Inconsistency of US Law

[nunechka]

loseyourname you are absolutly right, this actually did bother me... and i was expecting some womans movement people to intervien...

the reason why they did try him for 2 was because they wanted to put that into the law... so if someone in the future was to be tried for abortion that way a judge can take the petterson case and "interpret" it and say GUILTY!

i am pro-choice and i think the man was guilty of killing his wife, but i dont remember who it was on this thread they pointed out that people are not allowed to have an abortion, as in DOCTORS will not give an abortion to a woman if she is past the 3 months... so after the 1st trimester the fetus is a fetus or an embryo and guess what, every animal who is born through this type of birth, looks exactly the same the first trimester... so after the second trimester starts the thing is more human like, but still cant survive... but i say if a woman wants to get an abortion AFTER the third trimester has started she should be shot... that is a child at that time, and it can survive, thanks to doctors, outside the woumb...
SO if the fetus was in the second trimester this could be a the reason why he was tried for both, but if it wasnt, then it is a political tool to be used against womens reproductive rights...

but i guess i would like to know WHY IS abortion a TOPIC!!!???!!!??? in armenia, in any part of europe, in asia... PEOPLE HAVE MOVED ON!!! why are we tlaking about something they talked about 50 yrs ago... they have moved on, we MUST MOVE ON!!!

leave the xxxxing women alone... if men were the ones that got pregnant abortion would not even be under discussion because they would want their freedom, and they wouldnt want someone discussing their utirus...

[CSC]

Ok, here's the thing. Firstly you have the whole trimester thing which many already mentioned. The supreme court ruled that the clump of cells in a woman's womb before the third trimester is not legally a baby (human). Anything before that is considered life, but not a person. Then you have a few other things:

The woman always has the last say when it comes to abortions for the main reason that it is her body being affected. It is her life that will be most altered. A guy can just grab his balls and walk away. It's easy for him to say he wants to keep it or not, but the baby is not growing in him, it is growing in her. Therefore she is the one with the most emotional and physical (obviously) attachment to the baby. Now when the baby is born, the father can claim his paternal rights, etc, but that is another discussion. As long as the child is unborn, the mother has final say. That's why a man doesn't have the right to kill his unborn. He'd be violating the mother's body.

Actually, if a man beats his pregnant wife. She can use excessive force to defend herself. Like let's say he punches her in the stomach, she can shoot him. Even if it is not in the third term yet. As I already said, the supreme court ruled that the cells in the body are considered life (although not human - or a person). So she would be protecting her unborn child (who is potentially a person) from life threatening danger. Juries also tend to be very sympathetic in these cases of pregnant women who were victims of wifebeaters.

[loseyourname]

Okay, now address the fact that in a multiple homicide case, the fetus is considered a person.

[nunechka]

csc you are absolutly correct... i think your take on this right on the money... i think a pregnant woman is a lot more vulnerable in dangerous situations, so thats why we would be more sympathetic toward her... its like a healthy man going and attacking a physically challanged person... can she run fast? no, can she even move fast? no... when my cousin was pregnant, when she ran it was pretty funny to watch, but i cant imagine anyone trying to do soemthing to her... I WOULD RIP THEIR HEAD OFF...

but i can also see why the court would want to consider it life... it is life, but you all hear this, we will see this case be used and interpreted against women getting abortions... and essentially this country will be moving backwards when it comes to science, and medical advancement...

[loseyourname]

Abortion is an advancement of medical science? Other than sterilizing the calipers, what's the major advance in the last hundred years?

[Anonymouse]

Abortion is an advancement of medical science? Other than sterilizing the calipers, what's the major advance in the last hundred years?

Haha, now you see how extremely myopic she is just for the sake of advancing her argument.

[CatWoman]

I’m not sure if I understand this right…. You are comparing a woman’s choice to have abortion because she knows she’s not capable of having a child, she was raped, or other reasons to a man who physically abuses a woman hurting both her and the fetus causing the fetus to die? Or even worse, in Peterson’s case causing both the mother (living/breathing human) and the fetus to die? What it comes down to is the "action" taken to kill the fetus, and if inhumane, ought to be punished. I don’t want to comment on this any further, cause these are waaay too different to be compared together.

[loseyourname]

I?m not sure if I understand this right?. You are comparing a woman?s choice to have abortion because she knows she?s not capable of having a child, she was raped, or other reasons to a man who physically abuses a woman hurting both her and the fetus causing the fetus to die? Or even worse, in Peterson?s case causing both the mother (living/breathing human) and the fetus to die? What it comes down to is the "action" taken to kill the fetus, and if inhumane, ought to be punished. I don?t want to comment on this any further, cause these are waaay too different to be compared together.

I'm commenting on a human fetus being granted rights in one case, and then having those rights taken away in another case. It doesn't come down to action, because legal foundationalism should not be a matter of pragmatism.

[CatWoman]

I still think the “action” taken is what matters and not just in human fetus case, in many other cases as well. For example, you can humanely euthanize an aggressive dog and that’s absolutely fine; however, beating and abusing the same aggressive dog till it dies is a crime and gets both jail time and penalty. And in your case, when husbands/men cause the fetus to die, they do so by physically hurting the mother.

[nunechka]

i think that there is a major inconsistency of the law being APPLIED, and i agree that it is being used as a political tool... however this time, if a jury is the judge, and we'll take what catwoman said, that there is a difference between beating a woman who is pregnant to death and simply a woman getting an abortion, the jury is a lot more simpathetic to the beaten woman... so if a jury is to be the deciding one, and they see a man who has brutely killed his wife and had no mercy with her, even though she was pregnant, they dont see a problem with convicting him...

so a law might be emotionless, but human beings are not... the law might say dont steal, but if a man steals bread for his starving family, people dont convict them and send them to prision, WELL unless you live in california and its your 3rd strike and then you get locked up and put away for stealing something that costs $2.

and as far as the stem cell research thing goes, jilbagh may have not been talking about someone in specific here on this forum, but in general, "pro-lifers" are against stem cell research... but then again "pro-lifers" are general for the death penalty as well... which is another contradiction... LOL!

i am pro-choice and for the death penalty ONLY ONLY ONLY when the person has actually committed the crime and has done it in a away that is horrenbous! and we have more then enough proof...