N.O.W. they have gone insane!

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MachFive

No, see I'm not giving them more ammo. That argument relies not on the actual status of the fetus, but on the KILLER'S intent of what that fetus is/could be. Intent is in the mind of the killer, and it doesn't need to coincide with laws regarding fetus age or relating issues.

If he kills her and kills the fetus, and he knowingly does both, in his mind, he has committed two murders. Regardless of the fact that according to the law, the fetus may or may not have been considered murder.

It all goes back to the classic law school case of, "If you decide to shoot someone, but it turns out they're already dead, you can still be charged with intent to commit murder, since you formed the requesite state of mind for the crime."

Using that system, he had the requisite state of mind to have committed two murders, even if the State doesn't consider the murder of the fetus to be a murder.

But if the law doesnt see the fetus as any more than another tissue of the woman's body, you only murdered one entity. Killing another person's dog isnt considered murder. There was a court case where a man who hadnt paid his taxes tried to defend himself by saying he "wasnt a person". The ruling was that, under the law, he did indeed fall into the "person" category. Similarly, something that is not, legally, a person cannot just become a person due to one man's thought process.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: MachFive
Why hasn't anyone used the following argument:

If the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant, he could not have formed the requisite intent to kill the fetus, therefore it would be a single count of murder.

On the other hand, if he knew the woman was pregnant (as Mr. Peterson did), then his intent was to kill two people. The fetus may not have been an actual human yet, but his intent was to stop it from becoming one, therefore he is guilty of two counts of murder.

Intent is all that matters, and I see no reason to give the pro-lifers any more ammunition.

You are giving the pro-lifers more ammo. Either terminating a pregnancy w/o the mothers consent is assault (and thus the fetus is not human), or its murder/manslaughter/negligent homocide, and the fetus is human. Either a fetus is part of a woman's body and has no rights, or its a human child and has rights. The mother's feelings about the fetus dont change what the fetus actually was/is.

The only way out of this quagmire is to set a time when the fetus becomes a child, and stick with it. Either it becomes a child at fetilization, at a certain time/developmental stage, or at birth. We need to pick one and stay with it

No, see I'm not giving them more ammo. That argument relies not on the actual status of the fetus, but on the KILLER'S intent of what that fetus is/could be. Intent is in the mind of the killer, and it doesn't need to coincide with laws regarding fetus age or relating issues.

If he kills her and kills the fetus, and he knowingly does both, in his mind, he has committed two murders. Regardless of the fact that according to the law, the fetus may or may not have been considered murder.

It all goes back to the classic law school case of, "If you decide to shoot someone, but it turns out they're already dead, you can still be charged with intent to commit murder, since you formed the requesite state of mind for the crime."

Using that system, he had the requisite state of mind to have committed two murders, even if the State doesn't consider the murder of the fetus to be a murder.

Intent only matters in the degree to which we seek to punish. "unintentional" killing is still manslaughter And no intent alone can not be used to convict a person. I have all the intention of reaching through the intraweb to smack Moonbeam upside the head on occasion, so does that mean I should be charged as if I actually had done it? Umm nope - that's not how the system works.

I do think most of us have reached a concensus on the fact that we need to set the exact time a "fetus" becomes a "human" - now lets all take that common ground and push our leaders to rid us of the gray area no matter which side of the issue we fall on.

CkG

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

At the time she died, the fetus was most certainly viable...hence the double murder charge?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
At the time she died, the fetus was most certainly viable...hence the double murder charge?

viable for what?

Yes by any reasonable estimation her "fetus" would have become a "human" if she had lived but she didn't - the question is, did the fetus have any "human" rights at the time of her "host's" demise? Hence we need a definate time set for when a "fetus" becomes a "human"

CkG

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, how obvious is it that NOW objected to the woman driving in the car pool lane claiming the fetus as the second person in the car. Exact same idea.

Personally I can't wait till the woman's taliban takes over this country and I get to stay home and do dishes and scrub floors where my testosterone won't kill all life on earth.

Isn't it obvious that women should rule?

Moonie! finally some sarcasm i can relate to.
:beer:

 

[IGBT]

NOW..aren't they the clipped haired mean faced women with little mustaches??

 

[AmerDoux]

N.O.W. is exactly like any other religious or political organization in this country. They all twist events to suite their immediate needs. Sometimes what they say makes sense, other times it doesn't. I hope you apply the same level of criticism to those other organizations.

Folks are arguing the fetus/abortion issue.... anybody consider the possibility that baby might have been born and then died? It was 8+ months old, therefore it could survive outside the womb for a period of time. The trauma of Laci's death could have initiated the birth process, or possibly the cervix relaxed and expelled a live baby after her death.

That baby was found separate from Laci with placenta intact. 2nd body, second murder charge.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jesus, how obvious is it that NOW objected to the woman driving in the car pool lane claiming the fetus as the second person in the car. Exact same idea.

Personally I can't wait till the woman's taliban takes over this country and I get to stay home and do dishes and scrub floors where my testosterone won't kill all life on earth.

Isn't it obvious that women should rule?

Wow....i actually understood you, and i agreed with you. Amazing.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Kiyup
This weekend Laci Petersen, the woman who dissapeared last Christmas washed up on the shore of the lake her husband said he was fishing in when she vanished. Her unborn child (8 1/2) mo's along washed up also. The police have charged him with two counts of murder, one for her and one for the baby.

In California the law says that the killing of a fetus against the mother's will is a murder. The N.O.W. people are raising hell about this. THey don't want the fetus labeled a person since it goes against thier precious abortion stance. They seem to want to overlook that fact that a woman and her baby were murdered so that they can have another platform to display their politics.

If a man did not want to be a father, and stuck a knife into his wife/girfriend's belly and killed the fetus, these women would want us to belive there is no crime since it was not a person attacked!!?!??!?

They defended Jessica Yates for killing her children. So I guess children don't even become people once they are born. When does life start? Are you not a person until you start menstruating???

NOW is consitantly anti male, anti family, anti children, and even anti woman unless you are the type of woman they see fit. They are against stay at home moms. What happened to the woman's right to choose?

This group is yet again proving that they are more interested in the furthering of their political positions than protecting the rights of women.

I think it is shameful.

The NOW are trying to prevent the US from going back to the bad old days when abortion was illegal. They are pro-woman.

 

[przero]

Pro woman? How? What woman? I don't see'em supporting anything my wife does! Or my mother! How are they pro woman?

 

[n0cmonkey]

If it is a child abortion is murder. If it not a child, there should only be one count of murder here, and maybe one count of fetuside, which probably isn't anything anyhow.

 

[Mookow]

N.O.W. they have gone insane!

On a side note, I think they have always been insane