I'm just pondering this, not making my conclusion yet. I don't have a real problem with him being prosecuted as it is a horrific assault against her, but it is troubling on some level too.
No, it doesn't mean that society says that. It can sound however it sounds to you. That doesn't mean that what you hear is true.By charging this as murder, it is society saying that some people have the right to "kill" but others don't. It says that the woman is in charge of this "life" and no-one else. There was a time in America when black people were owned and their lives were in the hands of their owners. This charge implies that the woman is the sole person able to end this life - she owns the life - sounds like the modern day definition of slavery to me.
Here is the original complaint, and if you read it, you'll see that both the terms "fetus" and "child" are used: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/201...68706082_2.pdf
Yet such contradictions aren't rare. My wife is more pro-actively pro-choice than anyone I know, yet she had given the hospital and her doctor a statement - sworn and notarized - that if they had to make the choice between her life or that of her fetus, save the fetus at the expense of her own life. She also wanted my promise I would support that decision of hers. Her's was an extremely dangerous pregnancy - and that really tested my "pro-choice" respect of her right to her own decision - as I absolutely did NOT want to promise as it was exactly opposite what I would want. So I struggled with whether I had to make such a promise. Was it really just her decision? Or did I, our children and others have a say in it - did we HAVE to support her "choice" decision I/we did not agree with?
There is a problem when we argue the ZEF is basically nothing, and then turn around and yet agree if a 3rd party, particularly the biofather, destroys it then we equate it to a murder case in punishment.
My emotions say "fry the guy!" But there seems to me to be an inconsistency within this that is maybe too gender based or too contradictory in how serious was it what he did? There are men, not just women, who cry their hearts out at a miscarriage. I strongly believe in and support not only maternal instincts as a good thing, but also paternal instincts. Plus otherwise as a very strict legal duty of both. Making her emotions of such importance as violating them deserves life imprisonment, BUT violating his emotions is just nothing at all does not sit real well with me either.
Many legal issues. For example, if it had NOT been the biofather that had done this, would only the biomother have a civil suit, or also the biofather too? If so, for what? Yet I think he would. Or at least I FEEL that he should.
The notion that someone could do this to my wife and I could do nothing as supposedly I was not affected? I can't buy that.
I'm just being honest here.
Last edited by joko104; 05-16-13 at 04:33 PM.
I disagree with the murder charge, since the fetus was well below viability. After viability, I might be able to understand it, though I still wouldn't agree with it since it's using the law to impart a polical/ideological agenda, and would have repurcussions on a woman's right to choose.
The guy should be charged with aggravated assault on the woman, who should then civilly sue the pants off him for what he did to her and to her fetus. That makes sense to me.