topane

Yes. Give him the chair, revive him, then fry his ass again. The bastard knew what he was doing: he is responsible for two deaths.

BTW, I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't feel the same if she was a month pregnant but I agree with a "viable fetus" deserving recognition, especially since they were planning on having the child.

MortalWombat

You have entirely missed my point, which is that it isn't as simple as "If A is illegal, then so should B equally be." The law often takes multiple issues into consideration, including intent, when defining what is illegal or even the degree of the offense.

Drinking while over 21 is legal, while drinking while under 21 is not. Deliberately planning and then carrying out the killing of someone with a knife is 1st degree murder, while killing someone with a knife in the heat of an argument is usually considered 2nd degree or manslaughter. In the US, (some) states are allowed to execute certain people, but individuals are not legally allowed to mete out death sentences to others. And as far as I know, cutting off your own finger is not illegal, but if someone cuts off your finger against your will, it is.

No. But again, my point was that one can't always generalize from A to B, and complex issues are rarely ever black and white.

Derec

The Mercedes murderess knew what she was doing as well. Why not kill her at least once? She didn't even get a life sentence!

Quote:

BTW, I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't feel the same if she was a month pregnant but I agree with a "viable fetus" deserving recognition, especially since they were planning on having the child.

A mother that kills a viable fetus should be held to the same legal standard as the father or anyone else. Either it is a human life or it isn't (I say it is). It can't be that it is just a thing if a mother kills it and a human if anyone else does it.

UMoC

Derec

No, it is not A or be. I was talking about the same act, i.e. killing a viable fetus. Why is it murder if the father does it and legal if the mother does it?

Quote:

The law often takes multiple issues into consideration, including intent, when defining what is illegal or even the degree of the offense.

Ok. If person A hits an eight month old pregnant driver who loses the child as a result he or she can be charged with vehicular homicide. Yet there is no intent. If that woman gets an abortion it is legal. Yet there was intent. Where does the intent get to play? It is obvious that the only thing looked at is wthether mother or someone else killes the fetus.

Quote:

Drinking while over 21 is legal, while drinking while under 21 is not.

This would have been a good analogy for different gestation periods but not for this case.

Quote:

Deliberately planning and then carrying out the killing of someone with a knife is 1st degree murder, while killing someone with a knife in the heat of an argument is usually considered 2nd degree or manslaughter.

Ok, if a mother aborts her 8 month old fetus in the heat of an argument I will settle for 2nd degree murder.

Quote:

No. But again, my point was that one can't always generalize from A to B, and complex issues are rarely ever black and white.

In this case there was A and A. Both killing a viable fetus. Both with intent. The only difference being the relationshiip of the perpetrator to the victim.

Again: by the logic you are applying you could justify making infanticide legal for mothers.

UMoC

topane

Perhaps she should have. Different case, different state, different attorneys, different moon phases...

topane

A mother that has a viable fetus aborted is very likely doing it for medical reasons. I don't have any statistics handy, but IIRC a small percentage of abortions are late term and the overwhelming majority of those are for medical reasons (mother's life in danger, severe problem with fetus, etc).

MortalWombat

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it just accidental?

The Other Michael

It looks like my unfamiliarity with this murder case (I avoid any of the tabloid-style murder-of-the-moment articles in the papers) led me to move the thread to Misc Discussions. I've read the rest of the posts since I moved it and see why ManM started it in MF&P, and I'm going to move it back there.

cheers,

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

nermal

Two responses to this:
1. I don't think you're right. The American Pediatric Association said years ago that there is no medical necessity for late term abortions. The delivery still takes place, so no risk to the mother is mitigated.
Some occur for severe fetal deformities etc. but I believe the overwhelming majority are for convenience, just as abortions at other stages are.

2. It doesn't matter anyway, since the law makes no requirement for medical necessity or fetal malformation. If an expectant mother wants to abort at 8.5 months because she changes her mind about the baby, she may do so legally.

Ed

Kvalhion

It seems reasonable to assume that a fetus should be considered a person in the eyes of the law if the fetus is at a stage where if it were born, it would have a good chance to survive. As Laci was eight months pregnant at the time of her death, I do not see any problem with calling it double homicide.

I also agree with Topane in that late term abortions are rare and are almost always due to a special circumstance. Equating late term abortion to infant homicide is disingenuous.

Edit:

I find that very diffiult to believe, and more of an emotional appeal than a description of reality.

From Latimes.com regarding the recent late-term abortion law:

The procedure under debate is the most common used to end pregnancies of between 20 and 26 weeks' duration because it prevents excessive bleeding and is considered the safest for women. According to statistics for 2000 compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that collects data on sexual and reproductive health, it is used in only 0.17% of all abortions. Ninety percent of the nation's abortions occur in the first 13 weeks.