Two counts of murder

[Dreamwebber]

As you have probably heard the body believed to be the missing pregnant mom from Ohio has been found. The Boyfriend has been arrested and faces 2 murder charges.

I am curious as to how you feel about the charges. Do you feel a person who murders a pregnant woman should be charged with 1 or 2 murders? If you feel 2 murders...then if a woman has an abortion do you feel the woman should be charged with murder as well?

Personally, I think the person should only be able to be charged with one murder since the fetus has not had a "live" birth it is still a part of the woman's body.

Your thoughts?

[stray]

Due to the race-mixing nature of this case, I honestly don't care. She bought her ticket, and she's obviously taken her ride 'in the carpet.'

Personally, I believe that since partial-birth abortions are banned, that is where the line should be drawn. If a fetus is eligible for abortion, then the crime should count as a single murder. If the fetus is far enough along to not be legally eligible, then it should count as two murders.

Either way, this particular case holds no interest for me at all. It's TNB.

[TNBear]

Oh yeah, when is the next Klan meeting Stray?

[tcrashfx]

I think he should be charged with 2 counts of first degree murder.

I hope they ask for, and get, the death penalty if he is convicted.

[stray]

tnbear said:

Oh yeah, when is the next Klan meeting Stray?

August 4th, Kalamzoo MI.

Why?

[osrb]

Since the baby was a viable living person at the time it should be 2 murders. The only difference between a fetus and a baby is one had taken a breath and one has not. That is a pretty narrow view of it. In this case the baby could have lived outside of the incubator aka mother with no ill effects. If she was only in the first trimester it would be different but since in this case the baby was fully grown and ready to come out it should be 2 counts not 1.

IMO Death to the baby killer.

[el Gusano]

Since it is up to the mother to determine whether an unborn baby lives or dies, and this woman had chosen life: 2 murders.

[frogkissinglady]

the babys due date was next week, so it could have survived if born now...

[whimdriven]

I may be struck by lightning after this post, but I agree with Stray.

If you're in a state where abortion is legal and the fetus is eligible for abortion, I don't see how you could charge someone with murder and not charge an aborting mother with murder, so one charge there. Maybe some premeditation or capital clause could be invoked?

If the fetus is past eligibility for abortion, two murders. Makes sense to me.

Now, what if you're in South Dakota. I guess it's two murders from conception. But what if you kill a pregnant woman and she didn't even know she was pregnant ... oh the "if, thens!"

[legaltender]

Ohio law provides for murder charges if an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another" is killed at any stage of pre-natal development.
Fetal viability isn't an issue.

[Felix]

This is an interesting thread, considering the impact of the question of life's beginnings on a decision to forcibly terminate it. The killer here unquestionably murdered Jessie Davis, an act which resulted in the termination of her pregnancy and the death of the near-term baby she was carrying. The accused, Bobby Cutts, is allegedly the father of the baby Davis was carrying, and certainly was aware that she was pregnant and near delivery.

Dream asked:

Do you feel a person who murders a pregnant woman should be charged with one or two murders?

In this case, I think clearly first degree murder of two persons should be charged.

Dream further asked:

If you feel two murders...then if a woman has an abortion do you feel the woman should be charged with murder as well?

Inevitably, the debate over when life begins and when abortion may, if ever, be justified gets into the debate. This question is no debate for those adhering to the opposite extremes of opinion.

For militant defenders of a woman's right to control her own body, abortion is purely a matter for the woman to consider.

For equally militant defenders of the rights of a putative human being from fertilization of the egg to birth, the murder of the woman would also be murder of the embryo, fetus, baby—by any name, a person for these advocates—because whether viable outside the mother's body or not, the growing cells are collectively a human being.

For the latter group, Dreams's second question must be answered 'Yes.' Abortion is murder, for those who admit no distinction between a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst
]blastocyst[/url], for example, and a full-term fetus.

I don't feel either of the extreme camps have the answer; their respective positions basically refuse to deal with the ambiguity of the question of when a person is present during the nine months of gestation. I don't have a good answer myself, as it happens.

Finally, Whim posited:

But what if you kill a pregnant woman and she didn't even know she was pregnant...

Since the woman didn't know she was pregnant, the killer could not either, so regardless of what status you accord the growing human cells, the killer is not guilty of an addtional count of murder, although some charge such as manslaughter might apply, for those who consider the early first trimester embryo already a human being.

As LT points out above, in Ohio the law settles the question in accordance with the extreme anti-abortion position. It would be interesting to see how a prosecution based on that law would play out.

[stray]

I maintain the easily-enforceable and legally defensible position of:

The 'law' has ruled against late-term or partial-birth abortions.

This needs to be the measuring stick in criminal cases.

If the fetus is still within the 'window' of a legal abortion, then it just counts as the murder of the mother.

If the fetus is outside the 'window' of legal abortion, then it's a two-fer.

[damnyankee]

Two Murders..No death penalty...make him live a full life behind bars..Place pictures of the victims in his cell...

[stray]

You forgetting he's a negro?

Please don't throw Brer Rabbit in da briar patch....

[legaltender]

Making her murder less iniquitous than this other pregnant white woman's?

www.wral.com/news/local/story/1502655/

[TNBear]

C'mon Stray, putting a black man who is a former police officer in prison for killing a white woman and her unborn child is throwing B'rer Rabbit in the briars, I don't think so.
I assure you the Aryan Nation would just love to have a "talk" with him. Would save the State the cost of a bunch of appeals.

[RuneDeer]

I suspect the pregnancy was the main reason for the murder, anyway...going to any lengths to avoid responsibility.

[stray]

You're thinking Aryan Brotherhood...not Aryan Nation. Aryan Nations folks are on the outside for the most part. The ex-popo thing means he'd probably be fucked...(literally and figuratively).

[gridbug]

If the fetus is still within the 'window' of a legal abortion, then it just counts as the murder of the mother.

If the fetus is outside the 'window' of legal abortion, then it's a two-fer.

This is a legal matter, not a moral matter. The closest logical legal precedent is whether or not the fetus can legally be aborted. That would have to be the determining factor for whether one or two muders were involved.

As for christian arguments, does it not say in Leviticus that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and causes the death of her unborn child, that it is pretty much only a property crime and he just owes compensation to the father?

But that is just a side note. No matter how many times some people say it, the bible is not the law.

[Kordax]

Since we're all fortunate enough to be survivors of the gestation period frought with female imposed high mortality rates, none of us have standing to pass judgement.

In the spirit of "only a woman can discuss the abortion debate", only a dead fetus can have an informed opinion on whether the Ohio incident involves 2 murders or not....

[footylicious]

Hmm.. I see the reasoning to a degree, but I have to wonder... if abortion is a legal option due to the term in pregnancy, that abortion is only legal if performed by a physician in that field.

I think that if the murderer knows the mother is pregnant in an early stage of pregnancy, he may not necessarily be charged with murder, but should be charged with something more than just the one for murdering the mother. Perhaps manslaughter as earlier mentioned.

[mikeydokey]

I wonder if Chris Benoit had murdered his wife and son and failed in his suicide attempt, if he could have been charged with two counts of murder or just one. Seems to me the argument could be made that it was the wife's choice as to whether the son was to live or die and since she was no longer around to relate her wishes, then he could only be charged with one count of murder.
Why stop a womans right to an abortion at the time of birth?

[stray]

Much like Chris Benoit's son, you're fucking retarded.

[Kordax]

Much like Chris Benoit's son, you're fucking retarded.

Stray -- what are the usual & customary reasons commonly offered by abortion apologists as justification for a woman's right to choose?

• Health of the mother?
  
• Diminished quality of life for a born child?
  
• Birth control?
  
• Expense of child rearing?
  
• Fittness of a woman to actually be a mother?
  
• Birth defect(s)?
  
• Sex selection?
  

Whatever "reasoning" is offered up for justifying pre-natal abortions, doesn't the same reasoning exist for post-natal situations, too? Can't the same woman who chooses an abortion because she or her child would suffer adverse consequences also use the same logical reasoning that she's suffering adverse consequences AFTER her child happens to have been born?

[stray]

I am all for freedom of choice UP UNTIL the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb. At the point where that little mass of flesh can do all of its bodily functions all by itself, the right to squash it like a bug ENDS.

I'm not talking about KEEPING it viable with a Darth Vader suit and an Alaskan Pipeline worth of plumbing... I'm talking about being able to function under its own power outside the womb and independant of support devices....at that point, hands off.

Before that? Puree the little fucker for stem cells for all I care.

[mikeydokey]

But Stray: You have to understand that maybe Chris Benoit's wife actually wanted an abortion. Maybe through no fault of her own she was denied the right to an abortion. perhaps she lived in a state where abortions were nearly impossible to get, she might have, found an abortion clinic and when she went there there were protesters out front, and fearing confrontation, she might have passed by, going back time and time again, always backing out. For any number of reasons she may have been denied her right to choose, so why should her right to choose be denied just because her baby has been born. Especially if the baby is born retarded, or maybe she wanted a little girl with blonde hair, or say the mother suffers from post natal depression. Who decides when a womans rights expire, not the baby, he has no rights at all.

[mikeydokey]

Also, I didn't think you cared because the baby wasn't pure blooded like you.

[stray]

About the original argument? Nah, I don't give a shit. The race-mixing whore should have been tossed into a woodchipper before it was allowed to reproduce the first time.

(Also, if she had, I wouldn't have the amusing phrase of 'Mommy be in da' rug an' shit!' to toss around...and currently, this amuses me a lot....so....)

I'm willing to debate the issue, though...and I've stated my position.

[Racin' Angel]

I suspect the pregnancy was the main reason for the murder, anyway...going to any lengths to avoid responsibility


Not likely since the other child was his too....or so everyone was saying....

[mikeydokey]

Well for one thing Stray, I don't appreciate you denigrating helpless retarded children by comparing them to the likes of me. I think you owe them all a big apology.
Next, if a person has to forfeit a constitutional right, say the right to bear arms, through no fault of their own, then they are forever barred from reclaiming that right?