he would have killed the mother too and maybe a few of her family members for good measure.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man charged with murder after tricking girlfriend into taking abortion drug.
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
he would have killed the mother too and maybe a few of her family members for good measure.
...the peace of mind of knowing that your possible murder victim was warned first? Does...does that qualify as "peace of mind?"
I'm not saying the law is the only thing that matters. I'm saying the fact that it's in place means something. You speak of bodily autonomy but fail to give the fetus (even in the third trimester) the most important right we have. The right to live. Do you not see the disconnect here?
The point is that once you concede that abortions are morally a-okay up until the time of birth, you have to play word games with the definition of 'life' and 'human'. This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in.
Sutton Dagger
Member
She has the right to remove the 'unborn child' from her body, the fact that it may die is irrelevant in regards to her bodily autonomy. The scenario you are painting is so incredibly rare in any case, late term abortions are only done when the mother is at risk or the fetus has serious issues.
Brian Griffin
Member
There should be no limit or maybe set the limit at when the fetus would be viable outside her body and it would be removed but not killed. If the mother wants the baby out of her that's her right. Now if this leads to 1000s of mothers aborting their 7 month old fetuses then I might feel differently but since late term abortions don't happen that often I don't see why it is needed.
Most women who carry a fetus for that long most likely want to keep it and if they in fact need a late term abortion the reason must be something serious so I don't think they should be denied the option.
But that's me.
Peace of mind that I have made my feelings on the matter known and that if we disagree we should stop now.
Aka avoiding the whole gun to my head causing me to do horrible things situation.
Holy shit....I mean, let's talk in hypotheticals here but you sincerely believe that a woman should be able to kill a baby mere days before it's born? There should be no law against this?
I'm generally pro-choice, but when the fetus is viable outside the womb that's a whole different story. That's killing a child. No question.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Where did I say the fetus does not have a right to life? The fetus has a right to life but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the women. Just as it would be both legally and morally wrong to take your organs to sustain the life of different individuals, your right to bodily autonomy trumps their right to take your organs in order to live. There is no cognitive dissonance, it doesn't matter if it's 'human' (which doesn't give the fetus personhood in any case), the women should have the right to remove something from her body.
The fetus is killed in most late term abortions, even if there is the potential for it to survive outside the womb. Women in Canada have the right to kill the fetus, not just to remove it from their bodies. The fetus does not have the right to life in that case.
And most late term abortion bans in the US have exemptions for the health of the mother.
The idea does bother me, but a woman's bodily autonomy is more important to me, and late-term abortions are so rare that I do not have a problem with there being no law against it.
Sutton Dagger
Member
If the fetus is both viable and outside the mother's body then I would not agree with this practice, have you got any statistics about how often this occurs if at all?
I get they are extremely rare, so are a lot of illegal things. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. It's sickening and their absolutely should be a limit long before birth. Preferably at a point of viability outside the womb.
I think Brian Griffin said it better than I can. "Most women who carry a fetus for that long most likely want to keep it and if they in fact need a late term abortion the reason must be something serious so I don't think they should be denied the option."
Women should keep the option of having an abortion even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. It's not like it's a flippant decision. They actually have a relationship to the fetus, it's part of their life, they can decide for themselves. It's nobody else's business.
If abortion is legal he is guilty of abortion not murder. Misdemeanor assault makes more sense.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
Killing someone should make anyone feel uncomfortable, in a society it SHOULD be everyone's business.
If abortion is legal he is guilty of abortion not murder. Misdemeanor assault makes more sense.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
Right...damn. Guess I'm gonna have to go vote for Rick Santorum.
This is a very important question.
id sign off on a viability clause
It makes me uncomfortable too, but I don't see why abortion should be everyone's business. As much as everyone cares about unborn fetuses, the women in such situations care alot more. Their wishes should not be overruled by what everyone else thinks.
They would have never convicted for the murder charges. No sane jury would.
Pollux
Member
In Tampa? Hell yes they would.
CadetMahoney
Member
If you ask me he took a guilty plea cos it would have been easy to convict him using existing fetal homicide laws and precedence.
JzeroT1437
Member
This is fucked up on nearly every level.
This is my view as well.
If abortion is legal he is guilty of abortion not murder. Misdemeanor assault makes more sense.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
Eh, no one is being extreme here except the ones who are pro-life and want to focus on the outlier cases to prove some point. The truth is, the vast majority of abortions occur within the first trimester and late term abortions ARE illegal in the US except for when the life of the mother/woman is in danger. There isn't any other reason to even discuss these mythical 9 month elective abortions.
This story makes people sick because they're instinctively giving value to the being's future, a future which must be dismissed as of little or no value in order to argue in favor of legalized unnecessary abortion. I explain below.
And what other living thing would you apply that standard to, where how much someone loves it determines WHAT THAT THING IS?
That's where the cognitive dissonance lies. Let me explain, using an analogy of a living thing that the owner can kill but someone else cannot.
If you have an apple tree given to you by your grandpa, and you value that apple tree more than ANYTHING IN THE WORLD, and I chop it down, I owe you the value of an apple tree, and nothing more. If it makes you feel like you've lost your grandpa all over again, I still legally owe you an apple tree, not a grandpa. What you value it as is irrelevant: it is not your grandpa, no matter how much you imagine it to be; it's an apple tree, and the law recognizes it as such.
So why can you chop down your own apple tree but I can't? Because the law is protecting you, not the apple tree, because it's your property. Apple trees are not in-and-of themselves protected by the law, and most people agree they shouldn't be. Well, you say, embryos aren't either, and therefore the mother should be able to "chop it down" as she's the owner, just like the apple tree. Well, that's where things get hairy, and that's where the cognitive dissonance reveals itself.
Outside the abortion debate, the law does not allow how much someone likes something to determine that something's value; instead, the law uses objective measures, such as market value. So in a situation like this one, where a person kills another's embryo, it forces us to decide how much an embryo is worth. Do we give value to its future as a person? A story like this one makes our heads and hearts say, "Yes! She lost a child! It would have been a child, but now it's dead, throw the book at him!" But if we legally give value to the future of the embryo, that future is a human life, which--unlike the apple tree--the law protects from harm even by that life's "owners" (read
arents). So if the law objectively gives human value to an embryo because of its future, then the law protects it from being killed, even by its parents. So many proponents of legal abortion (I've seen many on this board) downplay the value of an embryo, saying it's no more than tissue. But, again, then you see a story like this that makes you instinctively feel something of great importance was lost, and that feeling contradicts the whole notion of an embryo's future being valueless. After all, would anyone here think someone deserves even a month of prison--let alone 14 years--for pulling out someone's hair, or clipping someone's skin tag? No, that's ridiculous. But hair is valueless, while the embryo would have been a child!...which is exactly why it should be protected by the law from being killed.And this dissonance of legally recognizing the future personhood of an embryo in some cases, and ignoring it in others... it is disturbing.
So there are two ways people have found as an out: First, they can resolve the dissonance (as some in this thread have done) by arguing the law should always disregard all value in an embryo's future and treat it as nothing more than tissue, and a case like this should be persecuted as nothing more than falsifying medication or something of the sort. People inherently know that something is very, very wrong with the situation, and that's why people have been trying to justify a long prison sentence as battery on the woman, etc., because that way they can feel justice has been done, but still avoid the cognitive dissonance of recognizing an embryo's personhood sometimes.
Second, they can ditch confronting the dissonance altogether by claiming the value of the fetus doesn't even enter into the equation, that it's all about "bodily autonomy," and even if the embryo's value were exactly that of a human, it's irrelevant and something the law shouldn't consider, because "bodily autonomy" is an absolute right and should never be subject to a balancing test. See below for why "bodily autonomy" as an absolute right is mere fiction, used to avoid having to address the dissonance of only some embryos being of great worth by claiming that tackling such difficult value issues isn't necessary, and therefore can be ignored..
I understand it very well, better than most even, as I understand that "bodily autonomy" is largely a fiction, conceived to make abortion sound justifiable, as I've outlined in the past. No law can exist without affecting someone's body, and yet, virtually everyone sees the value in having laws. Ergo, virtually everyone sees the value in controlling others' bodies, they just don't phrase it that way since it sounds bad--which is precisely why they DO phrase it that way for supporting killing a fetus. Don't stick that knife in the baby sucking nutrients out of your chest, and you have to keep it well nourished or else you've committed a crime? Common-sense law. Don't grind that fetus up and then vacuum it out? Violates bodily autonomy.
It's all about framing.
And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there are no valid arguments in support of abortion; there are. But a right to "bodily autonomy" is not absolute, and never has been. The "bodily autonomy" line is as over-generalized and inapplicable as the tired "freedom" line the Right shouts just as vehemently in other issues. Yes, we all love freedom and controlling our own bodies; they're great general principles that are subject to balancing tests in their applicability just like any other rights and principles. As they're used in these debates, they're just pretty words meant to simplify, generalize, and hide the ugly balancing act of law that must be performed: choosing whose rights trump whose, and why.
This makes no sense whatsoever homey. Your reproductive rights end when you inject someone else with your swimmers. Sorry, if you are a dude who is in position to be a dad and are in an insecure relationship where you aren't seeing eye to eye on having the baby, I don't have much sympathy for you. My wife and I have used condoms 99.9% of the time in the last decade and I can count on one hand how many times one has slipped off or broke, she still didn't get pregnant from those accidents so there's no excuses. Find a partner on the same page as you or wrap it the up.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Frankly, I disagree with PogiJones' two generalizations to how people are approaching this situation.
14 years is in my, and others, opinion way too lengthy of a sentence for what isn't even attempted murder (attempted manslaughter, if that is a thing, sure). Killing the fetus of another person should not result in charges equivalent to the murder of a person - because the fetus's worth and personhood status cannot as you point out depend on the attitude of the pregnant person.
That would, in my opinion, be crazy.
14 years is in my, and others, opinion way too lengthy of a sentence for what isn't even attempted murder (attempted manslaughter, if that is a thing, sure). Killing the fetus of another person should not result in charges equivalent to the murder of a person - because the fetus's worth and personhood status cannot as you point out depend on the attitude of the pregnant person.
That would, in my opinion, be crazy.
This story makes people sick because they're instinctively giving value to the being's future, a future which must be dismissed as of little or no value in order to argue in favor of legalized unnecessary abortion. I explain below.
And what other living thing would you apply that standard to, where how much someone loves it determines WHAT THAT THING IS?
That's where the cognitive dissonance lies. Let me explain, using an analogy of a living thing that the owner can kill but someone else cannot.
If you have an apple tree given to you by your grandpa, and you value that apple tree more than ANYTHING IN THE WORLD, and I chop it down, I owe you the value of an apple tree, and nothing more. If it makes you feel like you've lost your grandpa all over again, I still legally owe you an apple tree, not a grandpa. What you value it as is irrelevant: it is not your grandpa, no matter how much you imagine it to be; it's an apple tree, and the law recognizes it as such.
So why can you chop down your own apple tree but I can't? Because the law is protecting you, not the apple tree, because it's your property. Apple trees are not in-and-of themselves protected by the law, and most people agree they shouldn't be. Well, you say, embryos aren't either, and therefore the mother should be able to "chop it down" as she's the owner, just like the apple tree. Well, that's where things get hairy, and that's where the cognitive dissonance reveals itself.
Outside the abortion debate, the law does not allow how much someone likes something to determine that something's value; instead, the law uses objective measures, such as market value. So in a situation like this one, where a person kills another's embryo, it forces us to decide how much an embryo is worth. Do we give value to its future as a person? A story like this one makes our heads and hearts say, "Yes! She lost a child! It would have been a child, but now it's dead, throw the book at him!" But if we legally give value to the future of the embryo, that future is a human life, which--unlike the apple tree--the law protects from harm even by that life's "owners" (read
And this dissonance of legally recognizing the future personhood of an embryo in some cases, and ignoring it in others... it is disturbing.
So there are two ways people have found as an out: First, they can resolve the dissonance (as some in this thread have done) by arguing the law should always disregard all value in an embryo's future and treat it as nothing more than tissue, and a case like this should be persecuted as nothing more than falsifying medication or something of the sort. People inherently know that something is very, very wrong with the situation, and that's why people have been trying to justify a long prison sentence as battery on the woman, etc., because that way they can feel justice has been done, but still avoid the cognitive dissonance of recognizing an embryo's personhood sometimes.
Second, they can ditch confronting the dissonance altogether by claiming the value of the fetus doesn't even enter into the equation, that it's all about "bodily autonomy," and even if the embryo's value were exactly that of a human, it's irrelevant and something the law shouldn't consider, because "bodily autonomy" is an absolute right and should never be subject to a balancing test. See below for why "bodily autonomy" as an absolute right is mere fiction, used to avoid having to address the dissonance of only some embryos being of great worth by claiming that tackling such difficult value issues isn't necessary, and therefore can be ignored..
I understand it very well, better than most even, as I understand that "bodily autonomy" is largely a fiction, conceived to make abortion sound justifiable, as I've outlined in the past. No law can exist without affecting someone's body, and yet, virtually everyone sees the value in having laws. Ergo, virtually everyone sees the value in controlling others' bodies, they just don't phrase it that way since it sounds bad--which is precisely why they DO phrase it that way for supporting killing a fetus. Don't stick that knife in the baby sucking nutrients out of your chest, and you have to keep it well nourished or else you've committed a crime? Common-sense law. Don't grind that fetus up and then vacuum it out? Violates bodily autonomy.
It's all about framing.
And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there are no valid arguments in support of abortion; there are. But a right to "bodily autonomy" is not absolute, and never has been. The "bodily autonomy" line is as over-generalized and inapplicable as the tired "freedom" line the Right shouts just as vehemently in other issues. Yes, we all love freedom and controlling our own bodies; they're great general principles that are subject to balancing tests in their applicability just like any other rights and principles. As they're used in these debates, they're just pretty words meant to simplify, generalize, and hide the ugly balancing act of law that must be performed: choosing whose rights trump whose, and why.
You've articulated it better than I could.
For the record, I am in favour of legalized abortions. But given that I consider a human life to start at the approximate point of there being sufficient brain activity for there to be consciousness and/or intentionality, I do consider abortions that occur late enough in the pregnancy to be the killing of a human life.
Fortunately, such cases are pretty damn rare, and even when they do happen, it is usually due to the mother's safety being endangered.
I fucking hate this legal double standard of a unborn child is nothing more than tissue when the mother does not want it, but it is a human being (at ~6 weeks?!) when another person, usually a male, harms or causes its termination.
Women never change their minds?
HiredN00bs
Member
Have had more people come into the thread asserting that a fetus is not an alive human being with no explanation whatsoever.
Here is why it is an alive human being:
It is a unique entity, each cell of which (after becoming a fertilized egg) contains unique human DNA. It is human.
While a fetus or other prenatal stage child may not be able to be sustained outside the uterus of the carrying woman, this is not the standard by which we define living. A newborn in an incubator is alive. A person unable to breath without a machine is alive. Even a person with a damaged or underdeveloped brain is alive. A healthy, growing child in the womb is alive by every scientific standard we have as far as I can see, although I am genuinely curious about the justification people have for asserting the opposite.
Please share.
Here is why it is an alive human being:
It is a unique entity, each cell of which (after becoming a fertilized egg) contains unique human DNA. It is human.
While a fetus or other prenatal stage child may not be able to be sustained outside the uterus of the carrying woman, this is not the standard by which we define living. A newborn in an incubator is alive. A person unable to breath without a machine is alive. Even a person with a damaged or underdeveloped brain is alive. A healthy, growing child in the womb is alive by every scientific standard we have as far as I can see, although I am genuinely curious about the justification people have for asserting the opposite.
Please share.
I support legal parental surrender/paper abortions in theory. They support a woman's right to choose and autonomy over her body, yet they allow a man to not be forced to look after a child he does not want.
CadetMahoney
Member
Technically it isn't, you can help a woman have an abortion who wanted one, but if you're not an abortion doctor with the governments blessing you will be breaking the law.
Just like add that even though some may argue against your point, "human and alive" isn't what Roe v Wade is about so I don't see it being overturned using any of those points.
Not even born humans have the rights pro-lifers are trying to give the unborn.
CyclopsRock
Member
I have no idea what "Roe v Wade" is, as a case (I'm not American, fwiw) but my point was that it's basically tautological; If it was generally agreed that an embryo was human, killing it would be murder. The fact that abortions are legal in most civilised countries suggests that embryos are not typically considered to be humans.
This is the new pro-choice, more extreme than ever. You better catch up unless you want to end up as a conservative
Well, why not even argue about a mother being allowed to kill her 1 year old baby? That baby wouldn't be able to live on its own as well.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I think this will eventually happen in our lifetimes in at least a few states and then become the norm going forward.
Well said on the issue in general.
Burgess_101
Member
I wouldn't call this murder at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the kid isn't seen as an actual human in the eyes of the law you can't just go round changing that.
I go back and forth on this. I agree completely with your assessment that it should absolutely not be murder in the eyes of the law, but I'm struggling to figure out what it is. The sticking point I have is that - in terms of emotional impact on the people around it - it is fundamentally indistinguishable from murder.
And the problem that happened here was that somebody else made it their business. Forcing an unwanted abortion is a similar 'moral crime' - for want of a better word - as denying the right to a wanted abortion. But that's not something prosecutable.
bengraven
Member
As a pro-choice guy, I sincerely hope this isn't dragged out as libelous against the pro-choice movement.
The final say in abortion should always be the woman, since it's her body. The man can always fuck off, sign over his rights, etc. The woman wanted the child, the man deceived her, killing the fetus that she had wanted to develop.
I don't think he should get life, but he needs to do some hard time, especially on the deception charge.
That's the touchy part of this: if we call this murder, then technically most abortions are murder, since this fetus was only a couple months along.
The final say in abortion should always be the woman, since it's her body. The man can always fuck off, sign over his rights, etc. The woman wanted the child, the man deceived her, killing the fetus that she had wanted to develop.
I don't think he should get life, but he needs to do some hard time, especially on the deception charge.
That's the touchy part of this: if we call this murder, then technically most abortions are murder, since this fetus was only a couple months along.
Why do you think so?
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I'm oversimplifying a complex issue here for brevity, but generally due to trends in how society increasingly views marriage, sexual morality, and gender as completely individual concepts for people to define on their own terms rather than conforming to societal norms that were normalized before people became affluent, irreligious, and developed a comprehensive welfare state. I agree it seems unthinkable now, but so was same-sex marriage 30 years ago in 1984.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html
Roe v Wade makes no real claims about the status of the fetus/embryo. It is decided based on the woman's right to privacy. I haven't read the entire decision but this summary may help, especially in regards the first trimester. After that they open the door to state restrictions based on "potential" but they never seem to outright give the fetus human rights or person hood.
I don't know why this is so controversial. The woman's body was creating what would eventually have been a human, and she had planned on that happening. Knowing this, he wilfully terminated the pregnancy and so in her eyes it was murder.
Doesn't have anything to do with the inalienable rights of women to terminate their own pregnancies.
Doesn't have anything to do with the inalienable rights of women to terminate their own pregnancies.
CadetMahoney
Member
No human born or otherwise has rights the pro-life group where/are pushing with banning abortion, Roe has nothing to do with the "human status" of the unborn.
And killing it is murder if it falls under fetal homicide laws (which makes exceptions for abortion).
Until we have artificial incubation chambers at any stage of pregnancy with pro-lifers happy to pick up the bill abortion will be the minimum force to protect women's right to privacy.
To lot's of people, abortion is just a fancy word for murder anyways. I'm pro-choice and respect that the mother can choose what to with her body, but trying to convince one's self that abortion isn't the killing of a fetus (i.e. future baby) is just a way to sleep at night. Abortion is still ending of a life.
As for this case, the guy took the life of a baby the mother wanted. He deserves all the jail time he gets.
Gaming-Ryu
Member
People are being really obtuse if they can't see the difference between this horrendous crime and a voluntary abortion. Despite what many people think, what value the mother places on her unborn child makes all the difference.
Couldn't agree more. If someone close to you lost their baby, even at an early stage, would you give them crap for mourning like they had lost someone in their life? And would you think in your mind that "oh, you just lost a fetus, like many women do at abortions everyday"?
And did people miss the following post? Assuming it is correct, it pretty says that causing harm to an unborn fetus, regardless of its gestational age, can be construed as murder, and that the laws see this as an entirely different matter as an abortion. I shorten it for easier reading.
Agree entirely with your POV on this matter. Well said.
Couldn't agree more. If someone close to you lost their baby, even at an early stage, would you give them crap for mourning like they had lost someone in their life? And would you think in your mind that "oh, you just lost a fetus, like many women do at abortions everyday"?
And did people miss the following post? Assuming it is correct, it pretty says that causing harm to an unborn fetus, regardless of its gestational age, can be construed as murder, and that the laws see this as an entirely different matter as an abortion. I shorten it for easier reading.
Agree entirely with your POV on this matter. Well said.
As an adopted child when I was 19 days old, born to 2 very young people who most likely considered abortion, I feel like he killed someone. I feel horrible for the mother. Now I dont look down on people that have had or are going to have an abortion or anything, but urge them to consider adoption. This scum, however, deserves some prison time.
That would fit into the first paragraph: resolving the dissonance by universally placing a lower value on the life of the fetus. I admit that I did also mention in that paragraph that some people felt like a very strong punishment should be dealt and were trying to justify a long punishment with things like battery on the woman. But I didn't mean that to explain the entire category. If you think the fetus never has great value, including in a story like this one, I strongly disagree with you, but there is no dissonance, no inconsistency in such a stance.
First, most pro-lifers simply want the right to not be killed extended to the fetus. That is a right that living humans have. Generally, a living human can only be legally killed to prevent the death of another, an exception to the no-kill rule that would also extend to the fetus, i.e. in pregnancies producing life endangerment. (As I've shown before, very, very few pregnancies are life-endangering, and most actually tend to improve health significantly.) Additionally, most pro-lifers (including myself) also would allow abortion in cases of rape, allowing the fetus to be killed when it's done nothing to warrant it, so this right to life is actually far less comprehensive than the one given to humans outside the womb.
Second, Roe was largely supplanted by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I think people still cite Roe so much because it was a landmark case whose name became known, and saying Planned Parenthood may create confusion that you're talking about the organization instead of the case.
Finally, in both Roe and Planned Parenthood, the state's interest in the life of the fetus (i.e. its "personhood" or "human status") was very important. SCOTUS performed a balancing test, and they decided the woman's right to abort outweighed the state's interest in protecting the life, until it developed enough that its own right to life outweighed the woman's right to abort. At that point, the state could protect the life over the right of the woman to abort. At no point, however, could the state protect the fetus's life by disallowing the woman to save her own life. So if it ever became one life or the other, the state could not ban the woman from saving her own life.
In short, by saying that the fetus's right to life (whether you phrase that as "human life," "personhood," or whatever) was not central to their analysis, you're showing you're clearly misunderstanding the cases. It certainly was central. They performed a balancing test, with the woman's right to abort on one side, and the fetus's right to life on the other, and in the beginning of the pregnancy, they decided they thought it fell in favor of the woman, while at the end it fell in favor of the fetus enough that the state could protect the fetus.
Can I say that this particular wallet that got stolen was super special to me, so I should be awarded $10,000,000 in damages? Can I say that I was really looking forward to the food my waiter spat in, so he should go to prison for 3 years? Can I say I didn't like my dog very much, so beating him to death was no big deal?
The law places an objective value on things, not subject to the claims of a single individual. As I outlined in my previous post above, this creates a cognitive dissonance with many people when they support abortion but then see a story like this and realize a great wrong has occurred. If you want to explain why abortion should be the only area of law where the law will only protect you if a certain individual likes you, you're welcome to try.
Interesting dylemma. What the man did was despicable, no doubt, and worth of a severe punishment. But... murder? I am not so sure.
The man should be trialed for causing bodily and mental harm to his girlfriend. I think that this is a far more safe bet than the whole murder angle that the prosecution is wanting.
I am a Catholic, and I would not want my couple to abort, but I don't think that the whole embryo = human is a clear cut thing either. We would have to look at how much developed the embryo was in order to determine whetever it was a human (or something resembling a human) VS a couple of cells mashed together.
The man should be trialed for causing bodily and mental harm to his girlfriend. I think that this is a far more safe bet than the whole murder angle that the prosecution is wanting.
I am a Catholic, and I would not want my couple to abort, but I don't think that the whole embryo = human is a clear cut thing either. We would have to look at how much developed the embryo was in order to determine whetever it was a human (or something resembling a human) VS a couple of cells mashed together.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked