Debate over how to prosecute the killing of a fetus

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Whether or not I am following the "letter of the law", it is morally reprehensible to me that someone would deliberately choose to fight something that is illegal by choosing to do something deliberately il-legal in return, on the side of feeling that they are morally *right* TO do so.





Seems a tad bit hypocritical...and that one's argument FOR *right* falls in upon itself.



Sort of *like* it's OK to kill doctors who perform abortions on the doorsteps of such clinics, because it's morally not *right* for the doctors to be performing them. You'll be sitting on the same hot bench in the halls of Hell, right alongside those OTHER 'immoral' ones.

And I find reprehensible that someone would not even try and let a murder of human being happen without justice.

Sorry that comparison makes no sense. But I would rather see the comparison of our justice system put murder charges on the doctor and mother for performing and allowing the abortion. Now that would be a good comparison I could support.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

When it's come up in conversation, people have looked at me oddly when I've stated that if my one-and-only child ever did something illegal (including the biggies like murder or rape), I'd be the first one to turn him in. Turning in a spouse who's done something illegal? Easy-as-pie. Social constructs begin eroding the more 'excuses' we make for why it's OK just this once.

On the other hand, if someone had ever touched my one-and-only child in an inappropriate way, I would have killed them with my bare hands, sans weapons. I would have never contacted the authorities or told another soul about what the fucktard had done to my child; let the authorities do the legwork necessary to solve this random crime, where someone ended up dead on the side of the road.

When and if they traced it back to me, I'd gladly tell my side of the story and then gladly fulfill any punishment meted out my way, including a death penalty, if it was so decreed.

I'm pretty sure most normal members of society feel similarly, which is why what fits as "normal" in society includes NOT having prison records from doing illegal things.

This we can agree on. Well almost! Thinking about it would depend on the crime and why it was committed. Meaning if a family member committed a crime say like this story where they will not prosecute this murder and someone in my family took matters in there own hands and got justice. No way would I turn that person in.

 

[mrldii]

For the record (because this is how internet rumors get started once virtual woodies are fully engaged), of course I'D do everything in my power to stop the murder of a human being.

This was not "murder"; this was not a "human being". Once the law and/or the English language changes, I'll reconsider my position on this case.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

For the record (because this is how internet rumors get started once virtual woodies are fully engaged), of course I'D do everything in my power to stop the murder of a human being.

This was not "murder"; this was not a "human being". Once the law and/or the English language changes, I'll reconsider my position on this case.

But it was cold blooded murder and most certainly without question in the least it was a human being with the same rights as you and me.

 

[mrldii]

Not according to the legal - and literal - definition of the terms "murder" and "human being".


Factually-speaking, of course.



We are "factually-speaking" here, riiiiiight? Or, are we "knee-jerking, reactionary-speaking" here?


Did The Rules change in this, the DEBATE forum? Or, did someone change the definition of the word "debate"?!?

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

Not according to the legal - and literal - definition of the terms "murder" and "human being".


Factually-speaking, of course.



We are "factually-speaking" here, riiiiiight? Or, are we "knee-jerking, reactionary-speaking" here?


Did The Rules change in this, the DEBATE forum? Or, did someone change the definition of the word "debate"?!?

I have questions for you hypothetically speaking of course. Not factually as it would be your personal opinion.

1. Do you think the state of Colorado should have a Fetal law?

2. If they had a Fetal law that encompassed that at 24 weeks it is illegal to abort. Would you consider this being a trial for murder?

 

[mrldii]

I have questions for you hypothetically speaking of course. Not factually as it would be your personal opinion.

1. Do you think the state of Colorado should have a Fetal law?

2. If they had a Fetal law that encompassed that at 24 weeks it is illegal to abort. Would you consider this being a trial for murder?

IMHO

1. I think "fetal laws" are slippery slopes and are a *great* stepping stone for [slowly] eroding a woman's right to choose; I think anything that slowly erodes a woman's right to choose, is simply the Good Ol' Boys Club feeling insecure over the continued erosion of their patriarchal *supremacy* and *dominance* in the U.S. Don't think abortions are *right*? Don't get one. Don't think women should have the right to choose an abortion? Don't knock up a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant with your child.

2. No, not the way you've stated it. If there was a Federal (or State) mandate that says "Life begins at 24 weeks [because that's what has been determined as a viable fetus]" then yes, in this case additional "murder" charges regarding the fetus/baby could/should have been brought against this criminal.


As a third point, with the existing laws which may be in place (I'm not familiar with Colorado law), they MAY have been able to charge her with "performing an illegal abortion" and/or "performing as a doctor without a license". If I was the DA, I would have looked into what other charges could have been brought in regards to this heinous crime committed on a fetus which obviously the mother intended TO be born and become a "human being",

withOUT opening Pandora's Box to make it Another Great 'A' Debate.


But, I'm all *weird* and logical, like that and shit. YOU know.



LOL

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

IMHO

1. I think "fetal laws" are slippery slopes and are a *great* stepping stone for [slowly] eroding a woman's right to choose; I think anything that slowly erodes a woman's right to choose, is simply the Good Ol' Boys Club feeling insecure over the continued erosion of their patriarchal *supremacy* and *dominance* in the U.S. Don't think abortions are *right*? Don't get one. Don't think women should have the right to choose an abortion? Don't knock up a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant with your child.

2. No, not the way you've stated it. If there was a Federal (or State) mandate that says "Life begins at 24 weeks [because that's what has been determined as a viable fetus]" then yes, in this case additional "murder" charges regarding the fetus/baby could/should have been brought against this criminal.


As a third point, with the existing laws which may be in place (I'm not familiar with Colorado law), they MAY have been able to charge her with "performing an illegal abortion" and/or "performing as a doctor without a license". If I was the DA, I would have looked into what other charges could have been brought in regards to this heinous crime committed on a fetus which obviously the mother intended TO be born and become a "human being",

withOUT opening Pandora's Box to make it Another Great 'A' Debate.


But, I'm all *weird* and logical, like that and shit. YOU know.



LOL

Lol I like challenging your logic oops.

But if a fetus can survive out of the womb at say 24 weeks with a little help. Would that make it viable for cause to consider?


I know you're perhaps going woman shut up but...


I'm not disputing a woman's right to abort. I'm saying at what stage should aborting be considered illegal not only towards a fetus that can survive but the medical implications on the woman also.

*runs*

P.s I did like the other charges you would bring against her though .

 

[mrldii]

@WhoFlung:

I agree...but then again we get into slippery slopes.

I have no problem with States (or the Feds) dictating a maximum fetal age at which an abortion can be completed, as long as it's not TOO restrictive. Under Colorado's current law, which apparently requires a baby to take its first breath before murder charges can be brought, they've just given carte blanche to sloppy doctor/nurse/midwives TO deliberately "murder" a baby as long as that child has not yet taken a breath. I'm actually surprised there haven't been malpractice suits challenging this rigid definition of when a life begins.

However, there's the flip side. A pregnant woman, who's 34 weeks along and who's been fighting with her drunk and physically abusive husband leaves him and files for divorce. Coincidentally, she miscarries (perhaps due to the stress and strain). He charges her with "murder" because - at 34 weeks - the fetus was "viable" and she "killed" it. Or worse, a baby dies during child birth, and the woman now faces "murder" charges in addition to the loss of her baby.

There's no such thing as a perfect law; we were asked our opinions on this matter. I chose to base my opinion on the facts of the matter...not my emotional responses to it.


My emotional response? If I'd survived the attack, I wouldn't have contacted the authorities. Whether my baby lived or died, I would have hunted her down and killed her with my bare hands. IF the authorities traced the "random homicide" back to me, I'd have told my side of the story and faced my punishment.

If I hadn't survived the attack, I'd probably be with a man who feels very similarly to how I feel...and HE'D have taken care of it, similarly, in my - and our baby's - honor and in memoriam to us. At least that's what The Notebook-*loving* side of me would like to believe.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

You know a term we use here. The law can be an ass which is exactly what it would be if it pursue a woman who miscarried. Surely at that point there is cause for circumstance and evidence to both the miscarriage and abuse.

I'm a believer and perhaps that her conscience will drive her crazy having to live every day with that eating you up inside.

Btw what has she being charged with? Part of me wonders in such case she'd have to undergo a mental health assessment.

 

[mrldii]

Ahhhh, whoflung...ya *forced* me to go look it up; to be honest, I hadn't heard much about it, since the story first broke. Here's an update as of 3/27/15; it appears the DA did get "creative" with the charges:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...attack-on-pregnant-woman-in-colorado-da-says/

"Dynel Lane...was charged with eight felonies... including attempted murder and the unlawful termination of a pregnancy...
The felony charges are first-degree attempted murder (which includes two sentence enhancements), two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, and first-degree termination of a pregnancy, according to the DA’s office. The attempted murder charge alone carries a possible sentence of 16 to 48 years. The unlawful termination of a pregnancy charge has a possible sentence of 10 to 32 years...

Acknowledging that “a lot of people” wanted him to file homicide charges against Lane for the death of the fetus, Garnett said that those charges were “not possible under Colorado law without proof of a live birth.” Garnett said that Lane faces a “long time” in prison if convicted, potentially more than 100 years.

“Aurora was still, but her mouth was open and she was not breathing,” Garnett said. Investigators examined whether the baby’s lungs had inflated, he added. “They had not,” he said.

“At this time neither the autopsy or the investigation have provided any evidence that the baby exhibited any signs of life outside of the womb, therefore the circumstance is not being considered a live birth,” The Boulder County Coroner’s office said in an emailed statement on Friday, based on the preliminary results of an autopsy performed last week...

The office will release final autopsy results when the investigation is finished, which could take six to eight weeks..."


Those are just snippets; the article contains a lot of good information for anyone who IS curious as to the actual hows and whys surrounding this case.


Thanks for *making* me look it up; I'm now even MORE sure of my original position in all of this. And, don't EVER apologize for having an honest and open debate and discussion on something; I thought that's what we were all here for!!! I typically learn more from people who challenge me, than I will from those who agree with me; such is what learning is made of!

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not according to the legal - and literal - definition of the terms "murder" and "human being".


Factually-speaking, of course.



We are "factually-speaking" here, riiiiiight? Or, are we "knee-jerking, reactionary-speaking" here?


Did The Rules change in this, the DEBATE forum? Or, did someone change the definition of the word "debate"?!?

A person killed a unborn human being regardless of the law it was murder and if they really wanted to being the cowards they are they could have found a way to charge this man for it.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

A person killed a unborn human being regardless of the law it was murder and if they really wanted to being the cowards they are they could have found a way to charge this man for it.

The only way to change this is for fetal law to be enforced in all states. Perhaps although sadly it would take something like this for it to be considered.

I think if you read Mrldii's personal views which are emotionally motivated you would see her in a different light. Her stance is from a factual point of view.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The only way to change this is for fetal law to be enforced in all states. Perhaps although sadly it would take something like this for it to be considered.

I think if you read Mrldii's personal views which are emotionally motivated you would see her in a different light. Her stance is from a factual point of view.

The way our system works is state's can mostly act as independent nations even if the left is destroying that freedom. But that's for another topic. But while acting as a independent state with it own rules and laws it does have to follow the constitution all states agreed upon when entering the union. And the constitution trumps state laws on human rights and murder. The founders would have seen the unborn as human as you and me with the same rights as you and me. So again if the cowardess lawyers wanted to prosecute for murder they could.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

The way our system works is state's can mostly act as independent nations even if the left is destroying that freedom. But that's for another topic. But while acting as a independent state with it own rules and laws it does have to follow the constitution all states agreed upon when entering the union. And the constitution trumps state laws on human rights and murder. The founders would have seen the unborn as human as you and me with the same rights as you and me. So again if the cowardess lawyers wanted to prosecute for murder they could.

How so when the states own law is that a fetus until it draws breath is not consider to be covered in human rights?

As much as I agree it should be, it could and most likely be rebuted and dismissed. Giving the accused more leverage to sue the state.

I think sometimes like I imagine others can see it. The law can be an ass. I'm confident the DA would of being aware of this when not adding it to the list of accountable charges.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The constitution trumps state laws everytime. It just takes someone with guts to bring that fight forward.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

The constitution trumps state laws everytime. It just takes someone with guts to bring that fight forward.

Not in this case, if that were so there would be more sense in adding the charge. It would be argued she is being be tried in the state of Colorado, which does not recognise fetal law.

There would be no question of it in other states. It would be applied as a charge. Which is why I agree that Mrldii is correct. But also why I asked her personal opinion rather than as she would put it "factually speaking"

 

[mrldii]

The constitution trumps state laws everytime. It just takes someone with guts to bring that fight forward.

Interestingly and paradoxically enough, it is The Constitution which grants the States their sovereignty...and allows Colorado to define what is and is not "murder" and what is and is not a "human life".


Factually-speaking, of course.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Not in this case, if that were so there would be more sense in adding the charge. It would be argued she is being be tried in the state of Colorado, which does not recognise fetal law.

There would be no question of it in other states. It would be applied as a charge. Which is why I agree that Mrldii is correct. But also why I asked her personal opinion rather than as she would put it "factually speaking"

Constitution trumps state laws everytime without exception. It just takes someone to challenge it in court like a citizen or the state to show how unconstitutional it is to dismiss the murder of a human being.

There is no slippery slope here it is a human being and has rights and needs representation to speak for it because it can't do it for itself.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Interestingly and paradoxically enough, it is The Constitution which grants the States their sovereignty...and allows Colorado to define what is and is not "murder" and what is and is not a "human life".


Factually-speaking, of course.

No it is the Constitution they are ignoring just like they are ignoring federal law on pot. So not factual at all.