Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 11-14-2004, 03:14 PM

What I'm getting at is that during the time period in which a mother has the legal ability to terminate a pregnancy, outside of the need to protect her own life, it cannot be considered a life. So, you point out that a woman can terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks and sometimes afterwards without it being an act of self-defense. This means that, according to the law, it is not a life before 24 weeks, but may be considered a life after 24 weeks. Specifically in the case of Scott Peterson, this means there is no inconsistancy: Laci was 8 months pregnant and abortion (presently at least) is illegal during that time. There is no inconsistancy in charging Scott Peterson with double murder.

What I am intersted in and concerned about however is the person who murders a pregnant woman BEFORE the third trimester. Any time in which it is legal for a woman to have an abortion for reasons other than self defense, the thing in her womb must not be considered a life. Like I stated before: if it is a life, it has its own rights, including the right to life. So, by the very fact abortion is legal in the first two trimesters, we are affirming that it is NOT a life and has no rights. If a murder takes place during that time then, only one person has been denied her right to life - not two. Thus, only one murder has taken place. Now, if the law wants to charge the murderer with something else in respect to the pregnancy - such as whatever the charge would be if the murderer had also killed the woman's dog, or perhaps as someone else mentioned, acting without a medical license - that's fine with me. I see no logical explanation, however, for why a murderer can be charged with double murder in the first two trimesters - indicating he has taken two human lives - yet the pregnancy is conveniently not a human when the woman wants an abortion.

I see this situation as us having our cake and eating it too. Of course, if a person who murders a woman before her third trimester COULDN'T be charged with double murder, then there is no inconsistancy. I am not awaer of any such distinction though.

11-14-2004, 03:14 PM	#19 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	What I'm getting at is that during the time period in which a mother has the legal ability to terminate a pregnancy, outside of the need to protect her own life, it cannot be considered a life. So, you point out that a woman can terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks and sometimes afterwards without it being an act of self-defense. This means that, according to the law, it is not a life before 24 weeks, but may be considered a life after 24 weeks. Specifically in the case of Scott Peterson, this means there is no inconsistancy: Laci was 8 months pregnant and abortion (presently at least) is illegal during that time. There is no inconsistancy in charging Scott Peterson with double murder. What I am intersted in and concerned about however is the person who murders a pregnant woman BEFORE the third trimester. Any time in which it is legal for a woman to have an abortion for reasons other than self defense, the thing in her womb must not be considered a life. Like I stated before: if it is a life, it has its own rights, including the right to life. So, by the very fact abortion is legal in the first two trimesters, we are affirming that it is NOT a life and has no rights. If a murder takes place during that time then, only one person has been denied her right to life - not two. Thus, only one murder has taken place. Now, if the law wants to charge the murderer with something else in respect to the pregnancy - such as whatever the charge would be if the murderer had also killed the woman's dog, or perhaps as someone else mentioned, acting without a medical license - that's fine with me. I see no logical explanation, however, for why a murderer can be charged with double murder in the first two trimesters - indicating he has taken two human lives - yet the pregnancy is conveniently not a human when the woman wants an abortion. I see this situation as us having our cake and eating it too. Of course, if a person who murders a woman before her third trimester COULDN'T be charged with double murder, then there is no inconsistancy. I am not awaer of any such distinction though. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling