It is obvious that pro-life groups are pushing a law that would count the murder of a pregnant woman as two murders because they are looking for a way to weaken Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice groups are fighting the law.

I think that the murder of a woman in her third tri-mester should count as two murders because it is in the third tri-mester that the state can affect a woman's right to choose. Conversely, in the first and second tri-mester, only one count of murder should be charged.

What do you all think?

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

I believe that until a fetus can survive outside the mother's womb it is a part of a woman's one body (and hers to do with as she pleases). These trimesters (as you know) are arbitrary distinctions with little basis in medicine. Your argument is sound, I just disagree with the legal distinction.

To answer the question: anything post survivability outside the womb should be considered a double homicide, anything prior is a single homicide. The trick is determining when post survivability is.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I guess survivability is fairly well defined in the medical world... ALl it takes is to set the law up so there is no grey area...

__________________
_____________________________________________

Is it? Many babies born as early as 25 weeks have a good chance of survival, but not all do. If they do survive, they will probably have a slew of medical problems. Does that mean that survivability is at 25 weeks? Shouldn't we also consider the quality of their lives after birth?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

The second you start considering extenuating factors, you start piling on the 'grey' area. That's probably one of the biggest problems with laws today. There's too much grey.

It should be cut and dry. A woman who is X months pregnant and is killed would be considered a double homicide.

I also disagree with your earlier statement that a fetus is part of a womans body and she 'can do with as she pleases'. I'm not so much disputing the first part of what you said, but rather the latter. There's more to it than simply saying "it's tissue". Any more depth is probably best left for a new thread. Sufice it to say that killing a pregnant woman should count as a double homicide.

You're right, laws should be cut and dry.

Once you can prove to me that a fetus is more than just tissue then I'll believe that the murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. Religion, morality, and culture drill into us that it is more but does so without proof. That would be called "faith" and laws shouldn't be based on faith.

If a woman smokes, would that be child endangerment?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

So now you are not just against calling it life, you also think that if you are not completely healthy when born as a premie your life is not worth being called a life/rescued? Just tell me if I misinterpreted your comment....

Yes it is and the same goes for drinking and substance abuse. If a woman knowingly uses/abuses substances while pregnant knowing it will cause problems for the fetus then she deserves to get punished for it.

__________________
_____________________________________________

and this just in:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2468499

Congress clears bill making harm of a fetus a crime
Critics fear abortion is next attack on abortion
By HELEN DEWAR
Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Thursday gave final approval to legislation that would make it a crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a federal crime of violence, overriding critics' claims that the bill defines the start of human life in a way that could undermine abortion rights.

__________________
_____________________________________________

That's right. It's not a life until you cease to depend upon the life of another specific person for you to continue it.
Then we will have to make a woman's life an illegal act. Nearly 2/3rds of all pregnancies are aborted naturally by the woman's body; the fertilized egg simply washes out with the menstrual flow. Who's to say that she didn't cause this herself by some intended (murder) or unintended (manslaughter) act?

A surprising number of conditions need to be just right in order for a baby to grow to term. We will have to regulate what pregnant women eat, since diet plays a crucial role in proper development. We will need to make sure she doesn't excercise too much and too little as both can cause miscarriage. We will need to make sure that she doesn't drive without her seatbelt and that it is correctly adjusted each time she drives. We will need to make sure that she doesn't endure too much stress, since stress causes vast changes in her chemical composition - passed directly to fetus. Of course, her husband or partner can cause a great deal of this stress so we will need laws to proscribe punishment for accessory to fetal murder. Very nearly 5% of the female population can be put behind bars immediately (or sterilized) because their inability to carry a fetus to term is already precluded by their DNA; they're just a crime waiting to happen.

The best thing would be to put all pregnant women in a hospice-type atmosphere where we can monitor them at all times. We could call them "Breeder Farms".

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

[QUOTE=fatboy]That's right. It's not a life until you cease to depend upon the life of another specific person for you to continue it. [\QUOTE]

So in other terms if you can't live by yourself your life is not worth anything. Therefore you can't count a human life as such until you can sustain yourself.
Let's euthanize every single majorly handicapped person while you are at it as they will never be able to sustain themself on their own! Try going back 60 years and the Nazi's tried your theory already!

The rest of your post is bovine defacation as usual!

__________________
_____________________________________________