How is it double murder? Our legal inconsistencies!

These questions are not hard at all Bartikus.
A fetus becomes a person when it is born, and as it was
in the case of Scott Peterson, it could not be ruled out
that Connor was born before he was murdered. The jury
found that the evidence was enough to charge him
with double murder.

What's scary?

Look Bartikus, let's take another example:
A pregnant woman is an alcoholic and she's been drinking
throughout her pregnancy. When the baby is delivered it
is still born.

Morally the woman is responsible for the death of her
child, legally she cannot be prosecuted, as it was dead
on arrival.

Does this mean that absolutely nobody(not just a dr.) who ends or terminates a pregnancy at any stage should or could be charged with murder or manslaughter?

Bartikus wrote:

Does this mean that absolutely nobody(not just a dr.) who ends or terminates a pregnancy at any stage should or could be charged with murder or manslaughter?

Not at any stage, but within the legal limits, a termination is not considered murder or manslaughter.

So as long as it's dead on arrival...no murder charges can be made under any circumstance?

[Does this mean that under some circumstances the fetus can be treated as a person with rights?

Bartikus wrote:

So as long as it's dead on arrival...no murder charges can be made under any circumstance?

Yes! Provided the mother was not harmed during the late stages
of delivery or at delivery.

roger wrote:

Since you ask, possibly in jest, my own - and I emphasize MY OWN - feeling that it becomes a person when it has a chance to develope a personality. To me, that would be after birth.

So an unborn fetus being killed in any circumstance could not be murder to you?

Why does it seem the clear inconsistency within our laws will not be addressed?

Hypothetically speaking: If she is harmed by another
person, and sustained bodily injury to cause her baby to
be still born, than the person will be charged with
bodily injury and murder.

CalamityJane wrote:

Hypothetically speaking: If she is harmed by another
person, and sustained bodily injury to cause her baby to
be still born, than the person will be charged with
bodily injury and murder.

Murder? The mother lives. The fetus cannot be murdered because in order for a murder to occur, the death of a person with inalienable rights must occur!

You said a fetus is not a person with rights until they are born?!

Bartikus wrote:

roger wrote:

Since you ask, possibly in jest, my own - and I emphasize MY OWN - feeling that it becomes a person when it has a chance to develope a personality. To me, that would be after birth.

So an unborn fetus being killed in any circumstance could not be murder to you?

Why does it seem the clear inconsistency within our laws will not be addressed?

I would very much like it to be murder under some circumstances, and a matter of choice under others. Logically, the two views cannot be reconciled. I've considered the situation before; did I mention I was troubled by the conflict.?

Somehow, I have the vague feeling that applying a murder charge to the loss of a fetus resulting from battery is a backdoor attempt to outlaw abortion entirely. That's a side issue, of course.

Bartikus wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:

Hypothetically speaking: If she is harmed by another
person, and sustained bodily injury to cause her baby to
be still born, than the person will be charged with
bodily injury and murder.

Murder? The mother lives. The fetus cannot be murdered because in order for a murder to occur, the death of a person with inalienable rights must occur!

You said a fetus is not a person with rights until they are born?!

Please read carefully what I've written ".....and sustained bodily injury to
cause her baby to be still born...." which means after the delivery.

If the baby is not dead, the person could not be charged
with murder.

Then it is not murder.

Full stop.