Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies

[theorist]

SAN JOSE – A man who was arrested for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend was being held on a murder charge Sunday following the death of the fetus the woman was carrying, police said.

The 25-year-old woman was 18 weeks pregnant when the male fetus was delivered dead Saturday, said San Jose Police Sgt. Steve Dixon. She was hospitalized early Saturday after she told police that her boyfriend, Clifford Beane Watkins, allegedly choked her and kicked her in the stomach at a local motel, he said.



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-ca-pregnantwomanattacked.html

[tjdee]

1. Preemies can be born at 18 weeks, what's that, 4 and a half months?

[Egalitariat]

2. I think the earliest anyone's been born and survived was in

the early 20's. As in weeks.

I'm sure this thread is going to turn in a referendum on abortion laws, but the mother did not choose to terminate this pregnancy.

I'm glad they're going to prosecute this dude for murder. The choice was not his.

[tjdee]

3. If she had had an abortion at this point, would it not be murder?

If she had had an abortion at this point, would it be a fetus, and therefore not a person, and therefore not murder?

Will this case set a precedent for putting people on trial for varying ages of the fetus? Who picks the age at which it is not a fetus and becomes a person? A doctor? The parent?

Valid questions I think.

[aikido15]

6. Exactly...

that's why John Kerry voted against the Lacy Peterson Law...if a fetus is considered a person in a murder charge, then abortion would be considered murder. Scott Peterson got the shaft and his case will be used by pro-lifers now to push their stupid agenda.

[Egalitariat]

8. Scott Peterson did not get the shaft. Lacy got the shaft****

nm

[PartyPooper]

10. "Scott Peterson got the shaft"?

How so? He was found guilty of 1st and 2nd degree murder.

[hollywood926]

13. Are you high?

Scott Peterson murdered TWO people. Laci intended to have the child and therefore it was murder. It would have been murder at ten weeks if she intended to have the child. It's HER choice, not anyone else's. That's the whole point of the pro-choice movement!

Same goes with this case.

[democraticrevolution]

19. You make a good point

I hear what you are saying about intent. In this case the man who is being charged with murder should be charged if the mother intended to have the baby which looks like she did.

[aikido15]

21. Not high, read post no. 11

...take a deep breath and try to look at this from a legal standpoint, not an emotional one.

[Megahurtz]

104. Kick!

:kick:

[demigoddess]

34. If a woman is pregnant and intends to have her child we have to

charge him with murder of the fetus. Otherwise you would have men freely beating up on women and not facing the consequences. And the loss of a child is a consequence they should have to face

[Sandpiper]

55. You've constructed a fine house of cards

But here's the problem with your reasoning.

The textbook definition of murder is: the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

What you're proposing is, a fetus is a human being in a case such as this, but not a human being for abortion purposes.

Not only is there no chance in hell that this reasoning would withstand judicial scrutiny, but you've also armed the anti-choice movement with the argument they need to get abortion outlawed: If a fetus is a human being in some cases, it's a human being in all cases.

[wickerwoman]

60. Isn't this why we have aggravated assault laws?

Murder charges aren't the only ones on the books. People are acting like it's murder or getting off scot-free. In fact, if the evidence is there he could be doing a significant stint for aggravated assault.

Women have a choice about whether or not they want to carry the baby. They do not have the ultimate authority to decide who is a human being and who isn't. Hinging it all on the woman's intention is an extremely slippery slope. Not only is it almost impossible to prove what the woman intended, it also invests her with the God-like power of confering humanity on another being. It would be a complete legal disaster.

[LiberalFighter]

102. It should not be under any type of murder statute...

it should be under a statute that increases the charges that a defendant can receive. Knowling assaulting a person vs. assaulting a person that is pregnant vs. assaulting a pregnant person with intent to terminate the pregnancy. (The difference should be defined that if the defendant knew the woman was pregnant then they would be charged under the most serious charge. While if the defendant was a stranger and could not observe that the woman was pregnant or the woman was not past a certain stage then it would be the lesser charge when involving a pregnant woman).


It would be no different in some/many states that increase the penalty against someone that assaults/murders someone that is handicapped.

[Sandpiper]

22. Law Student's view of the Peterson case

Why I would have voted to acquit

1) Total lack of physical evidence

2) Laci Peterson's body so badly decomposed that the County Coroner couldn't even determine a cause of death


The State's burden of proof is to show the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The definition of murder is: The unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

The mere fact that the coroner couldn't even determine a cause of death for Laci Peterson is more than enough grounds for reasonable doubt.

The jury returned a verdict based on emotion, not on the State's evidence.

[caligirl]

37. I think your right look for it to be over turned n/t

[Angelique]

46. Thank heaven you were not on the jury...

This is just my narrow view of the problem.. Have you not reached the section in your law book about circumstantial evidence yet? With your reasoning, all a murderer has to do is, kill in private, and burn the body, or cut it up in 100 pieces..

Stay in law school a little longer, or limit your practice to handle only contract law.. If you acquitted Scott on your criteria, commonsense, as well as justice will have lost.

[Gardeaux08]

49. Circumstantial evidence isn't the same as proof.

Do I think that Scott Peterson killed his wife? Probably. But circumstantial evidence is not, and never will be, proof.

[Sandpiper]

50. Narrow view indeed

Did I neglect to mention that the prosecution failed to put together a single theory of how the murder took place or produce any witnesses to give credibility to their accusations?

Okay, so far we've got:

1) No physical evidence (perfect crime)

2) No discernable cause of death

3) No theory for the crime

4) No witnesses


But hey, he didn't seem sad enough that Laci died and he owned a boat. Could it be any more obvious that he killed her? How could anyone not be swayed by such compelling circumstantial evidence?

You're a prosecutor's dream: willing to buy their story, despite anything substantial to support it.

Please do criminal defendants in your jurisdiction a favor and get yourself disqualified from jury duty should you ever receive a summons.

Did you also know that "circumstantial evidence" is the weakest type of evidence there is, since of itself, it can't satisfy a question of fact but can only lead a juror to make an inference of fact?

And as for your illustration of what every criminal would do, were you trying to think up the worst analogy you could? My but it would be difficult to chop a victim into a thousand pieces and not leave behind a trace of DNA evidence. Talk about your perfect crime.

If you have anything intelligent to say in the future, feel free to chime in. But until then, don't waste my time anymore.

[Eloriel]

91. Not TOO taken with yourself, are you?

You seem to have at least one of the required characteristics of attorneys who give the profession a bad name: hubris.

If you have anything intelligent to say in the future, feel free to chime in. But until then, don't waste my time anymore.

So now YOU'RE the main (only?) arbiter of what's intelligent. I see. Hey, why bother with the rest of your schooling, don't you know it all already?

[Old and In the Way]

59. Cable News decided the case.

Based on the facts, they could have spun it if they thought he was innocent, too.

[0007]

90. Public opinion convicted Scott Peterson. Guilty or innocent

I don't know! But the evidence to convict sure wasn't there.

[traco]

110. So, using this reasoning

Anyone who commits a murder, and is able to hide the body til it decomposes badly enough to to keep a cause of death from being known, should get off scot free?

[Sandpiper]

112. It's more than that

For me,

No physical/DNA evidence + No witnesses + No discernable cause of death + No theory for the crime = Reasonable Doubt

Lest we forget, it's the State that has the burden of proving guilt. The accused does not have the burden of proving their innocence. And yes, if the State is going to charge a person with murder, if they could not determine to a medical certainty what the cause of the victim's death was, I would find that to be a very high hurdle for them to clear in making their case.

[liberalhistorian]

45. Scott Peterson most certainly

did not get the shaft. He deliberately chose to murder his wife and their son, who was only a month away from being born, which is to say he was viable and a living human being just like Laci.

I don't agree with the death penalty and I'm not happy the jury recommended death, but I hope he rots in prison for the rest of his miserable life. Laci didn't ask to be murdered, and certainly not just before she gave birth (which, by all accounts, she was very excited about); and Connor didn't ask for his father to murder him either.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

73. And I've hit alert on this as well.

I suggest anyone else feel free to do the same.

[theorist]

76. I did as soon as I saw it.

My favorite part: "Coward shot himself in the ass to get home early from Vietnam."

Still can't get over that bush (that's right, lowercased b) has such a huge fortunate son complex. I'll stop here for the sake of staying on topic.

[Bouncy Ball]

77. If you do an advanced search on this hideous thing

you will see he is quite obsessed with homosexual sex. Interesting, isn't it?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theorist]

75. At least read the rules before you start inciting "eRiots".

Moran.

[Kimber Scott]

7. Simple answer...

A woman's right to choose is a woman's right to choose. In such a case, if a woman chooses to abort, it is not murder. (Although, my personal opinion, is abortions should be limited to the first trimester, but that's my opinion. I'm not pregnant.)

If someone assaults, murders, or otherwise purposely causes harm to a pregnant woman that results in the death of her wanted fetus, thus removing from her the right to carry her baby to term, it should be considered murder.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. The reasoning sounds kinda convoluted for me.

Where do you draw the line? Would forcing a woman to swallow a RU-486 pill against her will at, say, three weeks, also murder?

[hollywood926]

15. YES IT WOULD

Yes, of course it would be murder. It's not HIS choice to abort the fetus!

Jesus Christ!

[Kimber Scott]

16. Why not?

Who has the right to force a woman to swallow anything, much less something that would cause the involuntary termination of her pregnancy? A woman's right to choose is just that. It's not somebody else's right to choose.

How is that convoluted?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. I'm not saying it's not a crime, or that it's not a heinous act.

I'm saying it's not M-U-R-D-E-R.

Three weeks? Give me a break.

[Kimber Scott]

18. Maybe, to you it's not that important. Maybe, to the pregnant woman

it was.

You are assuming you have the right to tell her her baby was meaningless tissue. That is for her to decide, not for anyone else. Your right to your beliefs ends at her body. It's a two way street.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. Nice mix of straw men and PAs. Please DO keep posting like that.

I want you to. I really do.

[Kimber Scott]

24. How's that?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. I said it was a heinous crime. Like rape or torture.

And guess what? Rape and torture AREN'T MURDER. And this isn't either.

And then you went on a rant about "meaningless" this and "not important" that, as if I considered such act a minor prank or something. That's the straw man.

[Kimber Scott]

38. I don't get into tricky shit. I don't even know what a straw man or PA is

All I'm saying is to you it is one thing - excuse me for misrepresenting your opinion of rape, etc. - you see some people would rather die than be raped - not me - but some people would and that is my point. What means one thing to you, could mean something completely different to somebody else.

I say, if a woman's pregnancy is involuntarily terminated, through forces other than nature, the terminator is guilty of murder.

You say it depends on your opinion as to when a fetus becomes important enough to warrant the charge. You can never know how important it is unless it's in you. Some people feel no connection with a fetus until it starts kicking them, others not until it's being born. Some never do. Others believe life begins at conception. That's why choice is so important. The right to choose what is right for one's self, should not be taken away by the state, or a boyfriend.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. Here you are:

http://www.vex.net/~nizkor/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

And PA is DU moderator jargon meaning Personal Attack.

[Sterling]

108. You should learn then.

I think understanding how to make a valid intellectual argument should be a prerequisite to posting on DU.

[TahitiNut]

14. I think it should be seen as a denial of the pregnant woman's civil rights

Not 'murder.' YMMV. :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Oh, some brains. What a relief. (nt)

[TahitiNut]

33. I'd call it a "keen sense of the obvious."

That it's a heinous act is indisputable, imho. The question is what kind of heinous act. I see a denial of a person's civil rights as heinous in many instances ... and this is one of those instances. I regard a Birth Certificate (or the equivalent, in a de facto sense) as establishing civil 'personhood' - a condition necessary for the establishment of one's civil rights. (All else is religion.)

I'm personally as much 'pro-life' as I am 'pro-choice' - since 'life' can be meaningless without privacy and 'choice'. I think this is what most miss. 'Life' in a civil sense is not just about biological function. The most essential element of civil 'life' is that minimal degree of personal sovereignty called 'privacy' or 'choice'. Thus, in denying (reproductive) choice and privacy to a living person, we deny much of life itself. Even felons in prison should keep their personal privacy rights - they should not be tortured, used for medical experimentation, forced to have an abortion, or a plenitude of other violations of their human/civil rights. (Yes, I'm opposed to the death penalty. Of course. It's insane not to be.)

[kitkatrose]

96. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here, your response deserves a cookie. :)

[0007]

40. I absolutely agree. And denial of that woman's civil rights

should be prison time indeed. 'Tis not a murder charge.

[Erika]

52. Does the IRS consider a fetus a dependent for tax purposes?

No.

Is the taliban right in America willing to force a woman to give birth against her will? That is the real question. Will they declare themselves the moral factor to determine the fate of her body?
Do men play any role or responsibility?

The wacky right wingers might decide a woman must carry a fetus to birth unless the fetus occurred through rape or incest. Does this fact change the rights of the fetus or the mother? How will the taliban rule in the gray areas. Do the taliban belong in women's reproductive rights.

This issue is typical of the wacky right. I had my good Republican friend say she would vote against the right of abortion as a method of birth control. We've been friends for years. When I brought up she paid for her step-daughter's abortion years ago, she bristled. She said "that was different", her step-daughter had been on drugs at that time and that is why she paid for the abortion. I said "ok".

This last election ended our friendship.

[0007]

88. Good point about the IRS. It is funny how the right winger

talk about the evils of abortions until they need one. And then that's different.

[forgethell]

101. BUT She didn't

get an abortion. It WAS NOT her CHOICE. As she is the only one entitled to make that choice, if anyone else does it for her, it must be murder.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. I'm glad they're going to prosecute this dude

but not that it's for murder.

There's plenty of book to throw at him. Assault, injury, and of course attempted murder of the woman. The murder charge is SOLELY for political agenda.

[aikido15]

11. Yes it is political...

There was never a body found...hum...whether he did it or not, the physical evidence was not there. I'm looking at these from a legal political view, not an emotional one.

[demigoddess]

35. they hardly ever charge attempted murder these days. Assault is all they

do for those crimes. I know of cases where the woman was beaten and left for dead/ died in the ER several times and all they got charged was rape. The torture, beating, and dismemberment was incidental, even though the perp thought the person was dead when they were done.

[iamjoy]

41. This Is Scary

Because once they have legal precedent that a fetus is a life, no woman will be able to have a choice.

[melnjones]

43. I agree with you

100%

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissBrooks]

4. OH MY GAWD

This is crazy.

[DS1]

115. AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

[PartyPooper]

5. Scott Peterson Syndrome.

Brutal men like this belong behind bars forever.

[daleo]

20. Here is a verse from the Bible, that seems to cover the case

Basically, it seems to say that killing the woman is murder, but making her lose the fetus is not a capital crime. FWIW.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm
Exodus 21:22 If men strive an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
One source comments that because some Bible translations (KJV, RSV) use the phrase "woman with child" that God considers a fetus to be a human child. 3 But other translations render the phrase simply as "pregnant woman" and make no direct reference to the fetus.

This verse describes a situation in which a man, who is fighting another man, accidentally hits a pregnant woman, and causes a termination of her pregnancy. The following verse, 23, explains that if the woman died, the guilty man would be executed by the state. The accidental killing of a woman under these circumstances was considered a capital offense, because she was a human person.

Verse 22 is confusing. The key Hebrew word "yatsa" literally means to "lose her offspring." 4 This has been translated in different Bible versions as:

A miscarriage: This would imply that the fetus died immediately as a direct result of the accident. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that the woman does not die), the man responsible would have to pay at a fine. The amount would be set by her husband and approved by the judges. This would imply that the death of the fetus was not considered to be the death of a human person. If it were, then the man responsible would be tried for murder and executed. However, because the fetus had possible future economic worth to the father, he would have to be reimbursed for his loss.

premature birth: This implies that the fetus is born earlier than full term. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that neither the woman nor the baby dies) then the man would pay a fine. One possible interpretation of this passage would be that if the premature baby died, then the man responsible had killed a human person, and would be tried for murder. The verse is ambiguous at this point.

[TahitiNut]

26. Calling it criminal denial of a woman's Civil RIghts would serve all.

It would serve the blood-lust of the fetus-worshippers and it would underline the woman's sole sovereignty over her own body and her reproductive choice. Indeed, I see the forced abortion of the fetus in a similar way (criminality) as forcing her to carry the fetus to term if that's not her choice.

[theorist]

27. This is the reason I wanted to post this.

Hands down, this is a very controversial issue, and regardless of the views held by DUers on this subject (and they are varied), everyone here will argue for their position with logic and personal values.

Based on what is posted here, the book of Exodus tells us exactly what the punishment of this crime should be, but it is unlikely that Christian fundamentalists will fight to have this man's punishment lessened to that of a fine. Therefore, I feel that they are irrelevant in this debate.

[proudbluestater]

29. There are good reasons why we separate church and state

when laws are made.

[daleo]

78. I wasn't actually advocating the Biblical position

I just found it to be an interesting case where the straightforward "Bible-based" view was in contradiction of what most people (including believers) would have expected.

As for my personal opinion, I do think that a charge of murder in this case does open up the possibility of charging women, doctors, nurses, etc. with murder or some form of negligent homicide when they are involved in abortion. I assume that this is the hidden reason for the murder charge. I will admit, that is just a hunch.

I would guess that there is probably a law out there that could be used creatively to express outrage at the act without allowing this to be a stalking horse for prohibition of all abortion rights. I would suggest a charge along the lines of what I think is called "mayhem" in law - harming someone so grievously that exceeds the normal level of brutal assault. This would reinforce the notion that the fetus is still "part and parcel" of the mother at 18 weeks, and any harm done to it without the mother's consent is a grievous harm against the mother.

An analogy might be amputating a woman's arm. Clearly, if she gave consent to a doctor to do this (for example to remove a life threatening cancerous tumor) it would be legal, but if she didn't give consent any party who cut off her arm would be committing a grievous assault that deserved the most serious punishment short of capital punishment.

[Maat]

30. DUers ..... last time I checked Cal had found a clever way ...

to get around this ... correct me if I'm wrong.

What they had was a law that forbade an involuntary termination of a pregnancy. I always thought that that was clever, since it focused on the perpetrator's act ... and bypassed declaring a fetus as a legal person. And the legislature was free to provide the penalty they saw fit for it.

I'll have to see if that law is 'on the books' still.

This law student, for one, is against a 'murder' charge ... leads us into very dangerous legal territory. Why not give the judge huge discretion in terms of imposing a sentence for pregnancy termination, so that the end effect is life or the equivalent of a murder sentence?

[jody]

93. I agree, the Bible describes a civil suit, not murder. n/t

[CornField]

31. Yet my full-term stillborn son never existed

at least, he never existed according to the government. If a child dies before birth (if a child is stillborn), the child cannot be acknowledged on government documents to ever have lived. No birth certificate, no death certificate, no place on income tax forms, absolutely no government acknowledgement.

[knitter4democracy]

89. That's wrong

They need to change that. Your son did exist, and there should be some kind of documentation for that. I'm so sorry that such a horrible thing happened to you and your family.

They can't have it both ways, frankly. They can't prosecute for murder but then look the other way when babies die from natural causes. We need a better answer for all of this.

[diamond14]

99. bush* should allow a tax-deduction for a child born....so the family

could have a little extra money to pay for badly needed hospital costs and burial costs...

reTHUGlican 'compassion' is a JOKE on us....


I'm sorry for your loss, and I hope you have been able to find joy and happiness in your life.... that you chat about it here shows an enormous courage and strength, and I am certain that those qualities are a gift to you....


here in OUR Nation's Capital, it looks like the pro-life fundie bush* approach is to defend the fetus...but fail the whole family once a child is born, and then STEP BACK, while children are KILLED frequently here...the bush* cuts in social service programs and safety nets has resulted in a real horror of actually living children KILLED...just before X-mas, there was a REAL BABY MURDER by a boyfriend, who got 5 years...it was his second offense...the first time about 10 years ago, he had beat a child so badly, that the child is now growing up a quad.....bush* loves fetuses, but once they are born, they are useless to him...until they get to 18 and join the reTHUGlican brown shirts or bush* military wars....

[Eloriel]

92. How do you bury him without a death certificate?

Seriously. I'd like to know.

[CornField]

97. We were never asked for one

The hospital staff asked which funeral home we'd like to use. The funeral home came to the hospital and picked him up. The funeral home asked which cemetery and made arrangements for us. We only had to meet with the cemetery staff to make the arrangements for a tombstone.

The hospital staff was really wonderful. I have copies of his hand and footprints... photographs... and lots of other things that I would have never guessed that I would have wanted.

The thing that bothers me about all of this is the double-standard. Why is only a child who dies by violence considered to have existed?

[Johnny Noshoes]

105. Your son

did exist for you and your family and the fact that you got no papers from some government does not negate his existence. Now that some of us here on DU who have read this thread and have heard your story he exists in our minds and thoughts as well. May you find peace.

[sonicx]

32. the solution to cases like these are easy. If the women doesn't choose...

herself, the termination of the pregnancy is illegal.

[rocktivity]

98. "Assault/murder resulting in the termination of a PREGNANCY"

THAT'S what we need to call it. Not murder, because that implies the fetus was a born, living person. It wasn't.

:headbang:
rocknation

[dolstein]

36. Whatever you call it, they should lock this guy up and throw away the key

NT

[bleedingheart]

39. A lot of men and women may change their position to pro-choice due to this

Imagine these scenarios...

1. Shakey relationship...woman has miscarriage...but decides to point finger at husband since she is pissed...she claims she was beaten..he goes to prison.

2. Another shakey relationship...woman has two glasses of wine during the holidays and miscarries that night...the husband a devoutly religious fellow decides she must pay for her crime!!!

...oh we could go on from here...

Personally I think the guy should get in trouble for beating the woman as for the miscarriage..at 18 weeks the fetus isn't viable..(it wouldn't be able to live without extremely heroic measures and would most likely be brain damaged or dead)...

[KittyWampus]

117. Bleedingheart, Your Thoughts Are Also What Came To My Mind Too

[diamond14]

44. my mom lost a pregnancy when slightly hit from behind at a red light....

the seatbelt squeezed the belly and about 4 days later, my mom miscarried. This was 30 years ago, and the guy who accidentally hit her car got a ticket, but he was NOT charged with MURDER, or even manslaughter....my mom recovered and went onto have seven more successful pregnancies...

today, I guess anyone slighty impacting a rear bumper could be charged with MURDER.....car manufacturers will now be charged with MURDER if any woman has a miscarriage while traveling in a car...and anytime a miscarriage occurs (even if from normally body rejection of massive deformed fetuses) there WILL be MURDER charges against anyone and any corporation and any hospital anywhere around at the time......

as this whole religiously-insane bush* laws proceed, there may be a LOT of people who will finally realize how obscene and insane bush* really is....the bushites are so fanatical, that they never thought out the consequences of their actions (sort of like their WAR ON IRAQ madness)....

[genieroze]

48. Was this a accident, seemed intentional to me. This is apples and oranges

To compare what happen with your mother to what this man did would be the driver intentionally rammed your mom in hopes of killing her or having her miscarry. He intentionally chocked her and kicked her in the stomach. I don't know about murder but he did try and choke her, which is attempted murder.

[diamond14]

56. did the boyfriend INTENTIALLY try to kill the fetus...or was he just

trying to choke and kick his girlfriend? sooooo, was the boyfriend trying to KILL the girlfriend, or in the bush*-world-view murder a non-human fetus? Is choking always done as an attempt to KILL someone? my own brother used to choke me when we were kids...

did the boyfriend really know that what he was doing might cause a miscarriage?

bush* didn't really think out his religiously-insane fanatical laws....bush* just never considered the consequences of his fanatical actions in REAL LIFE....


and yes, the bush* fanatics would certainly require a minimum MANSLAUGHTER charge against the driver who slightly impacted the rear bumper of my mom's car (manslaughter being an UNINTENTIONAL murder from a car accident, against the person who made the driving error...it's commonly done in fatalities)....afterall, bushites consider the little blob of a miscarriage or a monthly period, to be the destruction of a life that MIGHT at some future time become a human being....so to them MANSLAUGHTER or MURDER is very appropriate....imagine, a pregnant women could slip on ICE that YOU intentially left in front of your apartment building, and have a miscarriage (maybe that was coming anyways, who knows) TWO WEEKS later and YOU are charged with MURDER....bush* is crazy and religiously-insane and refuses to consider the consequences of his actions...like his recent crusades in Iraq and Afganistan....

[genieroze]

67. I have never been choked or kicked in the stomach. Just the thought of

someone doing that would make me think he's trying to kill or at the very least hurt me. Unless the woman is pissed off at the boyfriend and is lying about it, he's not a nice person. We don't know the whole story, maybe she assaulted him first or pulled a weapon on him. I'm sure the MSM will make this the new Peterson story to feed the masses with.

[diamond14]

86. yes, the pregnant woman could have been trying to "Lorraine Bobbit" him

since he was committing a 5th Commandment violation of ADULTERY...the fundie reTHUGlicans will be relieved that he was able to defend his little penis against the knife and forgive him everything....then, it could well turn into a fundie "self-defense"
case where they charge the Pregnant Woman with attempted murder.....

remember Lorraine Bobbit...she set a NEW higher standard for these reTHUGlican adulterers....women all over American hailed her as a hero...but the reTHUGlican fundies charged her with ATTEMPTED MURDER, and she barely got off with her life under a carefully orchestrated defense of insanity or mental instability, and was shoved into a mental ward for a long period of time, and eventually released as no danger to men who were NOT adulterers....

John Bobbitt got his penis sewed back on (after it was flung out of a moving car by Lorraine near her local 7-11 store, and FOUND in the grass by panicked men cringing in their groins at the very though of punishment for adultery).....after the divorce, John went on to become first: a talk-show radio celebrity, at which he failed because he talked real STUPID boring reTHUGlican monotone (I heard him interviewed in Denver, Colorado)....then later, John's real claim to fame was as a PORN STAR, because he claimed that the sown on penis actually worked and everyone in America wanted to see if that was TRUE...I never saw any of John's Porn movies, but I am certain reTHUGlicans loved it (conservative reTHUGlicans are the BIGGEST manufacturers and buyers of Pornography)....

God Bless America...ANYTHING could happen in this amazing fundie-fueled bushite case of non-human MURDER.....

[Maria Celeste]

69. Careful with words here

Murder has a clear definition, namely:
-That a human being died
-That they died unlawfully
-That there was malice aforethought
If you can murder a fetus, it means its a human being. Not sure we want to go there.

The problem with fetal murder for only wanted babies is that it takes the intent issue away from the perp and makes it whether it is murder or assault based on the intent of the woman. While a reasonable approach on the surface, it would be impossible to come up with clear legal language that could later be translated jury instructions. I tend to agree with some of the others here that sort of "Assault on a pregnant woman that results in miscarriage" and would add a bar on any inquiry as to whether or not the baby was wanted or not (pregnancy shield law?). Viability is a really slippery slope, esp with some of the new medical technology out there.

To me there is a clear need to get some sort of criminal enhancement for beating a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage without starting down the fetus = human being path.

My 2 cents on the Peterson trial was that while I did not see enough evidence to justify a conviction, I did not follow the trial either, so have no justifiable opinion on it one way or the other. He sure is a piece of work regardless.

Finally, long time lurker here on DU, but this issue is near and dear due to a family issue, so I joined to post.

[theorist]

71. Welcome to DU, Maria, and thank you for your thoughts.

This is a very sensitive issue, and I'm proud of my fellow DUers for being quite civil about it. Again, welcome!

[diamond14]

81. Welcome to DU, Marie Celeste...good first post...logical, well thought

out....respectful....no reTHUGlican-type PAs (Personal Attacks)...


let me extend a warm welcome to you, long time lurker....welcome to the LATE night DU intelligent discussion from the compassionate LEFT.....I know that chatting here on this thread are several attorneys, a chemist, two scientists, at least two Veterans (probably more) and a repectable student of law...and a "straw men and PA" flinger (like throwing snot)....thanks for joining us...


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:



:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[theorist]

82. As a chemist, I would like to also be thought of as a scientist.

:)

But then again, as a chemical theorist, most chemists consider me a novelist.

:hi: diamond14




on edit: do not operate a keyboard when "negotiating with yourself"

[diamond14]

87. ahhhh....perhaps you are a "physical chemist"? with all those

quarks, bosons, and Schroedinger Wave Equations dancing through your head for the holiday season....


don't mean to offend you by the separation of 'Chemists" from those other 'scientists'....and of course, you are BOTH (but those other scientists can't be BOTH)....the separation to me is important because CHEMISTRY is a 'hard science', as opposed to those 'fluff' sciences....

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:



after I stopped 'negotiating with myself', I suddenly realized that YOU must be the chemist that I first mentioned, and you just didn't know that I knew....my own major was 'underwater basketweaving' and 'wolverine watching' with a minor in diag art creative effects....

[Eloriel]

94. I didn't follow it closely either, but

even at the distance I did follow it (who could avoid it if they had the TV on at ALL?), there was enough circumstantial evidence to convince the jury. IMO, despite certain all-knowing posts here to the contrary, there comes a point where there's enough circumstantial evidence that any finding OTHER than "guilty" would be a gross denial of Reality capital R.

Welcome to DU.

[genieroze]

47. Hum, the rest said

"We think the cause of death is going to be the kick to the stomach, so that is why we booked (Watkins) for murder," Dixon said.
Shouldn't they wait and see what the cause of death was? Maybe the girlfriend is pressing the police. I don't like the fact that he kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach, to me it seemed he was intentionally trying to harm the fetus. The fact that he attempted to murder her by choking her doesn't sit to well with me either.

edited for spelling

[Gardeaux08]

51. Maybe the better question is

why isn't he being held on attempted murder charges for choking the woman?

[genieroze]

53. Exactly. eom

[Solly Mack]

54. You already know the answer to that one :(

Been thinking of you all. If there's anything I can do, please let me know.

Solly

[sandnsea]

58. My question exactly

The lives and health of real live women is being lost in all of this fetal fantacism. Charge him with attempted murder, tack on 20 years for attempting to murder a pregnant woman as heinous, and be done with it. Everybody is going to be sorry if we keep surrendering the well-being of women to fetuses.

[annabanana]

116. fetal fantacism

GOOD frame! Use often for the rabid anti-choicers.

[diamond14]

62. nice of the cops to so publicly pre-judge the medical report.....

guess they must get this all out to the reTHUGlican news media, in order to make their fundie case before the 'cause of death' report is even on their desks.....have they even received the medical reports yet from the examinations of the woman's injuries?

maybe the fetus was already massive deformed from a congenital defect causing the miscarriage....or exposure to toxins, from the mother, or the environment....who knows...just LEAP to a conclusion....like the good old days of fundie lynching....OMG, they got ANOTHER fetus case....so exciting for them...a non-human MURDER case.....

I'm all for police taking an objective view of every situation rather than LEAPING to fundie conclusions and blabbering their case to the reTHUGlican news media to make their BIG splash...they probably got on the phone TONIGHT to bush* cohorts Jerry Farwell and Billy Graham....

[genieroze]

64. Now that I agree with, the police should wait for the coroner before

charging him with murder. They could book him for assault to hold them so he doesn't take off before the autopsy can determine the cause of death. If that fetus shows severe abnormalities won't they feel stupid.

[diamond14]

66. those fundie bushites will NOT feel stupid...they will feel that GOD

sent them to lynch this guy, who clearly MURDERED a non-human blob...


they will congratulate themselves for YEARS, and moan the obviously LIBERAL coroner who LIED about this BIG IMPORTANT MURDER CASE....and then GOD will send them to FIRE THE CORONER and drive him/her OUT of their RIGHTEOUS neighborhood, so this never happens again....


and Jerry "Kill-all-the-Muslims-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord" Farwell will begin a brand new FUNDIE CORONER training program at his "Holier-than-thou" University in Lynchberg Virginia.....and all the male reTHUGlicans will rest easier at night, laying down right beside their adulteresses and hired prostitutes, with their falafahs and dildos at their sides.....GOD IS GREAT !!! Go Crusaders....

[genieroze]

74. Wow and I thought I hated the Reich Wing, lol eom

[diamond14]

100. I don't hate anyone, but I feel that bush* and his minions are VERY

dangerous for all living people on our planet.....you can watch how they operate and it is truly a vicious cabal operating with a massive PR machine (that we pay for) that dupes Americans into the "GOD sent bush" crusading momentum.....


BTW, Jerry Fawell, with a following of MILLIONS of Americans, a University at his HUGE headquarters in Lynchberg, VA (is that a hoot? Lynch-berg...it actually was where whites lynched blacks for no reason, not so long ago in Virginia)....and a extended 'missionary' and all that fundi-crap....Jerry actually said this on C-Span, just a few weeks ago:

"We should KILL ALL THE MUSLIMS...in the Name of the LORD !!!!" and he said it loud and inspirationally, like a real Virginia fundie preacher....

sadly, it seems that most Americans do not find that offensive...it seems that such horrifying words (on many levels) are now just mainstream bushite talk....acceptable all across America as the 'norm'.....

[sandnsea]

57. Assault on a pregnant woman

Can't we just make a law that covers that, put it in the category of a heinous crime with appropriate sentences, and let it go at that. It must just be me, but I'm more upset at what he did to this LIVE woman. :shrug:

[Erika]

65. No, the Republicans only think of women as recepticles

they are of no worth...just the fetus they carry.

And, of course, men are held "guilty" of nothing. The RW taliban right want all the blame placed on females. Men are Godly and never to be held responsible, women are irresponsible sluts and Bushies back this 1000%.

[genieroze]

68. That's my first gripe, the fetus shouldn't come into play

until an autopsy is preformed.

[countryjake]

61. Since there is a military provision in this law...

It seems to me as tho somebody ought to be looking into all of those "unborn children" being "murdered" over in Iraq for the past couple of years. If we can't charge the occupiers with outright war crimes, maybe we can get them with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act!

Everytime I break down & go back & read this "Laci & Conner Law", I am astounded at the absurd terminology used, such as "children in utero" or "a child, who is in utero". Does it deny the existence of embryos or fetuses entirely, just as the term "evolution" is being denied in favor of "creation"? Is there no longer such a thing as "undeveloped"? Also, that no previous knowledge of the pregnancy need be known; easy convictions, all around! How long before "vigorous" sex which leads to a miscarriage will be used to charge someone with murder?

It does seem as tho the possibilities for prosecution will increase, without a doubt, & this has made pregnant women so much more precious than ordinary, run-of-the-mill, beaten & abused women. Oh, I forgot, those are just ignorant, hard-up gals, too stupid to know when a guy wants to control them by beating them into submission. We'd better get the word out quick...make sure to be pregnant if you want the legal system to work for you. Otherwise, you're just another hopeless victim of domestic violence!

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html

[diamond14]

63. just ARGUE with a pregnant women, and if she miscarried later MURDER

perhaps the man never TOUCHED the pregnant woman...maybe she argued with her boss at work, or her husband...and after the argument...the pregnant woman claims the INTENTIONAL pressure and stress caused her to miscarry....maybe the miscarriage (as is common) was already on it's way from environmental toxin stress (cigarettes, pollution, alcohol, drugs, etc.) or from natural improperly growing tissue, or from cancers or diseases....but no matter what...if you are around a pregnant woman at any time previous to a miscarrage (maybe even weeks or months)....under bush* fundamentalism...YOU may be charged with MURDER should that women have a miscarriage....and corporations providing any kind of equipment or services to that woman could also be charged MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER....

[Erika]

70. Yep. Let's find out who to really prosecute in the deaths of fetuses

Many inner cities with high pollution, show a higher average than normal in miscarriages. Many urban expectant mothers have the least access to health care. So are we going to charge these miscarriages, stillborns, etc. to the health laws? No. The Bushies would not find this economically feasible. So, just blame the woman as the fault for any child not born alive and full term. Bushies never have respected women.

[Moloch]

79. We must do something about these "Fetus Worship" laws

I think the fundamentalists have a ulterior motive when pushing for these laws. I just can't seem to put my finger on what it is.. hmmmm...

[Jack_DeLeon]

84. I'm glad the fucker was arrested and charged...

people who beat women, especially pregnent women should be punished harshly.

[Erika]

85. Yes, Poor health, inner city pollution, etc.

which contribute to the death of fetuses should be definitely considered for prosecution.

[Malva Zebrina]

95. It won't be long

mark my words, that women who have abortion will be charged with murder. if done in a clean and safe environment, such as a women's health clinic, the doctor will also be charged and all the nurses working there charged as co conspirators.

Not only that, but every spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, will have the women being a suspect , questioned, and if she admits she forgot to take her vitamin pill, or went horseback riding the day before, or did any number of things that fill the urband legends and superstitions of men's and women's perception of a pregnancy, she may even be charged with murder.

I am not kidding now. Not now, not after the past four years. It is the era of righteous, religious misogyny, with the baby Jesus, wrapped in swaddling clothes, flaming sword in hand, leading the charge.

[Megahurtz]

103. In California?

You've got to be kidding, this will never fly.

A fetus now baby cannot survive out of the womb at that age, and it probably died before it was born.

It's a sad story, but the legal aspect sounds like the back door attempt of fundies.

A good lawyer should be able to get him out of it.

[rebecca_herman]

106. disagree with charges

I disagree with this charge. There should be an assault charge for killing a non viable fetus against a woman's will, but I would never consider it murder at 18 weeks, couldn't survive on its own, little to no brain activity...

[nodehopper]

107. And so the backdoor assault on abortion rights continues. Wonderful.

[Jack Rabbit]

109. A little background

If I am not mistaken, the law under which the man is being prosecuted was passed by the California State Legislature after an incident similar to this one about 30 years ago. Abortion was yet to become a hotbutton item at that time.

The intent of the legislature was not to grant some sort of personhood to a fetus in the sense that foes of women's rights would impose. The law needn't be interpreted that way.

If anybody has the right to confer personhood on a fetus, it is the mother. She does so by choosing to carry the pregnancy to term. Since the woman in this case was midterm and still had not had an abortion, I will not consider it too hazardous to assume she intended to have the child.

Interpreted that way, this is a perfectly good law. Personally, I would make no changes in it.

Prosecute the bum.

[rebecca_herman]

111. actually

Well in the incident that prompted the law, the woman was a week from her due date when her ex-husband beat her so that the baby was stillborn. In my view that is far worse than the death of an 18 week old fetus though others may disagree and say the woman's intent is enough to make it murder, but I don't know that I could ever consider the death of a fetus before 22 weeks legal murder.

[Jack Rabbit]

114. Thank you for jarring my memory about that case

It should be added that the man's intention in the earlier case was to harm the child as well as the woman ("I'm going to beat it out of you" is what he said to her before the beating).

In any case, the law could be written with language explicit prohibiting the courts from using it to make any judgments about a woman's right to voluntarily terminate her pregnancy, if that is what is needed to protect a woman's right to choose. In both of these cases, the woman's right to choose was violated.

[mutius]

113. will they seek the death penalty?

If the abortion laws are over turned, anyone who performs an illegal abortion, will be guilty of capital murder, also the mother. think?