Inconsistency of US Law

[loseyourname]

I'm beating a dead horse here because I've brought this up many times before, but how about this Peterson conviction? Scott was just convicted of murder for killing an unborn fetus, but if Laci had done so, she would have done nothing illegal. Does this honestly not bother any of you pro-choicers?

[TJ]

Abortions are only allowed at latest up to the 3rd month of pregnancy.

[ckBejug]

I'm beating a dead horse here because I've brought this up many times before, but how about this Peterson conviction? Scott was just convicted of murder for killing an unborn fetus, but if Laci had done so, she would have done nothing illegal. Does this honestly not bother any of you pro-choicers?

Actually, Lacy would not have been allowed to abort the baby at the time she was murdered. Abortion is legal prior to the third trimester of pregnancy, the third trimester starts at 6 months, so anything before 6 months is legal. Lacy Peterson was already in late-term of her pregnancy when she disappeared.

[ckBejug]

Abortions are only allowed at latest up to the 3rd month of pregnancy.

The end of the second trimester is the end of the 5th month/beginning of the 6th month. not 3 months.

[Sip]

The guy killed his wife ... I say fry up the mother father. The pregnancy is irrelevant when you consider the magnitude of his crime.

[loseyourname]

I think you guys are missing the poing. A person can be convicted of murdering a fetus at any point, even in the first or second trimester. But if a mother kills it, there is no criminal act committed. I guess your answer is that no, the inconsistency does not bother you.

[Sip]

It doesn't bother me in the case of a murder since once the killer is convicted of the actual murder of the mother, the fetus part I wouldn't even waste my time on.

But if they convict a guy for killing a fetus when the mother happens to survive, then I'll start to be really bothered by this double standard.

To me, you can't be punished for killing someone that hasn't been born yet.

Sorry for not being clear above.

[loseyourname]

It doesn't bother me in the case of a murder since once the killer is convicted of the actual murder of the mother, the fetus part I wouldn't even waste my time on.

But if they convict a guy for killing a fetus when the mother happens to survive, then I'll start to be really bothered by this double standard.

To me, you can't be punished for killing someone that hasn't been born yet.

Sorry for not being clear above.

Well, the conviction itself in the case of a man who has killed a pregnant woman doesn't bother me, either. What bothers me is that, in one case, the fetus is legally considered a person with rights who cannot be killed injudiciously, and in another case, it is not. I don't see how you can get away with changing definitions depending on who commits the act in order to fit a political agenda.

[Sip]

I agree ... but since in this case the person who murders a woman who happens to be pregnant gets screwed, I am less inclined to spend any energy to fix this "injustice". But if it happened to be the other way around, as in the killer would not get charged with doulbe murder but a woman who aborts would get charged with killing a fetus, I would be VERY worried.

[Siggie]

I think you guys are missing the poing. A person can be convicted of murdering a fetus at any point, even in the first or second trimester. But if a mother kills it, there is no criminal act committed. I guess your answer is that no, the inconsistency does not bother you.

I dont think killing a pregnant woman automatically means two counts. I think the fetus would have to be able to sustain life on its own before it's considered a seperate life, but I'm not positive of that and can't check right now.