Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 4/5/2006 6:53:26 AM EDT
`Unborn child' crime bill goes to Riley
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
DAVID WHITE
News staff writer
MONTGOMERY - Anyone who injured or killed an "unborn child" at any stage of development could be charged with assault or homicide under a bill passed Tuesday by the Legislature.

Gov. Bob Riley said he looked forward to signing the bill into law. That could happen later this week.

The state Senate voted 33-0 for the bill after making changes to a version passed in January by the House of Representatives. The House then voted 101-0 to go along with the Senate's changes, giving the bill final legislative approval.

The bill, House Bill 19, is named in memory of Brody Parker, the unborn child of Brandy Parker of Albertville, who was 8½ months pregnant when she was shot and killed in July.

Brandy Parker's father, Roger Parker of Guntersville, said he was thrilled the bill passed.

"We are absolutely elated," he said. "The emotion is indescribable. The first thing I thought of was my daughter and my grandson. Their legacy will live on."

The Brody bill will take effect July 1 and then could be used to prosecute people for assault or homicide if they injured or killed an unborn child, something that supporters of the bill said couldn't have been done against Brody Parker's killer.

Parker said he believed the story of the deaths of Brandy and Brody Parker put a face to a gap in state law and helped pass the bill.

The bill would expand the definition of person, when referring to the victim of assault, murder, manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, so that it included "an unborn child" regardless of viability, which means the ability to live outside the womb.

The bill says it would not apply to anyone seeking or performing a legal abortion.

"We've done a good thing for the state of Alabama and for unborn children," said Sen. Bradley Byrne, R-Montrose.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Spencer Collier, R-Irvington, said he thinks the bill probably is the most important passed by lawmakers since 2003.

Similar law in 32 states:

"This is a victims' advocate bill," Collier said. "It's a bill that's going to protect pregnant mothers, and it's a bill that the overwhelming majority of Alabama wants, and it's long past due."

He said 32 states have similar laws.

Dan Ireland, executive director of the church-supported Alabama Citizen's Action Program, praised the bill. "It's the protection of life, particularly the unborn," he said.

Collier said that, starting July 1, it would be up to a prosecutor to prove a woman was pregnant and that the accused person injured or killed the child she was carrying.

He said a district attorney might try to use the Brody bill to prosecute someone for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter if the person caused a traffic accident that killed an unborn child.

Not only would the law not apply in the case of legal abortions, it also would not apply to the mother. Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said he wanted that provision added to ensure that a woman who miscarried could not be prosecuted. It also would not apply to health care providers if an unborn child were injured or killed by medical care.

Collier's bill as first written would have applied to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation (in the uterus) from conception to birth, regardless of viability."

At Smitherman's request, that phrase was rewritten to apply to "an unborn child (in the uterus) at any stage of development regardless of viability."

Collier said he believed the new language had the same meaning as the original language. "I do think it accomplishes the same thing," he said.

But Smitherman said it would be up to a judge to decide whether the bill applied from conception. "I don't know what a judge would say," Smitherman said.

I don't get it. Abortion is legal but killing a pregnant woman adds a second murder charge?


Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:59:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 7:01:24 AM EDT by efpeter]
The pro choice hates this kind of legislation. It creates a legal precident that a fetus could be considered a human under certian circumstances.

Remember a couple of years ago, someone murdered a pregnant woman. Some right to kill organization tried or did file a lawsuit to block the perpetrator from being charged with two counts of murder, because they didn't want the fetus to count as a person. It never ceases to amaze me what liberals can manage to convince themselves. I mean, what kind of delusional/denial of reality is that? I can't even imagine fooling yourself into believeing that kind of nonsense.


Or how about the young woman who didn't want to be pregnant anymore? She and her boyfriend took turns punching her in the stomach until she had a misscarriage. He was charged with murder or manslaughter, but she was charged with nothing because she was "with-in her rights to terminate her own pregnancy."
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:16:01 AM EDT
I still don't understandy how those whacko liberals can justify abortion, while also saying that lethal injection for a serial killer is murder.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:19:11 AM EDT
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:19:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By efpeter:
The pro choice hates this kind of legislation. It creates a legal precident that a fetus could be considered a human under certian circumstances.

Remember a couple of years ago, someone murdered a pregnant woman. Some right to kill organization tried or did file a lawsuit to block the perpetrator from being charged with two counts of murder, because they didn't want the fetus to count as a person. It never ceases to amaze me what liberals can manage to convince themselves. I mean, what kind of delusional/denial of reality is that? I can't even imagine fooling yourself into believeing that kind of nonsense.





Scott & Lacey Peterson
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:26:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 8:27:29 AM EDT by Grunteled]

"This is a victims' advocate bill," Collier said. "It's a bill that's going to protect pregnant mothers, and it's a bill that the overwhelming majority of Alabama wants, and it's long past due."


I hate that phrase. This doesn't protect anybody. Is the bill going to surround the woman like a shield to prevent attacks on her?

Honestly I think it stinks. Either it's a person or it's not but this call it a person when we want to prosecute someone and call it a fetus, non-person for other applications is illogical and smacks of simple pandering.

BTW: I support calling it murder as it was another life you ended, I don't care if you did or didn't know about the baby.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:27:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
I still don't understandy how those whacko liberals can justify abortion, while also saying that lethal injection for a serial killer is murder.




Simple - they're delusional/semi-retarded, and don't see reality as the rest of the world does...



- georgestrings
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:34:55 AM EDT
So someone who has a genuinely unfortunate car accident can be charged with manslaughter, but a mother who smokes, drinks, does cocaine, etc is exempt?

Nice. Way to go, Alabama.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:41:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.





Why not choose pre-pregnancy birth control?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:43:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By m193:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.





Why not choose pre-pregnancy birth control?



Sometimes it fails. Sometimes it happens against a woman's will.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:43:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_in_Seattle:



Scott & Lacey Peterson




That's right. Thanks for reminding me.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:45:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By m193:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.





Why not choose pre-pregnancy birth control?



because abortion is a 100% effective "backup" plan..
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:46:57 AM EDT


Last I saw this was not an abortion argument. Why turn it into one?? Those have been done to death on arfcom!
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:55:16 AM EDT
he started it
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 9:30:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By m193:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.





Why not choose pre-pregnancy birth control?



because abortion is a 100% effective "backup" plan..




I think that is technically incorrect. BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

I have read a few stories about abortion where the late term fetus had to be killed by the doctor.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:13:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.


However the unborn child still ends up rather dead.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:19:03 AM EDT
Wouldn't killing the mother already get you a murder rap? Do we need more another "feel good" law that doesn't do anything? Are they going to double-execute the murderer or give him the dreaded double-life sentence?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:20:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.


However the unborn child still ends up rather dead.



Quite so, but I think we've hashed this out before.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:47:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rxdawg:
So someone who has a genuinely unfortunate car accident can be charged with manslaughter, but a mother who smokes, drinks, does cocaine, etc is exempt?

Nice. Way to go, Alabama.



What? We just joined the 32 other states which have similar laws.


Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:56:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:
Wouldn't killing the mother already get you a murder rap? Do we need more another "feel good" law that doesn't do anything? Are they going to double-execute the murderer or give him the dreaded double-life sentence?



One of the reasons they went with the charge of double murder in the Peterson case was so they could go for the death penalty. I believe that in many states the death penalty is reserved for those who commit more than one murder. And even if that were not the case, the second murder charge still makes the death penalty more likely.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:58:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rxdawg:
So someone who has a genuinely unfortunate car accident can be charged with manslaughter, but a mother who smokes, drinks, does cocaine, etc is exempt?

Nice. Way to go, Alabama.



Damn right. We are proud of that bill. Why don't you get Tenn to pass one on coke, smoking, etc. if you are so critical
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 10:59:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
As someone who is pro-choice I have no problem with the law itself personally, but the problem is as efpeter says, to create a precedent to try and attack abortion from another angle. I think there is a difference between a woman choosing what happens to her own body and someone else making that choice for her.


However the unborn child still ends up rather dead.



Quite so, but I think we've hashed this out before.



Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.
~ George Orwell
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:08:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 11:09:47 AM EDT by rxdawg]

Originally Posted By alaman:

Originally Posted By rxdawg:
So someone who has a genuinely unfortunate car accident can be charged with manslaughter, but a mother who smokes, drinks, does cocaine, etc is exempt?

Nice. Way to go, Alabama.



Damn right. We are proud of that bill. Why don't you get Tenn to pass one on coke, smoking, etc. if you are so critical



Re-read the article before you post:


He said a district attorney might try to use the Brody bill to prosecute someone for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter if the person caused a traffic accident that killed an unborn child.

Not only would the law not apply in the case of legal abortions, it also would not apply to the mother. Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said he wanted that provision added to ensure that a woman who miscarried could not be prosecuted. It also would not apply to health care providers if an unborn child were injured or killed by medical care.




So the mother has the right to harm the unborn infant, but if I accidentally hit her car and she miscarries I am guilty of manslaughter?

Keep your damn bill.

Edit to remove personal, but accurate, attack.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:09:50 AM EDT
We've had this in Californistan for a long time.

It's been working well.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:09:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:
Wouldn't killing the mother already get you a murder rap? Do we need more another "feel good" law that doesn't do anything? Are they going to double-execute the murderer or give him the dreaded double-life sentence?



The new law doesn't say anything about killing the mother and the unborn child...

It says injuring/killing the unborn child is assault/murder.

Your argument is the same as me saying in regards to a mother & her 3 year old both murdered,"wouldn't killing the mother of a 3 year old already get you a murder rap? Do we need a nother "feel good" law that doesn't do anything?" Uhhh... Yes, the second murder is still murder.

Also, punching, shooting, stabbing, etc the mother in the stomach and killing the unborn child won't necessarily kill the mother. Does this "feel good law" make more sense now?

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:14:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:18:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rxdawg:

Originally Posted By alaman:

Originally Posted By rxdawg:
So someone who has a genuinely unfortunate car accident can be charged with manslaughter, but a mother who smokes, drinks, does cocaine, etc is exempt?

Nice. Way to go, Alabama.



Damn right. We are proud of that bill. Why don't you get Tenn to pass one on coke, smoking, etc. if you are so critical



Re-read the article before you post:


He said a district attorney might try to use the Brody bill to prosecute someone for criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter if the person caused a traffic accident that killed an unborn child.

Not only would the law not apply in the case of legal abortions, it also would not apply to the mother. Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said he wanted that provision added to ensure that a woman who miscarried could not be prosecuted. It also would not apply to health care providers if an unborn child were injured or killed by medical care.




So the mother has the right to harm the unborn infant, but if I accidentally hit her car and she miscarries I am guilty of manslaughter?

Keep your damn bill.

Edit to remove personal, but accurate, attack.



Yes, the typical hypocracy... (from these laws, not you)

But regardless, it's a step in the right direction.

If you cause her to miscarry because of an accident, why should this be any different than if you caused her (not necessarily a pregnant her) to die? Or why should it be different if you had an accident and killed a 1 month old?

I'm all for removing the hypocracy which you point out, however, being that the mother is exempt. The unborn child CANNOT be BOTH a "part of her body" (to the mother) and a full fledged person to everyone else, to anyone with 2 braincells to rub together. Remove the "mother gets free pass" portion from this and that's a great new law... (which, by common sense shouldn't even HAVE to be made into a law)
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:21:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 11:22:57 AM EDT by Another_Dude]

Your argument is the same as me saying in regards to a mother & her 3 year old both murdered,"wouldn't killing the mother of a 3 year old already get you a murder rap? Do we need a nother "feel good" law that doesn't do anything?" Uhhh... Yes, the second murder is still murder.

Also, punching, shooting, stabbing, etc the mother in the stomach and killing the unborn child won't necessarily kill the mother. Does this "feel good law" make more sense now?




A 3 year old has a birth certificate, SS#, and can survive outside the womb...different story.

Johnny Boyfriend is a murderer when he stabs the fetus, Johnny Doctor is providing a legal medical service. Although, Johnny Neighbor is a criminal when he gives out Ritalin while Johnny Doctor is helping society.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:36:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steenkybastage:

Yes, the typical hypocracy... (from these laws, not you)

But regardless, it's a step in the right direction.

If you cause her to miscarry because of an accident, why should this be any different than if you caused her (not necessarily a pregnant her) to die? Or why should it be different if you had an accident and killed a 1 month old?

I'm all for removing the hypocracy which you point out, however, being that the mother is exempt. The unborn child CANNOT be BOTH a "part of her body" (to the mother) and a full fledged person to everyone else, to anyone with 2 braincells to rub together. Remove the "mother gets free pass" portion from this and that's a great new law... (which, by common sense shouldn't even HAVE to be made into a law)



Exactly. What's good for one is good for the other - Mom cokes out and miscarries, she should be charged just like I would be for hitting her car.

I still have a problem with a simple, innocent accident being prosecutable. I think an intent to cause harm should factor into the decision. Things happen, and if you are willing to gamble with your own future, so be it.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 11:51:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 11:52:48 AM EDT by pattymcn]

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:
Wouldn't killing the mother already get you a murder rap? Do we need more another "feel good" law that doesn't do anything? Are they going to double-execute the murderer or give him the dreaded double-life sentence?



What the bill is doing is creating two offenses-rather than just one offense of killing the mother. It would be like when a criminal goes into a convienence store and kills the clerk and attendent during a robbery. He would be charged with murder twice as he killed two people. The state wouldn't just charge him with one offense and be satisfied. Now in Alabama if the clerk happened to be pregnant the state could charge the robber with three counts of murder.

Patty
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:17:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rxdawg:

Originally Posted By steenkybastage:

Yes, the typical hypocracy... (from these laws, not you)

But regardless, it's a step in the right direction.

If you cause her to miscarry because of an accident, why should this be any different than if you caused her (not necessarily a pregnant her) to die? Or why should it be different if you had an accident and killed a 1 month old?

I'm all for removing the hypocracy which you point out, however, being that the mother is exempt. The unborn child CANNOT be BOTH a "part of her body" (to the mother) and a full fledged person to everyone else, to anyone with 2 braincells to rub together. Remove the "mother gets free pass" portion from this and that's a great new law... (which, by common sense shouldn't even HAVE to be made into a law)



Exactly. What's good for one is good for the other - Mom cokes out and miscarries, she should be charged just like I would be for hitting her car.

I still have a problem with a simple, innocent accident being prosecutable. I think an intent to cause harm should factor into the decision. Things happen, and if you are willing to gamble with your own future, so be it.




The language exempting the mother was not in the original bill. It was added in the third judiciiary amendment passed and added to the bill, along with the language specifically protecting legal abortions. Even as "red state" as we are, our state legislature is still Dem-controlled and IMO the bill never would have passed without those amendments.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:20:45 PM EDT
New study on unborn babies feeling pain.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4875196.stm
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:22:29 PM EDT
Heres an idea.... congress passes a law stating that life begins at conception. The drinking age and purchase age for a handgun now becomes 20 and 3 months? Im all for it!
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:27:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HardShell:

Originally Posted By rxdawg:

Originally Posted By steenkybastage:

Yes, the typical hypocracy... (from these laws, not you)

But regardless, it's a step in the right direction.

If you cause her to miscarry because of an accident, why should this be any different than if you caused her (not necessarily a pregnant her) to die? Or why should it be different if you had an accident and killed a 1 month old?

I'm all for removing the hypocracy which you point out, however, being that the mother is exempt. The unborn child CANNOT be BOTH a "part of her body" (to the mother) and a full fledged person to everyone else, to anyone with 2 braincells to rub together. Remove the "mother gets free pass" portion from this and that's a great new law... (which, by common sense shouldn't even HAVE to be made into a law)



Exactly. What's good for one is good for the other - Mom cokes out and miscarries, she should be charged just like I would be for hitting her car.

I still have a problem with a simple, innocent accident being prosecutable. I think an intent to cause harm should factor into the decision. Things happen, and if you are willing to gamble with your own future, so be it.




The language exempting the mother was not in the original bill. It was added in the third judiciiary amendment passed and added to the bill, along with the language specifically protecting legal abortions. Even as "red state" as we are, our state legislature is still Dem-controlled and IMO the bill never would have passed without those amendments.



Then it shouldn't be passed. Your state, your issue, but I'd not support a bill that creates a murder case for one person and nothing at all for another for commiting the same act.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:31:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 12:31:34 PM EDT by ZitiForBreakfast]
Edited...It's ARFCOM...I wont even bother anymore....

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pattymcn:

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:
Wouldn't killing the mother already get you a murder rap? Do we need more another "feel good" law that doesn't do anything? Are they going to double-execute the murderer or give him the dreaded double-life sentence?



What the bill is doing is creating two offenses-rather than just one offense of killing the mother. It would be like when a criminal goes into a convienence store and kills the clerk and attendent during a robbery. He would be charged with murder twice as he killed two people. The state wouldn't just charge him with one offense and be satisfied. Now in Alabama if the clerk happened to be pregnant the state could charge the robber with three counts of murder.

Patty



It also addresses situations where a person attacks a woman who is pregnant causing the loss of the baby but only aggravated assault on the mother. There is nothing the state can do about the dead baby even if the offender knows damn well the woman is prego. There have been cases of women being stabbed in the belly with the full intent to kill the child but the only legal offence is the stabbing, not the killing of the unborn child.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:32:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Then it shouldn't be passed. Your state, your issue, but I'd not support a bill that creates a murder case for one person and nothing at all for another for commiting the same act.



Agreed. I wouldn't have voted for it, and encouraged my friends in the Legislature to let it go until they could pass it as written - but they opted for the incremental approach.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 12:32:39 PM EDT
If the fetus is a citizen and can be murdered then abortion should immediatly become illegal in all cases. If the fetus can be legally aborted then it isn't a person and no murder charges should result for anyone. Its either a person or its not. This 1/2 and 1/2 stuff is bullshit to make the sheeple sleep better at night.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 1:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Your argument is the same as me saying in regards to a mother & her 3 year old both murdered,"wouldn't killing the mother of a 3 year old already get you a murder rap? Do we need a nother "feel good" law that doesn't do anything?" Uhhh... Yes, the second murder is still murder.




A 3 year old has a birth certificate, SS#, and can survive outside the womb...different story.




Wrong. A 3 year old can no better survive than a 2 year old or even a newborn child, on their own. Do you have kids? How long do you think a 3 year old would survive if he/she was left alone in the middle of a vast national forest, or even a large city? Without help from adults he/she would be doomed. Hell, most adults are incapable of surviving on their own. If the standard to determine who can live would be based on ability to survive on your own, 90+ percent of the population would not be eligible.

So, a birth certificate and SS# makes a person? A little too Orwellian for my tastes. A person is a person with or without a birth certificate, picture ID, SS#, biometric implants, or barcode tattoo. And that includes the fetus as well.

Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:24:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Your argument is the same as me saying in regards to a mother & her 3 year old both murdered,"wouldn't killing the mother of a 3 year old already get you a murder rap? Do we need a nother "feel good" law that doesn't do anything?" Uhhh... Yes, the second murder is still murder.

Also, punching, shooting, stabbing, etc the mother in the stomach and killing the unborn child won't necessarily kill the mother. Does this "feel good law" make more sense now?




A 3 year old has a birth certificate, SS#, and can survive outside the womb...different story.

Johnny Boyfriend is a murderer when he stabs the fetus, Johnny Doctor is providing a legal medical service. Although, Johnny Neighbor is a criminal when he gives out Ritalin while Johnny Doctor is helping society.




You're missing the point.

The law says that the harming/killing an unborn child can bring charges.

Your original point was that killing the mother AND baby resulting in 2 charges was a "feel good law", because there was already the murder charge for killing the mother.

This law says NOT killing the mother and killing the child is still murder. If there are 2 deaths, this law says there are 2 murder charges. That is not a "feel good law" just tossed out there so we can make the first murder charge "worse" by adding a second charge... it is a recognizable stand-alone offense.

NOW you're trying to compare the validity of the law, and the differences between unborn and postborn children. BEFORE you were ASSUMING the only case where this was applicable was in the murder of a pregnant woman... at least that's how you came off, since you were saying it was a "feel good law" cause of the first murder charge.

So, yes, in the context of your original "feel good law" BS post, the mother and 3 year old double murder charge is a good comparison.

If you want to (like now) change the subject and argue that an unborn child isn't human until they have a SSN... I'm not going to bother responding to that.

The law put in place makes it a possible to criminaly charge someone who harms or kills an unborn child. If you were trying to say that there should be no punishable offense for doing so in your original post, you did a poor job of stating that.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 6:38:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rxdawg:
I still have a problem with a simple, innocent accident being prosecutable. I think an intent to cause harm should factor into the decision. Things happen, and if you are willing to gamble with your own future, so be it.



Well, killing someone in an accident is prosecutable, heck... you can be prosecuted and sued for ALL KINDS of crap nowadays... Anyhow, back to my point... accidents can have consequences, whether you accidentally killed the lady (who wasn't pregnant), the lady who was pregnant, or now her unborn child, even if she survived.

Whether you are actually convicted is another matter. In any of the above scenarios, if you are driving the speed limit and obeying all other traffic safety rules/laws, and happen to have a tire blow out that causes you to kill a grownup, child or unborn child... I don't think you would be convicted (likely not even charged) of anything.

I would imagine, as with "born people" cases, you would have to be negligent, reckless or have criminal intent to actually be charged/convicted.

This law essentially just makes unborn children "real people" in the eyes of the law (unless the mother somehow plays her jedi mind-trick and causes the unborn-child to become something else), which means anything you could be charged and (possibly) convicted for doing to a "born" person, you can now be charged and (possibly) convicted for doing to an unborn child. I don't think it would FORCE prosecution/conviction of an accident, just like murder/manslaughter laws (of "born people") aren't forced in every situation.

JMHO
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 7:27:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Sometimes it fails. Sometimes it happens against a woman's will.



...at which time the whole thing becomes just too.....inconvenient, and we are therefore within our rights to kill the baby. It's ok, you can say it.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 7:29:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2006 7:31:38 PM EDT by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:
A 3 year old has a birth certificate, SS#, and can survive outside the womb...different story.



Uh, so I can murder an illegal alien with no repurcussions because he has no SSN or birth certificate? What about people in the hospital under life support - can I kill them because they are unable to survive on their own? None of those things are relevant.



Johnny Boyfriend is a murderer when he stabs the fetus, Johnny Doctor is providing a legal medical service. Although, Johnny Neighbor is a criminal when he gives out Ritalin while Johnny Doctor is helping society.



Agreed, but probably not in the way you intended.


If the fetus is a citizen and can be murdered then abortion should immediatly become illegal in all cases. If the fetus can be legally aborted then it isn't a person and no murder charges should result for anyone. Its either a person or its not. This 1/2 and 1/2 stuff is bullshit to make the sheeple sleep better at night.


No shit. Nothing pisses me off more than a government imposing contradictory laws, or laws that create exceptions for protected classes. I even think the exemption for medical doctors is too broad - they had already exempted abortion, but it would appear that malpractice (negligence) has been exempted as well.



Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:45:31 AM EDT
ARFCom is loaded with irresponsible males who want to be able to screw any female they want and then kill the child if it will deprive them of their toys and vices. Males..........I don't consider them men.........who want abortion kept legal are simply characterless weazels.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 3:45:36 AM EDT
This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw last week.

If every womb had a window, abortions would stop in a heartbeat.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:35:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steenkybastage:

Well, killing someone in an accident is prosecutable, heck... you can be prosecuted and sued for ALL KINDS of crap nowadays... Anyhow, back to my point... accidents can have consequences, whether you accidentally killed the lady (who wasn't pregnant), the lady who was pregnant, or now her unborn child, even if she survived.

Whether you are actually convicted is another matter. In any of the above scenarios, if you are driving the speed limit and obeying all other traffic safety rules/laws, and happen to have a tire blow out that causes you to kill a grownup, child or unborn child... I don't think you would be convicted (likely not even charged) of anything.

I would imagine, as with "born people" cases, you would have to be negligent, reckless or have criminal intent to actually be charged/convicted.

This law essentially just makes unborn children "real people" in the eyes of the law (unless the mother somehow plays her jedi mind-trick and causes the unborn-child to become something else), which means anything you could be charged and (possibly) convicted for doing to a "born" person, you can now be charged and (possibly) convicted for doing to an unborn child. I don't think it would FORCE prosecution/conviction of an accident, just like murder/manslaughter laws (of "born people") aren't forced in every situation.

JMHO



Not if the mother is the cause of death. That is what is so absurd about the exemption - Mom accidentally hits a telephone pole with her car and miscarries, not a crime. I hit her car accidentally and she miscarries, I face manslaughter charges. Surely you see the problem with this?

Like Gruntled said- your state, your issue. I dont have a problem with the concept of the bill, just the implementation.
Top Top