How is it double murder? Our legal inconsistencies!

Exactly right, Bartikus. We simply must have written laws in a complex society. I could definately see death of a fetus being a major enhancement to the charge of aggrivated assault. Legally defining it as murder is what is so troubling. We not only need laws, we need consistant laws.

In extreme cases like the Scott Peterson double murder trial,
each case should be handled individually without referring
or relying on a consistant law, that might not apply to such
horrendous crimes.

How can we truly protect a mother's right to choose (either way) and be consistent? Unless a mother's rights are not what we are really defending?
How ironic.

Either way...there will be a price to pay! One way or another.

CalamityJane wrote:

In extreme cases like the Scott Peterson double murder trial,
each case should be handled individually without referring
or relying on a consistant law, that might not apply to such
horrendous crimes.

Which crimes are horrendous to you?

Bartikus wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:

In extreme cases like the Scott Peterson double murder trial,
each case should be handled individually without referring
or relying on a consistant law, that might not apply to such
horrendous crimes.

Which crimes are horrendous to you?

The one I mentioned in my statement Bartikus. It would be helpful
if you read a reply in its entirety beforehand.

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.

roger wrote:

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.

Sure they can. We can often do things to ourselves that would be a crime if someone did them to us without our consent. For instance, if I decided to cut off one of my fingers, that would be entirely my own business. If someone else cut off one of my fingers, however, that would be aggravated battery/mayhem. A woman has a great deal of autonomy over her own body (including any fetus she might be carrying), and she has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy under certain conditions. If she chooses to do so, that is her business. On the other hand, the state protects her interests against interference from others. So if someone else terminates her pregnancy against her will, that would be a criminal act.

That still does not explain how the charge would ever end up as murder. Murders are committed by persons to persons. She can terminate a pregnancy because it is her body (not a seperate person) that is destroyed. If you cut my finger off you can be sure to face criminal charges but, not murder. Only people can be murdered. Only people can commit murder. It would be a criminal act for someone to intentionally cause the death of a fetus without consent of the mother.It's her body...like her leg or finger. I see no murder if I see no person who died.

Bartikus wrote:

That still does not explain how the charge would ever end up as murder. Murders are committed by persons to persons. She can terminate a pregnancy because it is her body (not a seperate person) that is destroyed. If you cut my finger off you can be sure to face criminal charges but, not murder. Only people can be murdered. Only people can commit murder. It would be a criminal act for someone to intentionally cause the death of a fetus without consent of the mother.It's her body...like her leg or finger. I see no murder if I see no person who died.

A statute can define "person" in whatever fashion it may (within the limits of the constitution). For instance, a corporation can be a "person" for purposes of entering into contracts, but it is not a "person" for purposes of many criminal laws (e.g. while a corporation can theoretically commit murder, it cannot be the victim of it). That a fetus is a "person" for the purposes of some laws and not for others is, therefore, not unusual.

That means a law can be made to consider you and yours as less than or something other than "persons". Right? With an amendment to said Constitution.

Give me one other instance where by law a person can be reduced to something other than a person! (slavery comes to mind) it would be one thing to elevate something to the title of person....but to do the reverse.

You see slaves were not elevated to the title of persons. They were persons who were reduced to slaves. They always were people with rights. It was the people who treated them as slaves that reduced themselves by not seeing or admitting to this profound truth! The slaves were people who were treated as less because other people only wanted them for their own purposes. They never thought the slaves might have a purpose to fulfill of their own. Much like a mother not wanting her own child.

Assuming of course, that you believe that being a person is the highest title to carry in that all laws and even the Constitution were written by....persons.

If being a person is not the highest and only title one can carry....I suggest we find a higher authority and let it be the author of our laws!

I guess it takes some finagling on your part to formulate an answer that seems credible. My how the time flys.

What the hell are you talking about?

This is following the logic of the pro-choice argument.

Do we wish to be able to define a fetus as a person and as a mere organism/body part? We wish to have it both ways?

If a person can be defined as an organism and an organism as a person......what does that mean for us?

Should I take your word for it that you are in fact a person or.....do I let another decide who or what you are?

Let the truth be told that even if all of mankind defined you as an organism....a person you would still be!

You gave me an example where a corporation can be regarded as a person. You did not give me any other example of a person being REDUCED to something other than a person....of which I asked!

One exception was slavery which is where you say "WHAT"?

If being a person is not the highest and only title one can carry....I suggest we find a higher authority and let it be the author of our laws!

Sorry, something must be wrong with my computer today. Nothing that I read in your post is making any sense.

It's all basic logic: See men who carry the title of "person" (not slaves or organisms) wrote our laws and Constitution. If we adhere to these laws then we recognize no higher authority for a human than a "person".
We have no Kings agreed?