• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

You've merely shown that the contradiction has been codified in federal law. What is the rationale of that law if not that the fetus is human?

The laws allowing abortion have nothing to do with the definition of "human"

And the rationale is that the perp denied the mother the right to choose whether to have an abortion, or birth a child.
 
The laws allowing abortion have nothing to do with the definition of "human"

Roe v Wade recognizes no rights for early term fetuses, which is to define them as not human.

And the rationale is that the perp denied the mother the right to choose whether to have an abortion, or birth a child.

That's not murder.
 
Roe v Wade recognizes no rights for early term fetuses, which is to define them as not human.

No, it defines them as not a person


That's not murder.

No, it's not.

But you can be charged with murder under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841, which is not the same as United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1111
 
No, it defines them as not a person

A distinction without a difference.

No, it's not.

But you can be charged with murder under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841, which is not the same as United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1111

And again, there is no purpose for this law except to exact justice for murder -- the killing of a human being.
 
Nope

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Murder is a charge under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1111

In this case, they are being charged under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841

Not the same

That law codifies the act as a murder under section 1111.

1184, Subsection 2c specifically reference intent to kill an unborn, which if proven, shall be punished under section 1111 for "intentionally killing a human being".

Now this is where it gets silly. In order for section 1841 to actually apply, you would have to have violated one of the other sections of the law, of which 1111 is one of these. But he didn't murder the woman, he assulted her, and I don't think a federal charge of assault can be applied. Most federal charges are very narrow in their application.
 
You've merely shown that the contradiction has been codified in federal law. What is the rationale of that law if not that the fetus is human?

Quite right. Which is why "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then he or she would have a constitutional right to life".
 
Quite right. Which is why "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then he or she would have a constitutional right to life".

From UVVA

18 USC § 1841 - Protection of unborn children | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
 
Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News

Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.

Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".

He is now charged with first-degree murder.

Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?

Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?

Why? Part of being pro-choice is that the woman gets to decide the fate of the ZEF. If the woman decided that she did indeed want to have that child then by default it is a child with full rights. That is where alot of anti-abortionists get confused with the whole "pro-choice" ideology. You might have a case with those that are pro-abortion but I'm not really sure as I am not pro-abortion and don't know thier side as well.
 
From your article



Notice how even the girls lawyer is not arguing that the fetus had any rights. Instead, he is arguing that the girl was deprived of her right to choose whether or not to have a child.

No matter how hard you try to twist the facts, the truth is that this case is supported by the pro-choice philosophy.

The article said that the man was charged with first degree murder right? You can't murder something not recognized as human or deserving of human rights.

A law that says otherwise ranks high on the stupid ****ing law'o'meter.
 
Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News

Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.

Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".

He is now charged with first-degree murder.

Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?

Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?

I think this is rather hypocritical.

Both parents should have equal legal right to a baby. When a woman kills a man's baby without his consent, it's just "tough titties, bro", but when a guy does it, it's murder.

He should definitely be charged with like poisoning or assault or whatever, but calling it murder is rather ridiculous if we're not going to call any actions from a woman murder.
 
It can't be his baby while it's part of her body. Even leaving aside the issue of her bodily autonomy, he's incapable of acting toward that child in any paternal capacity until after it is born.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, scientific research has indicated that the father can interact with the unborn child in the womb - outside influences can be sensed/felt - and a father can care for and tend to the mother as a means to "father" his child even if he cares less for the woman involved - all paternal instincts to be encouraged.
 
Nope

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Murder is a charge under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1111

In this case, they are being charged under United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841

Not the same

Seems to me abortion was against several laws before pro-choice advocates challenged it in the courts. Simply citing the law doesn't answer the question about why, in the pro-choice mind, harming a fetus before it's viable is murder. It's convenient, but it's not consistent.
 
Why? Part of being pro-choice is that the woman gets to decide the fate of the ZEF. If the woman decided that she did indeed want to have that child then by default it is a child with full rights. That is where alot of anti-abortionists get confused with the whole "pro-choice" ideology. You might have a case with those that are pro-abortion but I'm not really sure as I am not pro-abortion and don't know thier side as well.

My point is that circumstances should not allow one individual, the female in the equation, to determine whether or not another is a person. Under the law, either it is a person or it isn't - it shouldn't be just because this time the woman wants it to be a person but next time maybe she won't.
 
I think this is rather hypocritical.

Both parents should have equal legal right to a baby. When a woman kills a man's baby without his consent, it's just "tough titties, bro", but when a guy does it, it's murder.

He should definitely be charged with like poisoning or assault or whatever, but calling it murder is rather ridiculous if we're not going to call any actions from a woman murder.

Isn't there something like equal protection under the law and/or a ban on discrimination by virtue of gender? As you say, the woman here has free reign to commit murder while the man has none.

In my view, the charge is trumped up by the prosecutor - I think the same one as in the Trevon Martin case.
 
My point is that circumstances should not allow one individual, the female in the equation, to determine whether or not another is a person. Under the law, either it is a person or it isn't - it shouldn't be just because this time the woman wants it to be a person but next time maybe she won't.

You are simplifying things way too much. Life is not black and white and neither should the law be. If it was then anyone killing another in self defense should automatically be charged and convicted with murder. Our troops on the front line should be charged and convicted of murder, Rights should be totally unregulated etc etc.
 
You are simplifying things way too much. Life is not black and white and neither should the law be. If it was then anyone killing another in self defense should automatically be charged and convicted with murder. Our troops on the front line should be charged and convicted of murder, Rights should be totally unregulated etc etc.

Not the same at all - the law doesn't say if you're a woman in combat you can kill, but a man can't - the law doesn't say a woman can kill in self-defense, but a man can't. This is a law that gives rights based on gender - if the woman took the pill willingly, no problem.

I'm not arguing he shouldn't be punished - as someone previously said, if I hit myself, no problem, if I hit you, assault.
 
Being charged with a crime is one thing.
Being convicted is completely different.

Until this guy is convicted of something, everything here is little more than farting in the wind.

Assault? Yes.
Murder? No.

I'll be interested to see where this story goes.
 
From your article



Notice how even the girls lawyer is not arguing that the fetus had any rights. Instead, he is arguing that the girl was deprived of her right to choose whether or not to have a child.

No matter how hard you try to twist the facts, the truth is that this case is supported by the pro-choice philosophy.

Abortion robs a man of his rights to procreate, so what about that?
 
Not the same at all - the law doesn't say if you're a woman in combat you can kill, but a man can't - the law doesn't say a woman can kill in self-defense, but a man can't. This is a law that gives rights based on gender - if the woman took the pill willingly, no problem.

I'm not arguing he shouldn't be punished - as someone previously said, if I hit myself, no problem, if I hit you, assault.

This is where you are getting confused, the law isn't based on gender. If a man could bear a baby do you think that this law would not apply? The law is based on circumstances. If the woman wanted to abort and had the boyfriend give her that pill would this guy still be charged with murder? Nope he wouldn't. He might be charged with something else like practicing medicine without a license but not murder.
 
Abortion robs a man of his rights to procreate, so what about that?

Does man have a right to procreate? Or to put it another way... If a man has a right to procreate then why can't a man force his seed upon a woman? Even when married a man does not have a right to tell his wife to stop taking contraceptives.
 
Fla. Man Accused of Killing Ex-Girlfriend's Fetus - ABC News

Ex-girlfriend was six weeks, five days pregnant, by her ex-boyfriend. Ex-boyfriend didn't want to have a child, ex-girlfriend did.

Ex-boyfriend tricked her into taking a pill that caused her to go into labor and lose the "baby".

He is now charged with first-degree murder.

Doesn't the crime of murder require a "person" to be killed? Doesn't abortion law tell us that a fetus that is six weeks, five days old is not a person?

Shouldn't the pro-choice, pro-abortion crowd be outraged that this charge was laid and what is the impact going forward if he is convicted of first-degree murder?
A couple points:

According to Leftists this isn't murder... because it is a nonviable mass. 6-weeks? That's all? Hell... it's not even considered a fetus.

This ought to confuse the pro-death contingency? What about the Man's right to choose? It's not just her body... it's his body in her body and his DNA too.
 
This is where you are getting confused, the law isn't based on gender. If a man could bear a baby do you think that this law would not apply? The law is based on circumstances. If the woman wanted to abort and had the boyfriend give her that pill would this guy still be charged with murder? Nope he wouldn't. He might be charged with something else like practicing medicine without a license but not murder.

I'm not confused at all - I see hypocrisy when it's staring me in the face. Also, I don't twist myself into a pretzel trying to rationalize the irrational.
 
I'm not confused at all - I see hypocrisy when it's staring me in the face. Also, I don't twist myself into a pretzel trying to rationalize the irrational.

No, you see what you want to see. Not what is actually there.
 
Seems to me abortion was against several laws before pro-choice advocates challenged it in the courts. Simply citing the law doesn't answer the question about why, in the pro-choice mind, harming a fetus before it's viable is murder. It's convenient, but it's not consistent.

I've both cited the law *and* explained why the pro-choice philosophy supports criminal penalties for someone who causes harm to the fetus (ie it takes the mothers choice away)

Not sure what more you're looking for
 
Back
Top Bottom