

14. So if a man slips something to a pregnant woman

and it terminates the pregnancy but doesn't hurt the woman, in your view has he committed any crime?

[TorchTheWitch]

19. of course it is

It just isn't murder and shouldn't be considered murder as long as the potential child couldn't survive outside the woman's body. Slipping something into anyone's food or drink is a crime, and whether or not it physically "hurts" them is immaterial. Let's not forget that the loss of a wanted pregnancy is an emotional trauma for a woman, and emotional trauma IS a "hurt".

[Union Scribe]

25. What do you charge him with? nt

[Brickbat]

37. Assault.

[moriah]

103. Really. To a woman who WANTS her child, it's a child. Way to undervalue her feelings.

Guess there's no reason to have funerals for stillbirths, either. After all, it's not a child. The grieving... what, she's not a parent if it's not a child.... what is she? should just accept that and move on.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

156. There are a lot of men who'd take an assault charge....

....if they thought it got them out of 18 years of paying child support.

Just sayin'.

[cyberswede]

62. "nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy" nt

[TorchTheWitch]

120. for slipping the pills at all is assault

I don't know what the charge would be for slipping a pregnant woman something to terminate her pregnancy. Probably aggravated assault with included crimes of practicing medicine without a license without consent and with malicious contempt.

By the way, the process of a terminating pregnancy is physically traumatic unless the pregnancy was so early that it couldn't have been known about. The farther along the pregnancy the more physically traumatic though any terminating pregnancy can be fraught with danger.

It's mind boggling that you don't seem to understand that slipping someone ANYTHING is a crime against their person whether they feel that it effected them or not. There is no way to always know whether or not someone has been physically, mentally or emotionally effected by secretly having them ingest anything since there is always the possibility that some effect could have occurred without their noticing any symptoms or attributing any later symptoms to what they were secretly given. To imagine that slipping a woman some kind of drug that terminates her pregnancy is somehow NOT any kind of a crime is far more mind blowing... perhaps even more so than imagining that a pregnancy could terminate without any "hurt".

[jeff47]

29. Yes. Assault and battery against the woman. (nt)

[Ilsa]

56. And she could recover financially

any expense, such as medical, that she went through as a pregnant woman or for fertility treatments or if the fetus is born with a disability.

She would need to be pretty far along for the fetus to survive outside the womb without harm to it.

[moriah]

101. For the purposes of qualifying for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, it was a person.

And they can and should charge him with killing both, since he admitted to knowingly shooting a pregnant woman.

[enlightenment]

9. No, he did not "kill the future baby".

A fetus is only a potential - not a person. You can't murder a potential.

[kcr]

49. It wasn't his body. Thank you!

Ending a woman's pregnancy against her will is wrong. Just because women have choice doesn't mean it's okay for others to make that choice for them. Being pro-choice doesn't ignore the fact that pregnancy and birth are a desired outcome for many.

[pnwmom]

8. In some states a fetus has the same status as a baby IF

it's past the age where an abortion would still be legal.

Does anyone know how far along this woman was in her pregnancy?

[No Vested Interest]

20. Didn't the gunman say she couldn't run fast because she was pregnant?

That would indicate she wasn't newly pregnant.

[Hekate]

22. No, what he said was that SHE claimed she couldn't run as fast as her boyfriend because she was PG

.... And the old man took her word for it. Then he shot her. Twice.

As to how far along she was or whether it was even true or not, we have not seen one shred of evidence presented at this board. I've been asking that here all day.

Also I looked up the news item online. As of this afternoon, nothing was said beyond the old mans statement, and I find that rather odd, because you think that SOMEone at the scene would have talked to the media if they saw she had a big belly. Maybe it will come out tomorrow, but as I say, it's odd that no one at the scene mentioned any such thing.

[Hekate]

173. AS OF TODAY, AUTOPSY SHOWS SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT. Like I said, not one shred of evidence...

....was presented here -- just the word of a home-invasion robber and elder-abuser who was fleeing for her life and made a lying bid for sympathy.

[moriah]

10. He murdered a woman. Shooting a fleeing person in the fucking back is murder.

And the only person who gets to make the decision to end a pregnancy is the mother. Not some revenge-happy gun owner.

[nomorenomore08]

11. Like others, I wonder how far along she was. But your overall point still stands. n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

13. So now its a decision between a woman, her doctor and any gunman in the immediate area?

Thanks for keeping us up to date.

Strange bedfellows indeed. This takes ideological blindness to a whole new plateau.

Is the millennia old convention of not executing pregnant women also anti-choice?

[PowerToThePeople]

39. +HUGE!!!11!!!

No kidding.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. regardless, he shot someone in the back...

that used to be a sign of cowardice. I guess not in our Brave New World.

[mwrguy]

16. Rick Santorum says it's a baby

I would hope we thought different around here.

[MurrayDelph]

17. I don't know why this is so hard a concept to grasp

(unless it is deliberately being misinterpreted)

If the woman carrying the fetus says it's a baby, then it's a baby.

If she wants to keep it and someone forces it out of her, it's a crime.

If she wants to get rid of it, that's her business.

The fact that she may have been committing a crime at the time does not take the choice away from her.

Anti-choice people (who are not pro-life, despite the pleasant-sounding label) keep trying to paint pro-choice as pro-abortion. I think a few folks on the board are playing into their hands (or possibly come from that mindset and are trying to "prove" it via pretense).

[whatthehey]

36. I'm sorry, will does not change science

Regardless of who wills it. A fetus is a fetus because of its stage in development, not because it is wanted or not. It doesn't become a baby just because it's a wanted fetus.

[MurrayDelph]

137. You are technically correct, and socially so fucking wrong

Will is everything in this case.

Let's take this out of the technical for the moment:

When I was a kid, I collected comic books, and bubblegum cards.

Once, my father decided it was crap and threw it into the trash (I was able to recover them).

Many people may have agreed with him that it was technically junk, but it wasn't his place to decide that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. No. A person does not require anyone's stamp of legitimacy.

If the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder.
If the fetus isn't, then the shooter killed one person.

I subscribe to the latter view.

The issue isn't whether the shooter may (or may not) be simultaneously guilty of several crimes against the robber, but whether he's guilty of a crime against the fetus.

That can only be the case if the fetus is a person.

[kiva]

95. This ^^

[kcr]

99. If fetuses were outside of another person's body, you'd have a point

If your point is based on semantics, then I'd be fine with calling the charge something else. But causing an abortion against a woman's will should be a a serious crime regardless of what you call it.

[BklnDem75]

105. Feticide is still a homicide

So it's still double murder.

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. So it's a person whom only mom is allowed to kill? nt

[BklnDem75]

144. According to California Penal Code 187

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

Number 3 says it all

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. So, the answer is yes.

Thanks.

[BklnDem75]

147. Did you read it?

I'm sure 'fetus' is in there too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

150. I sure did.

The relevant parts boiled down;

187. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
unless...
The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.

The fact that I find that a morally and ethically indefensible position is a different question from whether or not it's the law.

The law in California says that a fetus is a person who should not be killed except by the mother.

[BklnDem75]

151. Where does it say a fetus is a person?

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

Why add 'or a fetus' if they're one and the same?

[Hekate]

21. Thank you. I got bashed up one side and down the other on that issue.

People in that thread went from "she said she was pregnant and he said she said she was" right up to talking about a "8 month fetus" without one shred of evidence that it was a fact. Have the cops or the EMTs or neighbors made note of seeing such a thing? Nobody here has even bothered to find out.

AFAIC she could have been lying to play on his sympathy -- after all, she had just participated in a home invasion robbery and helped beat/injure a very old man. Why wouldn't she lie about this or anything else?

Second point, conceding she might have told the truth: our language. "The baby" and "the kid" were phrases used over and over again as though the female robber were carrying an infant swaddled in a baby blanket in her arms.

You are absolutely right, kiva. There was no baby, there was no child. At most there was a fetus. The terminology is being used to add outrage to outrage, to separate the fetus or zygote from its mother and to confer individual personhood upon something that does not exist, that cannot exist, apart from the womb inside its mother.

It's enough that the woman was killed and it's enough that an old man with a badly injured arm and shoulder was enraged enough to fire at a fleeing robber and later on still enraged enough to say to the cops and in front of cameras, "Yes, I did it" and a couple of other choice things. That whole thread is just nuts, IMO.

[moriah]

23. How anyone could shoot a person in the back astounds me.

The fact that he was willing to do it when she said she was pregnant, and another innocent life was at risk, tells me he had absolutely no compassion for another human being.

I understand defending yourself, but not revenge. That's what shooting someone in the back who is fleeing is -- revenge.

[Uncle Joe]

24. I couldn't agree more, moriah. n/t

[Hekate]

26. Rage and pain don't stop on a dime, do they? Not justifying her death, just sayin' there's more...

... to this sorry episode that some in the original thread were making it out to be.

[Lee-Lee]

34. Anger and adrenaline don't turn off in an instant when one has been fighting for ones life

The man was savagely attacked in his own home sustaining injuries.

The attacks and home invasion only ended quickly because he was able to grab his gun, then they fled.

While legally wrong, it's easy to see how that man who had just been literally fighting for his very life didn't turn off that instinct in a few seconds.

In a similar situation, imagine a woman has just been raped and has a chance to stab her attacker in the back as he turns to leave after he finishes the attack. Legally wrong in many states, but I could easily understand it if she did.

[moriah]

83. Give me a break, please. The man bragged about murdering a pregnant woman.

It's not like I'm advocating the death penalty for murder, like he did for robbery.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

113. From what I saw him saying in video clips

the savage attack was them knocking him down as they moved through his house, admittedly breaking his collarbone, given that older folks are a bit more brittle than younger ones. He was able to get back up and go and grab a gun because they weren't continuously attacking him, or beating him up. They knocked him down while trying to get back out of his house, he got up, went in another room, grabbed the gun, and chased them with it.

That's not what I would call 'fighting for your life'.

If he'd actually been 'fighting for his life', he'd have been dead here, not her, because they wouldn't have let him get back up and go into the other room to get the gun.

[Hekate]

148. He should have just made them a pot of tea, and then held the door open for them...

...as they carried away his possessions. I'm sure they would have helped set his broken collarbone and shoulder before leaving.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

158. How much of a head start should he have given them before calling "the pigs"?

That's the only debate left for some DU'ers, apparently.

[Hekate]

170. Should have at least let their car get out of sight. That seems only right and just.

IMHO

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

175. Or just give them your car

Fuck private property and all.

[Hekate]

176. What's yours is mine. How dare you have more than me? How dare anyone think otherwise?nt

[Capt. Obvious]

38. Reminds me of

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

159. That episode disturbed me as a child

Really bad.

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. I am pro-life

for my own personal ethical choice (and one I do not impose on others as I
ALWAYS vote for choice), and completely agree with you and the OP.

[kiva]

74. Yes that thread went crazy.

I started this thread because I wanted to expand on the point that some people (and I think you) were trying to make in that thread, which is that referring to her pregnancy as a baby or child is playing into the rhetoric of anti-choicers

[raccoon]

27. K&R. nt

[leftyohiolib]

28. "He did not kill a woman and her child " i dont recall you being elected as the decider of these

things. he ended 2 lives - didnt he?

[jeff47]

30. Only if you believe abortion is murder. (nt)

[leftyohiolib]

31. but it wasnt an abortion per se some gunfreak gunned down a pregnant woman

stopping 2 lives

[jeff47]

60. Then abortion is murder.

If this "stopped 2 lives" then abortion stops a life. And thus, is murder.

That's why "stopped 2 lives" is not the correct way to look at this situation.

[leftyohiolib]

100. well stopped 2 lives is what happened and is the way to look at this situation otherwise

you ignore the pregnancy. but i dont see why it has to be statement on abortion.

[jeff47]

108. No, you don't ignore the pregnancy. You charge a different crime.

It's one murder, and one assault and battery.

but i dont see why it has to be statement on abortion.

Only people can be murdered.

The central argument of anti-abortion idiots is fetuses are people.

If we say this is two murders, we are agreeing with the central argument of anti-abortion idiots. We are saying a fetus is a person.

Abortion becomes justifiable homicide instead of a medical procedure - the mother is allowed to kill a person without being prosecuted.

Which now means anti-abortion idiots only have to strip off the "justifiable" part instead of convincing everyone it's homicide to begin with.

[leftyohiolib]

122. doesnt A&B imply personhood- only people can be murdered.cant only people be A&B"D ?

doesnt that apply

[jeff47]

127. The person being assaulted is the woman.

The battery is the harm caused to the woman, which resulted in the end of her pregnancy without her consent.

[leftyohiolib]

135. ok ..nt

[cyberswede]

61. He ended one life and terminated one pregnancy

That it was without the woman's consent should make it a crime, but not a second murder.

[leftyohiolib]

104. you just playing word games like when john boner could say the word compromise

ending one life + teminating one life = ending 2 lives. we look at a baskeball i say it's a basket ball and youre saying no it's a orange round ball used in a game
look up Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[cyberswede]

110. Terminating a pregnancy isn't terminating a life.

I'm not playing word games at all.

A life is a living breathing human being. A fetus isn't.

And regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then he or she would have a constitutional right to life.

If you're anti-choice, that's your own business, but when you support the bullshit claim that an unborn fetus is a "life" that can be murdered, that crosses the line into affecting the choice of other people, which is wrong.

[leftyohiolib]

119. "Terminating a pregnancy isn't terminating a life." to many it is

if a fetus is not life than what is it- is the fetus dead? it's growing multiplying .take in nutrients excretes waste . the heart starts beating at 6 weeks - if it's not life then why after 9 months does life come out?

regarding the uvov act
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.

[Hekate]

177. Except she lied to save her ass after her boyfriend ran like a bunny rabbit

She was not pregnant, says the Coroner.

[NCTraveler]

32. I don't agree.

Terminating the pregnancy was not his choice. It is a difficult subject and I do understand the ramifications of the verbiage used. Her body, her choice. If someone ends a woman's pregnancy without her approval, they should face more than assault and battery charges. To most women who are pregnant, they are with child. Another basic and understandable concept.

[Lee-Lee]

35. It's a damn slippery slope

In a legal sense you can't have a person that is or is not a person.

If the fetus is, then it is.

You can't grant right to determine personhood under the law to the mother, the law doesn't work that way.

If you are saying it's murder for someone else to end the pregnancy but it's ok for the mom, you are conceding that abortion is a form of homicide, just a permissible one.

That's way too close to a legal standard to justifying shutting down legal abortion for me.

[ecstatic]

43. I don't think it's slippery. Her body, her choice.

Nobody else gets to choose. It's very simple.

[Lee-Lee]

44. The law doesn't work that way

We may wish it did, but it doesn't.

In the eyes of the law a fetus either is or is not a person. It can't waver back and forth.

And if you claim it is, then you are making abortion a form of justifiable homicide under the law.

Therefore my stance is simple- not a person.

[kcr]

52. "It can't waver back and forth"

There's no wavering, here. Ending a woman's pregnancy against her will is wrong. It can't be done by mind tricks. Forcefully ending a pregnancy against a mother's will requires physical harm. And the law certainly does work that way. Harming another person and depriving them of anything is against the law, last time I checked.

[Lee-Lee]

57. Your making two different arguments

There is a difference between charging a person with assault or a similar crime for forcefully terminating a pregnancy and charging them with murder of that fetus.

You charge for the crime of harming the MOTHER, sure.

You don't charge them with murder of a fetus, for that required any fetus of similar age killed by human action to be considered homicide. That can't waver back and forth between a fetus being a person or not being a person.

[kcr]

58. No, we're just arguing semantics

I don't care what you call the charge. If calling the charge something different gets the job done, I'm okay with it. But there should be serious consequences for doing such a thing.

[NCTraveler]

97. I didn't say that.

"If you are saying it's murder for someone else to end the pregnancy but it's ok for the mom, you are conceding that abortion is a form of homicide, just a permissible one."

[conservaphobe]

33. Meh.

As long as the law protects a woman's right to choose, I don't care with how it interprets anything else regarding her pregnancy.

This guy will get what he deserves.

[CBGLuthier]

40. Now that is some grade fucking a nonsense right there

If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, that is her business.

Is some asshole chooses to shoot a pregnant woman said asshole has killed two people.

[redqueen]

41. Thank you. This has nothing to do with abortion.

The fact that anti choice loons try to pretend it does changes nothing.

[jeff47]

82. It has everything to do with abortion.

You have to be a person to get murdered. If this is two murders, then the fetus was a person.

Under the law, a fetus can't be a person sometimes, and then not a person sometimes. It's always one or the other.

If we go with that definition, that means abortion is killing a person. Because abortion is killing a fetus just as much as this asshole shooting the mother is killing a fetus. We don't want to go there unless we want to help the anti-abortion idiots.

[redqueen]

85. No it isn't always one or the other. It is up to the woman to decide if the pregnancy is wanted.

If she intends to carry to term, then the law looks at anyone else ending that pregnancy as the unlawful termination of a human life (murder, manslaughter, etc), as it should.

[jeff47]

87. You can't be a person sometimes and not a person other times.

It's one or the other: a fetus is a person, or a fetus is not a person. The mother's decision doesn't change the fetus's "personhood" under the law.

If we declare this two murders, then we are saying fetuses are people. Which means we are saying abortion is a form of justifiable homicide - it is killing a person, but not prosecuted. That makes it much easier to ban abortion, because we are agreeing with the central tenant of the anti-abortion idiots.

It's not a person until you can write it off on your taxes. Which means this is one murder, and one assault and battery.

[redqueen]

91. Thanks ever so much for restating your opinion. IMO it is the mother's decision and no one else's.

And it hasn't got a fucking thing to do with claiming exemptions on taxes.

[jeff47]

96. Again, the mother's decision doesn't change "personhood".

I'm restating my opinion because you've got your fingers shoved in your ears saying "lalalalalala! Mother's decision! lalalalala!". I'm hoping to actually have a discussion instead.

Calling a fetus a person in this situation helps anti-abortion forces because it means we agree with their central premise - that a fetus is a person. Why do you think that is not true?

If we say abortion is justifiable homicide - aka "the mother's decision", that greatly helps anti-abortion forces because now they only have to get rid of the "justifiable" part, instead of adding the homicide part. Why do you think that is not true?

And it hasn't got s fucking thing to do with claiming exemptions on taxes.

The crack about taxes demonstrates that anti-abortion forces don't really believe their rhetoric.

If fetuses are people, then they're dependents and should be deductible. Anti-abortion forces are only trying to ban abortion, not make the rest of the law fit with their claims. The crack about taxes is using their own argument against them.

Declaring this two murders, and thus declaring the fetus to be a person, means anti-abortion forces can use our own argument against us.

[redqueen]

114. And IMO it's you doing the fingers-in-your-ears, LA LA LA bullshit.

If a woman intends to carry a pregnancy to term, then anyone guilty of ending that pregnancy against her wishes is doing more than just assaulting her.

The fact that anti-choice zealots use certain language to push their agenda is neither here nor there. You and others who label the correct decision to protect a woman's wanted pregnancy as 'helping' those zealots is 100% nonsense.

Sorry that grey areas are a problem for you.

[jeff47]

126. Asserting something as true does not make it so.

If a woman intends to carry a pregnancy to term, then anyone guilty of ending that pregnancy against her wishes is doing more than just assaulting her.

If the fetus isn't a person, then that's "all" they are doing. And felony assault and battery isn't exactly nothing. And it also means that woman terminating her pregnancy is just having a medical procedure.

Declaring it murder means we have to use only choice as a shield, instead of using choice and not-a-person as shields. Or we're deciding to be inconsistent in our position, which makes it harder to convince others to of our position. (Not that there's many to convince at this point)

You and others who label the correct decision to protect a woman's wanted pregnancy as 'helping' those zealots is 100% nonsense.

Because............?

Sorry that grey areas are a problem for you.

They aren't a problem for me - I don't think a fetus is a person. I think life began 4 billion years ago, and a new baby isn't "new life". It's the continuation of 4 billion years of life.

The problem is neither you nor I are the only people in the country. Which means convincing other people that we are correct on abortion. Being hypocritical in that a fetus is a person sometimes, but not a person other times, does not help that.

[redqueen]

128. These laws have been in place for decades.

Just because anti-choice zealots and reactionaries decide to shit their pants over semantics changes nothing.

Women's rights aren't being attacked using personhood laws, a fact that you obviously haven't noticed.

[jeff47]

129. So were segregation laws.

Women's rights aren't being attacked using person hood laws, a fact that you obviously haven't noticed.

It is one of the main tactics currently being used to restrict abortion - to declare the fetus a person, or a person at a particular gestation.

[redqueen]

130. Wrong. TRAP laws are the weapon of choice.

But having pro-choice advocates spin their wheels arguing about semantics while they slowly make the discussion entirely academic is surely a big help.

[jeff47]

141. They are a weapon. Not the only one.

There's a whole lot of states trying to make a 20-week-old fetus a person.

We shouldn't help them by declaring all fetuses to be people.

[X_Digger]

140. Seems folks want to have their cake and eat it too.

seems pretty damned clear to me.

[jeff47]

84. A fetus is either a person, or it is not a person.

If this is two murders, that means the fetus is a person. Which means abortion is also killing a person.

Whether or not the mother is choosing to end the pregnancy does not define whether or not the fetus is a person. It's either a person always, or it's never a person.

So if we're going to argue that this is two murders, we've greatly helped the anti-abortion idiots. Because we're stuck arguing that abortion is justifiable homicide.

[leftstreet]

98. It's not about a fetus, it's about a woman's choice

Good God

When did the abortion issue shift from the woman to the fetus?

[jeff47]

102. Because the law says you can only murder people.

Look, I'm not saying the mother should not have a choice. She should always have a choice.

But if we declare this two murders, we are saying "unborn babies are people". It's no longer just the anti-abortion forces saying that. We are agreeing with them.

That means our argument that abortion should be legal means we think abortion is justifiable homicide. Now anti-abortion forces only have to strip off "justifiable", instead of convincing people it is homicide. That is a much easier task.

[BrotherIvan]

157. Yes

You are arguing the legal definition which is very important. The law must be fixed, it cannot be arbitrary. If a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy or not, if it is a "person" then that means a woman choosing an abortion is murder. I can't believe people are so sentimental they fall for forced-birth wording. I even read "protecting the rights of the unborn" on this very thread. Shows how successful they have been.

Don't Democrats fully reject fetal personhood bills? There are very stiff punishments for feticide, why would we need to make it equal to the murder of a woman?

[ecstatic]

42. If she had chosen to carry the pregnancy, then yes, he did.

Sorry. Pro-CHOICE. He took that choice away from her.

[cbdo2007]

45. You are skewing "pro-choice" when you make it anyone but the mother's choice.

[Puzzledtraveller]

53. I thought they were emphasizing that there was no "child" that was murdered.

Not that the gunman chose to abort her fetus via killing her.

[kiva]

64. Yes, that was my point.

Saying that he killed a 'baby' or 'child' is adopting the anti-choice language that inevitably leads to "abortion is murder."

[dilby]

47. Pretty disgusting to use a dead woman and her unborn child to push your agenda.

Sorry but as others have said choice means a woman has the right to choose to keep or end her pregnancy. A husband doesn't have the right to punch his pregnant wife in the stomach to force a miscarriage if she wants the child. And if he did he should be charged with murder along with assault on a woman.

[PowerToThePeople]

50. The unborn was NOT a criminal!!

linuxman
48. Well...

View profile
He used a gun to kill two criminals, so certain members of this site will put their normally progressive views on hold for a hot minute.

It is important that the man with a gun is vilified to the fullest extent, regardless of how it contradicts other beliefs.

I'm not saying I agree with shooting fleeing criminals (I don't), just that I find it funny how people will justify their opposition to something by compromising their beliefs.

[linuxman]

51. I read the article yesterday.

I mistakenly thought he shot her accomplice as well.

I edited my post to reflect that.

Do you honestly think I was calling the woman's fetus/baby a criminal?

[BrotherIvan]

160. There is no such thing as an "unborn" person

That is pure "pro-life" wording. There are very stiff penalties for feticide and violently terminating a pregnancy. Giving the fetus a status of a person is very dangerous because the forced-birth crowd will use it to end access to abortion as well as contraception. They've been trying to do that for years with their fetal personhood bills.

[X_Digger]

54. Kick!

I'm appalled at the mealy-mouthed doublespeak above.

A fetus != a child.

Anything else is ceding ground to those anti-choice assholes.

[Dreamer Tatum]

55. Tell you what

Every pregnant woman you see from this point forward, make a point to refer to her baby
as a fetus.

When they have baby showers, roll your eyes and moan, "I THINK you mean
you're having a FETUS shower!"

Go picket Babies R Us, demanding that they either stop carrying anything for expectant mothers,
or change their name to Fetuses R Us.

See what people say. If she was carrying the baby and was killed against her will, then it is
certainly reasonable to infer that the baby was killed, as well.

[Niceguy1]

65. so true

We should boycott babies r us until they correct their antichoice name ha ha

Hope they charge the guy with the double homicide

[kiva]

68. Do you believe in a woman's right to choose

whether or not she brings a pregnancy to term?

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. I believe that one should assume that a pregnant woman who is murdered

intended to carry the baby to term unless one can prove conclusively that she
planned to abort.

I won't take your fucking purity test.

[kiva]

90. Nice edit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

92. Yes, my original missive, that you should shove it, was uncalled for and nasty. nt

[kiva]

94. Thank you

for reminding me why DU is a better place than other political discussion boards - we have better people.

[cyberswede]

59. "nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy"

Reported in my local paper just today, a husband was convicted of killing his pregnant wife. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy.

I think that seems like a reasonable way to deal with the murder of a pregnant woman.

[BrotherIvan]

161. ^^This!^^

I think that some here are arguing from a personal belief, not realizing that there are legal definitions. If you allow that definition to be changed from "fetus" to "baby" then you confer personhood on a fetus and that is just what the rwnjs are praying for.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. That horse already left the barn

Scott Peterson.

I wish we'd thought the issue through at that time.

[Dreamer Tatum]

69. Yeah, that distinction would have totally turned the tide of public opinion

"Hey, you guys, wait a minute. He only savagely murdered his wife and dumped her in the
bay, then lied about it and put her family through hell. He didn't kill that 8 MONTH OLD CLUMP
OF CELLS ATTACHED TO HER INSIDES."


Seriously, I get the whole pro-choice argument, but the tone-deafness of abortion fundamentalists is
staggering and sickening.

[Rex]

66. Wow, gun lovers will twist all over this until they are tied in knots.

I've never seen such a sad little group hate on a women, because she was shot in the back with a gun while fleeing! I am so glad I don't live in that strange gun nut world a handful of people here live in. A sad little word it is.

I can see why the admins keep this kind of stuff in the gungeon...it is revolting.

[geek tragedy]

67. I tend to defer such characterizations

to the woman whose body is at stake. If she refers to "my baby" then good enough for me. But, if she wants to abort then that is her call as well.

[redqueen]

73. Thank you for getting it.

Bills intended to punish criminals for ending the lives of WANTED pregnancies were not put in place with an eye toward criminalizing abortion.

The decision belongs to the woman and NO ONE ELSE.

[Dreamer Tatum]

75. So according to many on this thread

a woman about to be murdered pretty much needs to sign and have notarized
an affidavit that the baby she carries in her body is wanted, and she intends
to carry it to term in order for it to be considered a baby at all.

Sick.

[geek tragedy]

77. Um, no. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

79. Um, yes, actually

The notion seems to be that no matter a pregnant woman may THINK about HER OWN BODY,
she's merely hosting some sort of 9-month virus.

[geek tragedy]

81. I certainly don't think that. nt

[kcr]

86. No

Why should it be open season on pregnant women? Twisting the argument that women should have choice regarding their own bodies and taking it to mean anyone else should be able to exercise that choice for them is just about as twisted as it gets.

[Kingofalldems]

146. Where did anyone say anything like that?

[BklnDem75]

70. Unborn Victims of Violence Act

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, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[PDJane]

80. The fact is that he shot a fleeing woman in the back.

Whether she was pregnant or not is a side issue, and isn't really germaine. It isn't self-defense if she was running away. I am surprised that anyone would condone that behaviour.

[MH1]

116. ^^^ THIS. But DU has become a surprising place, it seems.

That said, I don't think the OP is condoning the behavior of the old man shooting the fleeing woman in the back.

I think it is just a concern that the fetus cannot be at one time a "person" that can be counted as murdered in this instance, and at the same time, to not be a "person" when considering the choice of abortion. But that is so oversimplified as to be ridiculous. If the woman was a week from giving birth naturally, and the baby was healthy, no reputable doctor (in my opinion at least) would perform an abortion. If suddenly she expressed a desire to not have the baby, they could induce labor or do c-section and put the healthy baby up for adoption. I think of myself as pro-choice, but I don't get why it would be ok to abort a healthy baby that is viable outside the womb. I do think that should be up to the doctor and the woman but it would be highly unethical for the doctor to kill the healthy fetus at that point. Morally, it would be murder, in my opinion; but that doesn't mean the law should try to step in for these cases - I mean really, how often does this situation even come up, except in the fantasies of the forced-birth crowd? If a woman has gone that far and the child is healthy and her health isn't unduly compromised, even if she doesn't want to care for the baby, almost all would go forward with the birth, and the vanishingly small number who might even want to abort at that point could be talked out of it - the birth would probably be no more risky to the woman than the abortion at that point.

[Turbineguy]

89. So will this mean

that anti-abortionists will come out for "sensible" gun regulation?

It's all very confusing.

[Tetris_Iguana]

107. I subscribe to a progressive pure choice philosophy

It is whatever the woman says it is, while it's a part of her body.

There, simple.

Sheesh

[gwheezie]

117. He didn't kill a baby

A baby is not in a woman's body, a baby is alive outside the body.

[Dreamer Tatum]

118. Said no pregnant woman, ever. nt

[BrotherIvan]

155. Yes

These are legal terms that must be upheld. If it is decided that a fetus is a baby, then the slope is greased to say abortion is murder. As pointed out all over this thread, there are still penalties for feticide or termination of a pregnancy. But a baby is a child that has been born. It shows how much anti-choice framing has seeped into everyone's minds.

[closeupready]

123. I agree with you.

K&R

[stevenleser]

125. That is what I said in my jury comments. Unfortunately, I was in the minority. nt

[ismnotwasm]

131. It's what the wonen says it is

If it's an unwanted parasite or a much anticipated and loved addition to a woman's life-- it's her choice.

I agree with you though, using that kind of language regarding a situation like this when you are not the one with (or should have) choice, undermines choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

132. i agree. we really cant have it both ways. nt

[BklnDem75]

133. According to California Penal Code SECTION 187-199, it's two murders, baby or not

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[Niceguy1]

134. She is having a baby...not

A kitten, puppy, lamb,

[kiva]

136. To clarify,

this thread isn't about gun control - I'm not trying to direct this discussion, just saying this thread isn't about guns or gun control.

I am not advocating beating or poisoning a pregnant woman - or anyone else for that matter.

I am not saying we should ban baby showers (though personally I think they tend to suck) or force Babies 'R Us to change their name.

This is about the fact we can't call a fetus a baby or child when we are trying to gain support for one point of view - in this case to increase anger against the man who killed the pregnant woman - and in the next breath say that a fetus is not a person when we support a woman's right to an abortion.

I am adamantly pro-choice. I was 18 when Roe v Wade was decided and have since watched the Right gain control of the discussion by using terms like baby and child and infant to slowly and inexorably erode the rights of women to control their own reproductive systems. By adopting their terminology we are advancing their point of view, and I think that's wrong on a progressive website.

[X_Digger]

139. Holy shit, I didn't realize DU harbored so many anti-choice idjits.

This has really shaken the tree and caused them to start flapping their wings, hasn't it?

[kiva]

142. I had no idea either.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

162. Wow, you are completely misrepresenting a whole group here

Look, I think Fetal Protection Laws are a slippery slope that I don't know if we should go down based on how litigious the right has gotten, but you cannot possibly characterize someone whose opinion it is that a woman's choice is taken away from her when a fetus she is willingly carrying to term is ended by someone else as being "anti-choice". Shit, that is just intellectually dishonest. I've seen no one in this thread advocate for tying this to abortion laws. Argue with them where the danger is instead of simply calling them "idjits".

[X_Digger]

166. Let me make it simple.

A fetus != a person.

Simple enough, eh?

Not, "A fetus is a person when it's wanted." or "A fetus is a person when the mother says it is." or even "a fetus is a person when an assault on the mother occurs."

N'est-ce pas?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

167. And that's a legit argument

Simply dismissing people as "anti-choice idiots" when clearly they ain't was the bad one.

[X_Digger]

168. Those were sentiments expressed by DU'ers. Left me gobsmacked to see that shit here.

I expect that kind of crap from the right.

[BrotherIvan]

163. I find it extremely suprising

But I think it only shows how pervasive "pro-life" language has become. Showing pictures of developed babies as fetuses, etc. I'm extremely shocked that more people don't understand the issue between legal personhood and what it means for abortion and contraception rights. Eye-opening!

[Quantess]

143. It should depend on how old the fetus is.

If the fetus is close to 9 months, then that is killing a baby.

[Lars39]

149. There is absolutely no guarantee that the fetus will become a live birth.

A lot can happen in pregnancy, labor and delivery that can result in a dead fetus.

[awoke_in_2003]

152. Thanks

I was reading about that yesterday, and looking at the comments I thought many of them would have been right at home on FR.

[WI_DEM]

153. He killed a human being running away from him who was pleading for her life

I don't condone her actions, but when they tried to escape the guy should not have shot--period. He should have let the police handle it. Now if they continued to try and harm him then yes, he was justified, but not when they were fleeing. That is the law.

p.s.
that said I agree with you. He didn't kill a baby.

[Liberal_in_LA]

164. exactly

[BklnDem75]

165. When the Death of a Fetus Is Murder

In the latest ruling on the question of when a fetus should have the legal status of a person, the California Supreme Court decided on Monday that an assault on a pregnant woman that kills her fetus can be prosecuted as murder, even if the fetus is not viable.

The ruling came in a San Diego case involving a robbery in 1991 in which a pregnant woman was shot after cashing a welfare check. The woman, Maria Flores, survived the shooting, but her fetus, a male 22 to 25 weeks old, did not.

Although the ruling will not have any direct effect on abortion rights, a series of cases on fetal murder raises issues of intense interest to those on both sides of the abortion debate.

The question of "fetal personhood" has come up in a wide range of cases. In recent years courts have heard claims that a fetus should be entitled to a tax deduction, that a pregnant prisoner should be freed because her fetus could not be jailed without a trial, that a pregnant driver was entitled to use the car-pool lane because she was carrying a passenger, and that pregnant women who took drugs should be prosecuted under laws that prohibit giving drugs to minors.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

[JaneyVee]

169. BREAKING NEWS: SHE WASN'T PREGNANT!

[kiva]

171. Thanks for the update...

link for anyone who is interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/tom-greer-burglar-not-pregnant_n_5622353.html

[yeoman6987]

172. I said the same thing yesterday

and got my post hidden by the jury of my peers......So frustrating when telling the truth causes such a hassle. I guess when all pregnancies are considered murder then perhaps my peers will get it. Until then, I will live with a hidden post. Not the end of the World for me. What will happen with the law on this subject in the future? I don't know, but I would say we are on a slippery slope. However, I may not be allowed to give such an opinion.

[Rex]

174. Yeah that one really brought out the concern trolls.

Glad they pointed out what mattered to them most about the story, really lets you know where you stand as a human.