NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

Fishin', I hadn't seen any specifics about the bill. I just did a Google search, and this was the first hit:

Quote:

In creating the crime of ``fetal homicide,'' the measure would declare a fetus to be a person, starting at fertilization. Under current law, a fetus is not considered a person until the live birth occurs.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wsaz/M277997.asp?cp1=1

Declaring a fetus a person starting at fertilization has clear implications for abortion, far more immediate than 3 to 6 steps' remove.

ferrous wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Once again -- who are you to say that a human being has God-given virtures. And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?

It is your comment: "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It," that I find offensive and not referring to a non-specific gender fetus as "It."

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you find the word "It as offensive as the word "nigger" -- you probably are not bright enough to be discussing the kinds of topics being discussed here.

A fetus is an IT. Live with that -- and stop the inappropriate indignation about the word.

In any case, my comments went much further than the question about use of the word "it."

If you want to address the remainder of my comments, do so. I'll respond.

So right now, the main question for you, is to clearly define this statement: "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?" Seems your aguement on refering to a fetus as an "It" has no bearing on what you said. Care to explain?

At this point, my questions are A) is the bill really necessary? and B) what will be the likely effects of the bill? My feeling thus far is "no" to A and "to contribute to an erosion of Roe vs. Wade on B. I understand what you're saying about it being a matter of steps, but if it is unnecessary, why take any steps at all down that slippery slope?

Ferrous

Your last post directed to me was so convoluted, I'm not sure what you are saying or asking.

If you a problem with a person calling a fetus an "it" -- then you simply do not understand the use of pronouns. "It" is a perfectly appropriate designation for a fetus.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ferrous

Your last post directed to me was so convoluted, I'm not sure what you are saying or asking.

If you a problem with a person calling a fetus an "it" -- then you simply do not understand the use of pronouns. "It" is a perfectly appropriate designation for a fetus.

I never stated that I found it offensive to refer to a fetus as an "It." That is your argument from nowhere.

I find offense with your statement of : And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?"

Your use of the term "Human Being" rather that "fetus" is highly offensive and incorrect.

Taken literally, you have over stepped the boundaries of describing a "Fetus," and have implied that it is simply okay to refer to a human being as an "it." Your intention might have had merit, but your choice and use of the structure of your words were inappropriate, thus regulating this quoted statement of yours as false. You failed to take note of your mistake, and repeatedly misquoted my responses to fit your argument.

Care to rephrase this offensive, quoted statement of yours? "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?"

ferrous wrote:

Quote:

The point that a fetus can live outside the mothers womb (Point X,) is heading all the way back to conception. Is our present laws dealing with this fact?

If this is true, I can see why Pro-Choice advocates are so worried.

A very valid concern indeed (the bill in question doesn't affect this concern either way though..). The point of viability is the point where the USSC (in Roe v. Wade) determined that the public has an interest and government can regulate. The laws DON'T keep up with changing medical technology so one could say that the point of viability changes almost daily. At some future time point X could very well be the time of conception.

Quote:

Could the pregnant mother be charged with murder, if the fetus was killed during the commission of a crime, she was perpetrating?

No state has enacted a law that specifically criminalizes conduct by the woman during pregnancy as murder. Prosecutors have used statutes prohibiting abuse or neglect of children to charge women for actions that potentially harm the fetus. Some have also argued that pregnant women "delivered" drugs to "minor" children - fetuses - through the umbilical cord. A mother's or newborn's positive drug test has led to charges of assault with a deadly weapon (cocaine), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a controlled substance. In cases in which infants tested positive and died soon after birth, women have been charged with homicide or feticide. Some women have even been prosecuted for drinking alcohol or failing to follow a doctor's order to get bed rest or refrain from sexual intercourse during pregnancy.

There are just over 200 cases where women have been arrested and charged on these various counts in the last 30-40 years. 30 or so survived court challanges long enough to make it to trial with convictions as a result in 22 cases. 21 of those 22 convictions were overturned on appeal with the appeals courts/State Supreme Courts ruling that prosecutions under existing criminal statutes to punish women for their conduct during pregnancy are without legal basis, unconstitutional, or both. The 22nd case is still pending appeal.

So I guess the short answer is that it's been tried but, based on existing court precedents, attempting to charge a pregnant woman doesn't hold water.

Fishin… Thank you for a very concise explanation of some of the questions I was seeking. The law, is still vague as to when the fetus or unborn child is a viable human being, and to pass more laws trying to regulate something that hasn't been defined, seems to only help self serving needs. Laws should be, that they provide equal protection, while not stepping on existing laws or impinging on rights, already established. We don't need more laws, we need better laws. A knee-jerk reaction to an immediate problem, not thought out to consequences, only causes more of the division that affects our country today.

I agree, that we need laws to protect the unborn from criminal actions, but I respect a woman's right to choice. Law's which are still vague, already have defined the viability of the unborn child as to time limits that a woman can terminate such pregnancies. The attempt to blur these laws, with a need to protect families, mothers, and unborn children from the cruelty of criminals willing to do harm. There really should be no problem, with drafting legislation, that would assure a woman's rights of choice, while protecting these unborn children from criminal actions. Anything else, would seem to be self serving.

I agree, that we need laws to protect the unborn from criminal actions, but I respect a woman's right to choice. Law's which are still vague, already have defined the viability of the unborn child as to time limits that a woman can terminate such pregnancies. The attempt to blur these laws, with a need to protect families, mothers, and unborn children from the cruelty of criminals willing to do harm. There really should be no problem, with drafting legislation, that would assure a woman's rights of choice, while protecting these unborn children from criminal actions. Anything else, would seem to be self serving.

Well.

When you divert from the realities of abortion, killing a fetus and the law concerning Scott Peterson's possibly relation with this subject--step aside and focus on how these interwoven issues are less important than the possible motives of a group of people, seems like this is the dreaded 'red herring' ....

Possibly, the all-important straw man...

I don't get the nuances of throwing up these terms. I only know their usage seems to be a dodge of the real issue. As Blatham's argument on this subject seems to be.

And many members, who have been thumped with the labels of 'straw men' and 'red herring' would surely say the same thing.

Either these terms apply evenly to all, or to no one.

I agree, that we need laws to protect the unborn from criminal actions, but I respect a woman's right to choice. Law's which are still vague, already have defined the viability of the unborn child as to time limits that a woman can terminate such pregnancies. The attempt to blur these laws, with a need to protect families, mothers, and unborn children from the cruelty of criminals willing to do harm. There really should be no problem, with drafting legislation, that would assure a woman's rights of choice, while protecting these unborn children from criminal actions. Anything else, would seem to be self serving.