Confusion lies behind pro-life victories in homocide cases
Written by Katie on May 2, 2007 – 7:28 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
California has once again exposed the inconsistencies involved in the case for abortion on demand.
In a decision handed down this week, serial killer Chester Turner was convicted of eleven murders, including one committed against an unborn child. From CNN:
One victim was Regina Washington, 27, who was 6½ months pregnant when she was strangled with an electrical cord behind a vacant house in September 1989. Her fetus was considered one of the murder victims.
I just don’t get it. A part of her body was murdered? A blob of tissue was murdered? The average fourth grader can easily identify the gross inconsistencies here.
Of course, this is not the first of such cases. In 2005, California courts also found Scott Peterson guilty for the murder of his unborn child. Now, under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (inspired by the Peterson case), unborn children have been given protection from assault and murder.
So what exactly is it that the pro-choice lobby wants the mother to have a choice over? It seems ridiculous to say that anyone should be able to willfully harm an unborn child and suffer no penalties. After all, this is an injustice against both the child and its parents, and any pro-woman ideology should reject it.
At the same time, the law appears to be allowing a mother to choose when her child is or is not a person. Funny that the definition of a person would rely in any way on how another person feels about a specific situation. Theoretically, a fetus could be found to be a victim of assault and then subsequently aborted with no penalties. In fact, the mother herself could be convicted of first-degree murder for the exact same act that an abortionist would be payed to commit.
Kudos goes to California, for demonstrating yet again why the only consistent, logical, moral viewpoint is that life begins at conception and should be protected from then onward.
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
Posted in Beyond the Facade, Brave New World |
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
The article, also, later states: “Andrea Tripplett, 29, was 5½ months pregnant when she was strangled in April 1993. Turner wasn’t charged with killing Tripplett’s fetus, however, because California law specified at the time that a fetus at that stage was not considered viable.”
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
So what exactly is it that the pro-choice lobby wants the mother to have a choice over? It seems ridiculous to say that anyone should be able to willfully harm an unborn child and suffer no penalties. After all, this is an injustice against both the child and its parents, and any pro-woman ideology should reject it.
…..
your point here ignores the fact that “pro choice” involves a choice. there’s no choice in a woman being murdered, she is a victim of a killer. even if she were about to see an abortion specialist the next day, it’s not her murderer’s decision to be rid of the vile baby, but her own.
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
Wow, …vile baby…, not vile killer?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Simon, thanks for the pointless post. JMichael is right, of course. Not sure why the right can’t wrap their brains around this one…perhaps being conservative makes one immune to logic. I will, however, give some credit for Pez to point out the issue of when a fetus is viable is rather ambiguous. The law should rather stipulate that the killer may also be charged with the death of the fetus if it is reasonable that he should have known the mother was pregnant.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
JMichael and Dave may want to re-read these sentences.
“At the same time, the law appears to be allowing a mother to choose when her child is or is not a person. Funny that the definition of a person would rely in any way on how another person feels about a specific situation.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
simon if you flip back, you’ll find that i simply hate children. it’s more a matter of practicality, it takes them 6-10 years to be useful for me and do my bidding. and i always sit next to them on airplanes somehow.
…and al, that makes an assumption that is unsupported by pro-choice rhetoric. the choice to abort doesn’t reflect on whether it’s a belief it’s a kid, human, or whatever you want to call it. the choice is whether or not to have the baby, and a woman’s murdered can’t choose for her.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I’m not going to discuss morality here, but saying that human life begins at birth is consistent as well. They’re both definite starting points. Any other viewpoint seems arbitrary to me, but those two you can at least argue for.
I noticed a few years ago that in the Bible, it is strongly implied that life does not begin at conception. In the Old Testament, it says that the taking of a human life can only be atoned for with sacrifices and never with a monetary fee, but the punishment for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry is a fee. The killing of a baby after birth, however, needs a blood sacrifice. Has anyone else ever noticed this?