Abortion

[Mark Kerr]

Man a very emotional thread....I dont agree with abortion but I will not impose my views on someone else..in california, if you kill a fetus, you can be tried for murder....So in that regards, you can only murder a living being....

Abortion discussions tends to be more emotional, religious given your personal convictions, more so than legalities...I mean if you steal a car, society agrees that this theft should be illegal and have a punishment...Abortion, for whatever legal definition, legal jargon, it encompasses, is too personal and emotional to see it only on a legal level..JMHO...

On a side note: If I remember correctly, California was the first state to change the common law definition of a fetus. Tell me if you remember this case from school Karch, but it is the case where the man notices his wife is pregnant (her stomach is showing), but the man becomes furious because he is infertile and impotent, so he stomps the baby out of the woman's stomach. He was not convicted of murder, because the common law did not recognize a fetus as a person. Then California was like, "We gotta change that shit!" LOL.

Great case for a first-year student.

 

[Kayz]

Karch or Kerr.....

I got a question for yout guys. Is it true that the LEGAL definition of death is when the human heart quits beating??? I have heard that before and was wandering if that was true.

And, if that is true, would the following make sense:

1) determine at what phase of development the fetal heart is beating....if death results AFTER that point, could it then be considered murder??

2) .....or, could you argue that even though the fetal is in fact beating, it is still the maternal heart that is sustaining the fetus' life????

 

[Mark Kerr]

nah, that wasnt it. Let me check my old briefs, see if I still have it...

 

[Mark Kerr]

Here we go:

Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619

On February 23, 1969, Mrs. Keeler was driving on a narrow mountain road in Amador County after delivering the girls to their home. She met petitioner driving in the opposite direction; he blocked the road with his car, and she pulled over to the side. He walked to her vehicle and began speaking to her. He seemed calm, and she rolled down her window to hear him. He said, "I hear you're pregnant. If you are you had better stay away from the girls and from here." She did not reply, and he opened the car door; as she later testified, "He assisted me out of the car. . . . [It] wasn't roughly at this time." Petitioner then looked at her abdomen and became "extremely upset." He said, "You sure are. I'm going to stomp it out of you." He pushed her against the car, shoved his knee into her abdomen, and struck her in the face with several blows. She fainted, and when she regained consciousness petitioner had departed.

Mrs. Keeler drove back to Stockton, and the police and medical assistance were summoned. She had suffered substantial facial injuries, as well as extensive bruising of the abdominal wall. A Caesarian section was performed and the fetus was examined in utero. Its head was found to be severely fractured, and it was delivered stillborn. The pathologist gave as his opinion that the cause of death was skull fracture with consequent cerebral hemorrhaging, that death would have been immediate, and that the injury could have been the result of force applied to the mother's abdomen. There was no air in the fetus' lungs, and the umbilical cord was intact.

[*624] Upon delivery the fetus weighed five pounds and was 18 inches in length. Both [**619] [***483] Mrs. Keeler and her obstetrician testified that fetal movements had been observed prior to February 23, 1969. The evidence was in conflict as to the estimated age of the fetus; n1 the expert testimony on the point, however, concluded "with reasonable medical certainty" that the fetus had developed to the stage of viability, i.e., that in the event of premature birth on the date in question it would have had a 75 percent to 96 percent chance of survival.

We conclude that the judicial enlargement of section 187 now urged upon us by the People would not have been foreseeable to this petitioner, and hence that its adoption at this time would deny him due process of law.

Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondent court from taking any further proceedings on Count I of the information, charging petitioner with the crime of murder

AKA - He is untouchable on the charge of murder...

 

[Liv2grw]

New fetus law unneeded
Published: Monday, April 5, 2004
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

President George W. Bush signed a controversial bill into law on April 1 which will allow prosecutors to charge defendants with a separate offense when a fetus is killed during a federal crime committed against a pregnant woman.

Opponents of the bill have appropriately charged that the bill itself is a beginning attempt at challenging a woman's right to choose in a roundabout manner. The authors of the bill were careful to word it in such a way that it could eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and threaten Roe v. Wade.

The ambiguous nature of the bill will undoubtedly result in a court challenge. While most definitions of a fetus maintain that a woman begins carrying a "fetus" after she has been pregnant for eight weeks, this law will define a fetus as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb," according to The Washington Post.

Because of the wording, an argument over whether or not the "fetus" was developed enough will surely come up. When an anti-abortion case reaches the court system, this law may now be manipulated and used by opponents of abortion to show that a fetus is defined as a person and thus a woman who has an abortion commits murder in the process.

Opponents of the law - specifically those opposed to bestowing a fetus with certain rights that may eventually challenge the right to abortion - have been put in a difficult position.

By speaking out against the bill, opponents may sound as if they are defending the perpetrators of crimes like murder and rape. But whether or not a woman is pregnant is not always obvious, and such difficulties in determining whether or not the person accused of harming both the mother and the fetus was fully aware of her being pregnant will only cause more difficulty in setting the new law in motion.

Whether or not abortion should be legal is not a new debate. Bush has been very outspoken against a woman's right to choose and it is no surprise that he signed the bill into law. But this is not the right approach to address the issue of abortion.

If Bush wants to take away a woman's right to choose, they must go about that issue directly - not by tiptoeing around it. The new law does not legally ban abortion, but it is clear what it was intended to eventually do.

This law is not necessary and in the end it will cause more harm than good. There is already enough leeway in the legal system that influences both the charges pressed against someone accused of harming a pregnant woman and the sentences given to those convicted. Should a pregnant woman be murdered, a law already exists stating that murdering her was illegal. The fact of the matter is that someone was killed and the person responsible must be dealt with accordingly - regardless of who it was that was killed.

The bill was clearly designed with political intentions and should not have been signed into law. If abortion opponents want to challenge the practice, they should come right out and do it instead of trying to make loopholes.




So how am I wrong this law will define a fetus as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb, this is not just in Texas it was signed bill into law, Signed by George Bush April , 2004

 

[Liv2grw]

Originally Posted by Liv2grw
"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."
In other words your dictionary definition means little.

That is an incorrect, but often used, analysis of Roe v. Wade. The Roe v. Wade decision did not use unborn persons in their reasoning for the decision, they instead based their decision on Constiitutional rights of privacy, and "undue burdens" on a woman's right to her body.

It is a subtle point, but a very important one.

I was referring to Pooh Bears definition in his dictionary

 

[Liv2grw]

LOL LOL LOL Ok, this HAS to be NeoDavid's alter ego. Let's see, you begin the entire argument by calling me pooh bear(implying that I'm some sort of puss) and then call ME on calling you a fuck? That's fucking priceless...you fuck!

It also might behoove you to learn how to communicate effectively. You know, some close approximation to the conventions of grammar. That might help you get your point across more clearly.

Your definition is WRONG, fucking period. Who the hell are these "texas law makers"? If a fetus was a legitimate baby, then abortion would be illegal. This is the aim of your "legal definition".

And, if you really want to test your "repercussions"...you fuck!

Well at least I am not talking out of my ass like you are

 

[Liv2grw]

Well, yes and no, it depends upon the situation (usually the crime). For example, if you kill a pregnant woman, then you can be charged for the murder of 2 individuals. However, if a pregnant woman ingests poison during a suicide attempt or has a drug-overdose, and the child dies as a result, she CANNOT be charged with the murder of her child. So, a sweeping generalization about the Texas definition of unborn child can get some into trouble.

Also, even though Texas law may define unborn child in a certain way, that makes absolutely no difference to anyone outside of the state of Texas. It means nothing to federal law, and nothing to those in the other 49 states.

Using a Texas state legal definition is only binding in a Texas state court. Therefore, Grizzly, as a resident of Illiinois, can reject the Texas definition of unborn child as he sees fit.

Your wrong April 1 , 2004 a bill was signed by George Bush changing it. So the definition still stands. This law will define a fetus as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,"

 

[Grizzly]

Oh, no, Karch, I most certainly meant everything both literal and implied when calling him "a fuck". Of course, it might not be his fault. I mean, I was trying to have a philosophical discussion regarding the ethics of abortion and he, clearly, does not have the ability. The last time I checked, Texas penal code and abstract thought processes didn't belong in the same discussion. But, hey, that's alright.

Oy vei, what did I start? I asked for the lawyers and, boy, did I get them! LOL So, hypothetical situation....

 

[Kayz]

I'm waiting to get a bill from Karch and Kerr for all of their legal advice!!! You know how lawyers are.

What do you bill Karch....$200/hour.

 

[Mark Kerr]

Your wrong April 1 , 2004 a bill was signed by George Bush changing it. So the definition still stands. This law will define a fetus as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,"

I'm wrong? LOL. You said it yourself, GWB signed legislation for a FEDERAL CRIME. Considering murder is a STATE LAW, that law DOES NOT APPLY. You need to learn how federalism works, my friend.

The only things that could overturn the state murder law would be a Constitutional Amendment or if the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

 

[Liv2grw]

I'm wrong? LOL. You said it yourself, GWB signed legislation for a FEDERAL CRIME. Considering murder is a STATE LAW, that law DOES NOT APPLY. You need to learn how federalism works, my friend.

The only things that could overturn the state murder law would be a Constitutional Amendment or if the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

This whole arguement between Griz and I was over the definition of the fetus. I pointed out how the Government defines a fetus. Griz pointed out how the dictionary defines the fetus that is all , nothing more. I know how federalism works that was'nt my arguement if you would have read from the beginning you would have seen that we were arguing only of the definition of the fetus and not the legal issues.

 

[Liv2grw]

Hey Liv2grw...I actually agree with you on a lot of your posts.....I agree with you on the abortion stance..however, I dont agree with your methods....being a lawyer, I think there is a way of getting your point/opinion across without having to belittle anyone.....Once you have to do that, you lost the argument......you may have a good stance, but once you come across as arrogant, pompus, rightous, etc, your stance, however proper, is void.....if you can give you opinion and keep your integrity and character you won regardless of your stance.....

anyway, I like Grizz and he did not mean any harm with his gesters, that is just grizz.....hell he calls me a piece of shit sometimes....

Well when someone is saying "I love abortion" , I tend to think that is a bit much and very immature. It has nothing to do with being pro-life or pro-choice to say you Love abortion is just wrong imo. Abortion is a sensitive topic for most and I respect everyone's opinions but with comments like that it changes the arguement consideribly. Funny how you say being a lawyer you should get your point across without belittle someone that would be great if the majority lawyers actually did that in the court room.

 

[Grizzly]

Bwahahahahaa!

 

[Liv2grw]

Oh, no, Karch, I most certainly meant everything both literal and implied when calling him "a fuck". Of course, it might not be his fault. I mean, I was trying to have a philosophical discussion regarding the ethics of abortion and he, clearly, does not have the ability. The last time I checked, Texas penal code and abstract thought processes didn't belong in the same discussion. But, hey, that's alright.

Oy vei, what did I start? I asked for the lawyers and, boy, did I get them! LOL So, hypothetical situation....

You're obviously lacking the ability yourself. A philosophical discussion does not go off by saying comments like "I love abortion" , of course you were trying to open a can of worms. Oh and by the way if your lawyer friends would have read the post from the start to the end they would have relized I was not wrong. You stated your dictionary definition of the fetus and I stated the Governments definition of the fetus so I was not wrong. Your lawyer bros jumped into legal issues when the arguement was still just over the definition of the fetus, at that point it had nothing to do with the legal issues.

 

[Liv2grw]

being a lawyer, I think there is a way of getting your point/opinion across without having to belittle anyone.....Once you have to do that, you lost the argument......you may have a good stance, but once you come across as arrogant, pompus, rightous, etc, your stance, however proper, is void.....if you can give you opinion and keep your integrity and character you won regardless of your stance.....
QUOTE]

Well if you are a lawyer that goes by his own advice then I commend you. I have to say though I have never met a lawyer that doesn't belittle people in the court room and doesn't come across as pompus, arrogant , and rightous while at the same time making their point in court. No offense to you thats just how its seems to me.

 

[Liv2grw]

Bwahahahahaa!

grow up

 

[Liv2grw]

Oh, no, Karch, I most certainly meant everything both literal and implied when calling him "a fuck". Of course,

I certainly meant everything I said to you Pooh Bear

 

[Grizzly]

You're obviously lacking the ability yourself. A philosophical discussion does not go off by saying comments like "I love abortion" , of course you were trying to open a can of worms.

I was just going to ignore the rest of everything in this thread, but that's just not me.

Great job of analyzing. Sorry, there, bud, but I wasn't trying to open any worms. Perhaps, I should have said, "in this day and age I love the fact that there is still one personal freedom that the government has not taken over. In one instance, a person's body is still their own propery. Sadly, it is only in one instance, but I love the fact that the one instance still exists."

As you can see, you're the only hotheaded, buttfucker who comes into all threads flinging shit who took offense. Kayz, Jbiggs and I all were able to have a perfectly nice discussion until you came along flinging shit just like you did earlier in the week in Kayz' thread.

 

[Mark Kerr]

This whole arguement between Griz and I was over the definition of the fetus. I pointed out how the Government defines a fetus. Griz pointed out how the dictionary defines the fetus that is all , nothing more. I know how federalism works that was'nt my arguement if you would have read from the beginning you would have seen that we were arguing only of the definition of the fetus and not the legal issues.

Thats EXACTLY my point. Just because GWB and a federal law defines a fetus a certain way, does not mean Grizz has to accept it BECAUSE MURDER IS A STATE LAW. Grizzly, who lives in Illinios, goes by ILLINOIS's DEFINITION, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's. So your argument DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM. (Unless he commits a federal crime, WHICH MURDER IS NOT.)

Basically, in the debate over the definition of a fetus, what Congress or GWB says does not make it THE definition, it only makes it A definition.

So your point DOES NOT PROVE HIS WRONG, so please stop thinking that it does.

P.S. The CAPS are for emphasis, they dont mean I was yelling. Just trying to highlight specific points.