A Crying Baby Is Not Alive?

[tinybear]

"The prosecution's pathologist found that the baby had been born alive because a witness thought he heard it cry for one or two seconds. But the single, short cry the witness thought he heard, if it occurred, may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth."

This was the basis of the court's decision, namely that unless the prosecution proves that the baby was alive after complete separation from the mother, the case of murder is not established. In other words, unless and until the baby is completely separated from the mother, it has no independent life which the mother is capable of taking away to constitute homicide. It's just an abortion and nothing more. That's what the court was saying. Now, I ask this again: Does this make sense? As a layman, I must say it's absurd. Would a lawyer please explain to me why the law says that it's not?

[Starboy]

Sorry about the using the wrong word. So I guess that everyone thinks that society would be well served by letting her go if the baby died during birth or jailing or killing her if she killed the child?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear Now, I ask this again: Does this make sense? As a layman, I must say it's absurd. Would a lawyer please explain to me why the law says that it's not?

The legal question would be, 'When is what is in the womb become a human being and therefore possess some or all of the rights of a human being, one of which is not being killed by other people let alone your mother?’

It appears that the law is saying that it does not become human until it has completely separated from its mother and is still alive.

This is not to be confused with alive. It is assumed that during the entire pregnancy that what is in the womb was alive. Your appendix is alive. If I remove it from your body and let it die have I committed murder?

I am not a lawyer but that is how I interpret the questions posed in this case.

Starboy

[kingjust]

TinyBear & Almost Alice.

Sorry for the rant, but basically what i'm trying to say is that there are to many people in this country that are tyring to impose their opinions and beliefs onto us,... just because they think it's wrong. It's like everyone thrives on the shit that is one TV, hell I do it when it comes to certain issues. Everyone is in everyones business, and if they do not like what you are doing, when it has no effect on no one else, and it doesn't concern anyone else, your wrong because "THEY" said so.

I say fuck that and fuck you (not to anyone specific), leave me be and don't impose what you think is right onto me.

Er....are you OK? You sound as if you're drunk or something.

Yes I am fine and, No, I am not drunk, just very opinionated.

I'll second tinybear's sentiments... Just for the hell of it, though, you're saying that a person should be allowed to kill their child "just because?" That's kind of a screwy way of looking at it. Oh, 'hysterectomy', 'serfs'...for future reference, of course.

Honostly, who am I or anyone else to questions her immediate actions, I may say it's fucked up, but I don't support her nor am I the father. But..... the aftermath is where I have a problem. She had 2 previous abortions before this happened. And no one saw this coming. But now we know, so that is why I said "Sew the hole up..." because she is not mentally stable or something is not right in her head to bare any type of living being, maybe not even kittens, if you get my drift. So it's not kinda screwy, i'm sure you don't like everyone to control what you can and cannot do when it's just about you and it only effects you or what you have created, it's her life and the life she and the father created. Who are you or anyone else to question the immediate action, as I stated before. But something should be done to prevent her complete disregarded abuse of her... how can I say, gift or curse of baring children. It may sound contradicting to not care what is happening but then try to prevent it from happening again. It's hard to explain. I hope everyone here understands what i'm trying to say.

And thanks for the corrections.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tinybear Well, if you ask me, that's being polite. I would have called them asinine. But then I'm not a professional writer, so what do I know?

Judging by the implication of your own post; very little, you shouldn't be so harsh on your self.

However as to the idea that the judges are asinine or "liberal", that is not true, the position of a judge is to interpret law, so if they have reached this conclusion in regards to this scenario, then it suggests that the law takes a "liberal" stance on what constitutes life.

However I would not put any faith in a site which apparently cannot even create a simple web page: -



This banner was stretched most poorly, hardly a good advert for the site. It shows they lack any ability to construct a site in a professional manner.

It hardly suggests professionalism on their part. Just like the article was written in an unprofessional manner, totally lacking any objectivity.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Starboy The legal question would be, 'When is what is in the womb become a human being and therefore possess some or all of the rights of a human being, one of which is not being killed by other people let alone your mother?’ It appears that the law is saying that it does not become human until it has completely separated from its mother and is still alive. This is not to be confused with alive. It is assumed that during the entire pregnancy that what is in the womb was alive. Your appendix is alive. If I remove it from your body and let it die have I committed murder? I am not a lawyer but that is how I interpret the questions posed in this case. Starboy

As I understand it, the situation is this: Abortion, i.e. killing the foetus is legal. The question is therefore when does a foetus cease to be one and assume an independent life of its own so that killing it amounts to murder. The court held that it doesn't cease to be a foetus unless and until complete separation from the mother.

[ericsp23]

In my opinion, this judge is not condoning this act. His hands are tied by the laws that are on the books, which define abortion in a certain manner. Until further legislation is passed, he can only enforce those laws, and if the law says that the child is still a fetus until completely seperated from the mother, then he has no choice but to use that standard to judge this case.
I think everyone can agree that this is wrong, and that this woman has some serious problems. But the judge's hands are tied here. In order to prevent future tragedies such as this, we need legislation to clarify exactly when a fetus becomes a human being.

[tinybear]

What do you mean his hands are tied? It's his call as to when a foetus ceases to be one. He may well have held that once it comes out of the womb, it has an independent life of its own albeit the cord has not been cut.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: tinybear What do you mean his hands are tied? It's his call as to when a foetus ceases to be one. He may well have held that once it comes out of the womb, it has an independent life of its own albeit the cord has not been cut.

No it is not, the law dictates what he can and cannot do, his job is to interpret the law, not decide it. Your issue is with your president, your senet and your congress to alter the existing laws.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tinybear As I understand it, the situation is this: Abortion, i.e. killing the foetus is legal. The question is therefore when does a foetus cease to be one and assume an independent life of its own so that killing it amounts to murder. The court held that it doesn't cease to be a foetus unless and until complete separation from the mother.

I agree that is the question.

Starboy

[tinybear]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No it is not, the law dictates what he can and cannot do, his job is to interpret the law, not decide it. Your issue is with your president, your senet and your congress to alter the existing laws.

Where is it written in the statute books that a newborn baby remains a foetus with no independent life of its own unless and until completely separated from the mother?

[BloodEagle]

The arguement also fits a recent murder in the UK. The 14 yr old girl that was murdered. She was six months pregnant at the time. Had she been found in time it is possible the baby could have survived and now many argue the the perp should be tried for a double murder.

[Plegmund]

My guess is that the judge simply thought no useful purpose was being served by keeping this woman in jail and looked for any argument which would justify releasing her - even one which doesn't actually make much sense.

[tinybear]

In that case, the judge probably violated the judicial oath he took when he swore to uphold and apply the law to the best of his ability. Even if he did not, he arrived at a decision which, though based on what he perceived to be pragmatism, was nonetheless perverse and contrary to common sense. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld his decision though.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: tinybear And here I thought Volconvo was teeming with liberals! What? No liberal has any views on the case?

No, it cover more the Left fringe Right fringe and then some that are just fringe because they heard it was a great way to pick up chicks.
There are hard left, hard righties that are not fringe, and are quite proud of who and what they are.

[Plegmund]

Well, I don't know, tinybear - he didn't swear to uphold the law unimaginatively, did he? I expect judges often decide what the right outcome is first and then look for ways to square it with the law. I agree that the reasoning looks a bit threadbare in this case.

[tinybear]

A great way to pick up chicks? What are you talking about?

[Mr.Vicchio]

I was trying to be funny.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I was trying to be funny.

You made me chuckle.

[tinybear]

It puzzled me. And we're off topic.