Joanna blogged a bit about this article, raising a good point. In the eyes of the law, how can this case be considered "intentional homicide of an unborn child" when abortion clinics do the same thing everyday, only without the scissors (but some of their utensils are still pretty barbaric). Joanna wondered if maybe the difference was the mother's wishes. Obviously, this particular mother didn't want her womb cut open with scissors, leading eventually to both her and her child's deaths. But wait - it's intentional homicide of an unborn child, not intentional cutting open of a woman's womb and removing a non-living thing. I think that wording makes all the difference. Otherwise, wouldn't she just be charged for the murder of the mother and maybe theft at the most?
And here's another article I saw today on the same theme. A mother forced her 16 year-old daughter to drink turpentine to induce an abortion! And yet her charges are merely "criminal abortion and first-degree cruelty to children" (and I'm assuming the "children" in the charge is referring to her daughter and not her grandchild). True, the baby seems to have survived, but shouldn't the charge then be "attempted intentional homicide of an unborn child"? I can't really see a difference. In fact, the only difference I see in motives between this woman and the murderer in the above story is that the murderer might have actually wanted to keep the child as her own, where this woman clearly wanted the child dead. Yet, this murderous grandmother will only get 10 years in prison at the most.
I don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What's wrong with wishing someone you don't know a happy Birthday? A couple of ladies at the coffee shop did that without being told and it was very special!
Anyway, thanks for helping Ashley make my day special. :P
Hey! I posted a long comment yesterday in response but Blogger ATE it. I was hoping it ended up going through anyways but... I see that it didn't. Sigh.
Basically, if the baby is wanted then it is considered a baby. If it is not wanted, it is a fetus.
Example, when I went with you to the doctor's when you were preggo with Olivia, I noticed that the nurses were using the term "baby" with you and everyone else. That surprised me a little.
Interesting pro-life/pro-choice post and discussion on Becky's blog here.
Remember the Scott and Laci Peterson case, and how he was charged with two murders because she was 8 months pregnant? It's interesting how the legal system chooses what should be a murder. If a girl is sitting in the waiting room of an abortion clinic waiting her turn, and someone comes in and murders her, would that be considered two murders? If she had gone through with the abortion, would that have been considered one murder? Where do we draw the line?
I thought that only first term abortions were legal... so that would mean that the media and pro-choice people could call the babies in the stories you meantioned "babies" without betraying their pro-choice stance because of course everyone would hate them if they called what is obviously a baby a "fetus."
Anyways, I agree with you.
To reply to Shannon, I think that the only abortions that are not legal is partial-birth (the ones where they are half out and the doctor breaks their neck.)
Basically what is murder or not is what most recognized activists consider it. If the recognized activists see it as murder, it is, if they see it as choice, it is.
I've been wondering that for years, because if a person were to crash their car into a car holding a pregnant woman, even in the first trimester and the baby died the person would be charged with murder. But if that same woman on the same day went to an abortion clinic and aborted the baby, nothing would happen to the woman. interesting huh? Maybe we should ask the senate what the difference is.
Post a Comment