It's not a piece of meat - it's a baby - and if it's a baby, it's murder of the baby no matter who "decides". Who has more rights over your life - your mother, father or you? Does you mother or father have a "right" to kill you? Remember - they brought you into this world so what about their rights.
The law says it's okay for your mother to kill you, but not someone else (if this guy is convicted). If you guys are okay with that, fine. I guess we should quit arguing about drug legalization as well, since the law has already settled it.
I could understand that reasoning if the life of the mother was in jeopardy (just like the life of a person is in the case of self-defense), but not generally speaking. To me, the better comparison would be between a person who kills in cold blood for no reason and someone who kills another person because it would be more convenient to have them out of their life. Just my thoughts.
... and a pretty right-on analogy since that seems to be the usual motivation for abortions... at least the law is constructed to allow for that kind of casual consideration. Ain't that peculiar.
it would be applicable from a policy standpoint...ultimately, the law allowing you to be prosecuted for killing an unborn child would be challenged on appeal...in the appellate briefs you would argue that the law is inconsistent, and where it is inconsistent it needs revision. in one instance you're specifically saying these are not viable creatures...that they're not living beings. in another you're saying that they absolutely are, to the extent of protecting their lives with murder charges against one who would take that life. where there are inconsistencies like that, courts are interested.
-- California prosecutors formally charge Scott Peterson with two counts of murder in the deaths of his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son.
Can't we just go back to the root and say using a condom is murder, too then? By denying the sperm and egg the opportunity to make a fetus, we're letting them die an unnatural death? Condoms and all other forms of birth control are therefore killing off potential people. Personally I am not against abortion in principle but think this country overuses it as a form of birth control We should educate kids in using birth control properly instead of denying that some teenagers will have sex no matter what authorities say.
We have a million page thread on abortion every couple months, so I'm not gonna go there. Said all I have to say on that. What's going on here is a sneaky end run around the Supreme Court (pro-lifers in Congress tried this a year or two ago with this exact same scenario and got shut down on the grounds that they were trying to set aside the Supreme Court's ruling), to change the definition of "life." I personally think it's a little distasteful to use an actual murder case to try and change the law, though I certainly see both sides (as I do with the larger issue). The debate here ought not to focus on right and wrong with regard to abortion -- the real issue is whether or not a murder case is grounds for changing the law. I think one could present good arguments either way, but it would be a better argument if it focused on that and not on Roe v. Wade.
I understand your points...but I don't think this case is going to change abortion law...it just causes us to reexamine inconsistencies...and when those inconsistencies go to the very essence of the definition of life, that's a problem. you can't have a murder without first having a life....but abortion laws say it isn't yet a life.
Max, I understand your points too. There are inconsistencies in abortion law, before and after Roe, no matter how you slice it. It's not an easy thing. What smells funny about this particular case is that the idea of "when life begins" has been legally defined by the highest court in the land. When members of Congress tried to change homicide laws a while back in order to classify the termination of a fetus as murder, it was recognized for what it was -- an end run around a Supreme Court verdict and the Supreme Court ruling on what constitutes "life." This is the exact same thing. Even so, again, I think it's an extremely difficult subject with compelling arguments on both sides. I just wish that if people wanted to overturn Roe, they'd take it to the Supreme Court instead of trying to wiggle around it.
Although it probably shouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court in the first place. This was an issue that the American public was still in the process of debating. In the end, there may have been the same result, or maybe some sort of compromise, but it didn't make sense for the Supreme Court to make it a constitutional issue. It probably ended up hurting Democrats in the long run. If that decision didn't occur, the pro-life lobby never would have gotten this strong.
Mr. C (love calling you that -- I'm a big Fonzie fan from way back): I think it's safe to say the pro-life lobby's been pretty good for the Dem party. When abortion rights are threatened, it galvanizes pro-choice women and other pro-choicers everywhere. With the upcoming Court retirements, I think this may well be a big issue in 04. The country remans divided on this, but the majority of the country still favors some version of choice. When it's a political issue, it continues to work in the Dem party's favor.
For what it's worth, it has been illegal for a third party to murder a fetus in California since 1970. As far as I know, neither the US Supreme Court nor the California Supreme Court has overturned this law, so should the Pro-Choicers be the ones who sit back and not use this case to attempt to overturn the law, which is currently in full-force in the state, even though it may seem inconsistent with Roe v. Wade or abortion rights in general? I would think, also, that a prosecutor using the law as it is written to prosecute offenders would take offense at that being a "sneaky end run" around the Supreme Court's decision. He's doing his job by enforcing the laws on the books. It's up to the Supreme Court to invalidate the law, something they have yet to do (despite the law's long history).
Mr. P: Of course it should be illegal. What this case (and the 'aborted' Congressional effort) does though is to change the legal definition of life. I certainly think people should go to jail for a long time for aborting a fetus against the mother's will.
So this case, and not all the others that have been prosecuted over the 33 years the law has been in effect, is the one that changes the definition of life. And even though it is the law of the land in California, the prosecutor should refuse to enforce it because of what others think prosecution means? Isn't the prosecutor charged with enforcing the laws of the State? Why should he not do so as long as the law is still being upheld time and again by the California Supreme Court? And is it distasteful for Pro-Choice folks to use this case as an attempt to overturn the law of the state of California? When the Supreme Court gets around to overturning this law (if ever... or the Legislature changes it), then we can talk about what it means regarding Roe v. Wade, but as it is, no court has linked the fetal murder law with Roe v. Wade, and the fetal murder law remains the law of the State of California. Any prosecutor who currently files charges under the law in cases that meet the statute is simply doing his job. I don't think we should ascribe motives beyond that to a guy who is simply doing his job.
Maybe someone should read the statute to her. It seems pretty clear. If she doesn't like the law, then work to get it overturned. But don't complain when the law that is in force (and has been for 33 years) and which has been affirmed repeatedly by the California Supreme Court is used. (EDIT: By "complain" I really meant "don't pretend the law doesn't say what it says" or "don't pretend you don't understand what the law is.") In this case, it's the pro-choicers who are using this case to advance their agenda and attempt to overturn the law (or hope that it is not used even when on the books). All the prosecutors are doing is following the current law, a law that predates Roe v. Wade and has been affirmed several times by the courts that have heard arguments against it.
