Blended Conservatism

[sirs]

Bottom FACTUAL line is 2, count them, 2 murder convictions, per the example YOU prompted of a pregnant woman....not to mention wrong about my recollection

[BT]

Bottom factual line is there were two verdicts
One per victim
for the mother: Murder in the first degree  with special circumstances
for the fetus: murder in the second degree with special circumstances

The verdicts were not identical.

However

You are correct that many states treat fetuses as persons for the purpose of homicide, as long as those same laws provide an exception for abortion.

So I am not sure where you are going with your personhood argument.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am really tired of this abortion debate. No one is ever going to convince me that a woman does not have an absolute right to an abortion of she wishes.

[BT]

I am really tired of this abortion debate. No one is ever going to convince me that a woman does not have an absolute right to an abortion of she wishes.

I am curious what ramifications the personhood argument would have on the right to abortion as well as the governments obligations in protecting and providing for the fetal person if they were to be considered squatters in the host persons body?

Would pregnancy be a licensed activity. Would unlicensed pregnancy be a felony?

Would we be drafting breeders and retailing surrogate births at the mall. Would  eugenics come back into fashion? Would quota systems be put into place ?

[sirs]

Bottom factual line is there were two verdicts

Yes, I think I already said that....2 counts of murder     

One per victim
for the mother: Murder in the first degree  with special circumstances
for the fetus: murder in the second degree with special circumstances

The verdicts were not identical.

Never claimed they were.  I made it perfectly clear that there were 2 murders...that is 2 PERSONS murdered, as declared by a court of law.  But at least I appreciate your useof the term victim, for the unborn child

So I am not sure where you are going with your personhood argument.

Merely reinforcing the fact, that courts across the country see that unborn child as a distinct seperate person, unlike those who try to hide behind the semantics of the term fetus, and that supposedly makes them a non-person, thus allowing them to support the killing of that "non-person" by way of an abortion

[BT]

What the laws don't do is grant the full rights personhood to the fetus. And they often have a clause that allows for the abortion of said fetus.

So again i think this is just a semantics game by the pro life team because they haven't really accomplished what they set out to do with the granting of personhood to the fetus with very limited rights.

[sirs]

What the law said is that 2 PERSONS were murdered, in your Peterson example......end of story

[BT]

What the law said is that 2 PERSONS were murdered, in your Peterson example......end of story

What law is it that says 2 Persons were murdered.

What you seem to be confusing is a law with a verdict.

If you would like to trot out the California Statute  that Peterson was prosecuted under perhaps we can fine tune exactly what that law does and does not do.

Otherwise the story certainly isn't over, you simply abandoned your position.

[sirs]

What the law said is that 2 PERSONS were murdered, in your Peterson example......end of story

What law is it that says 2 Persons were murdered.

The one that had 2 counts of murder.   

What you seem to be confusing is a law with a verdict.

No, what you're trying to do is play some semantic game, in order to placate this need to try and find me wrong in something.  Murder, in a court of law is specific to people.  You wish to cite us the court case where someone was guilty in the murder of something other than a person??  I have yet to see that infamous court case of the 1st degree murder of a beagle.  How many murder chargers were filed against Michael Vick?

But the part that really troubles me, is your efforts minimize that murder, with this sematic game, that the unborn child's death at the hands of Perterson, is somehow less of a murder.  Not sure its worse than those who try to cowardly hide behind the word, fetus, but it sure does head in that direction

You were wrong about my recollection, and you're wrong about this not being the murder of actual persons.  Why?, I don't really know, but likely having to do with trying to find something wrong in what I've said, and despite even your own example, can't face the prospect that it was you, who was wrong.  Perish the thought.

[BT]

Your paranoia seems to be getting the better of you.

But if you can't be bothered to produce that law in California that bestows personhood on baby Peterson, so that an additional charge of homicide in the second degree with special circumstance, then i can't be bothered to explain how that same law severely limits the rights of personhood for the fetus that seems to have you all a twitter.

[sirs]

Your paranoia seems to be getting the better of you.

Naaaa, just logical observation, in a consistent trend of yours

But if you can't be bothered to produce that law in California that bestows personhood on baby Peterson

It's called murder, in the 2nd degree.  By all means, prove me wrong and demonstrate a court case with a conviction in the murder of something else outside of a person.  I'll wait patiently

[BT]

It's all in the law used to prosecute Peterson, which you can't be bothered to produce. But that same law is what you tout as having bestowed personhood on the fetus. So if that law is the foundation of your case, please produce it for examination and further debate.

[sirs]

No, apparently the part you can't produce is ANY U.S. court case that involves the murder of something OTHER than a person

By all means, prove me wrong

[BT]

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199




187.  (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
   (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
   (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
   (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
   (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
   (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16441.msg137496#msg137496

Per your own link concerning the Peterson case, the law he was prosecuted under and the language of said law.

[sirs]

Which makes fetus = human being (PERSON), in the eyes of the law.......sheeesh.  In particular, CA, in this case. 

Thank you for helping to prove my point, yet again.  If you ever do find a case where someone was convicted for the murder of something else, outside of a person, please share it with us