More Legal Hypocrisy In Death Of Fetus
Posted by Casey on November 9, 2008
Notice: I am not advocating any position for either pro-life or pro-choice in this post. My point is that the legal code of the United States is blatantly hypocritical when it comes to what is alive, and what is property.
There is a horrible case here in Vegas in which an 18 week old fetus was shot and killed during a murder. Our District Attorney, David Roger, has found a loophole in which he can charge the murderer with manslaughter as well because of the 18 week old fetus.
A “quick child” is a child that has moved in the mother’s womb. The DA wasn’t originally going to be able to charge Keck with the death of the fetus.
Naturally, some people are mortified that you can’t charge someone with murder for the death of a fetus, but in the US legal code a fetus is property … not life. A mother’s body is her property, and she may do as she wishes with it. That is how the courts determine that a mother has the right to abort a pregnancy. The mother would not have that right without a fetus being designated ‘property’ by the courts.
That’s the hypocrisy. How can you charge someone with murder (as some states do), or manslaughter in the death of a fetus if the fetus is ‘legally’ considered property? The answer is, you can’t. At least you shouldn’t be allowed to, but the courts are so convoluted when it comes to life that these loopholes exist. What makes the matter worse is how utterly stupid the pro-lifers and pro-choicers are in their dealing with this issue. The pro-lifers never use logical arguments backed up by the law, and science, to make their case. The pro-choicers are so retarded that they actually think the choice of the mother is the only thing that creates a distinction between life and property.
Read some of the comments from the newspaper’s website about these charges:
Erin wrote on November 06, 2008 12:42 PM:
I don’t know how anyone can classify this as an abortion issue. An abortion is any SURGICAL method of removing a fetus to end a pregnancy. I don’t know what article you are reading, but no where did I read anything about a surgical act, just a poor soon-to-be-mother who was brutally attacked and lost 2 very important people in her life! Neighbors or no neighbors, how many of you are going to try and stop someone who has a chainsaw and a gun? Hopefully you would call 911, but by the time anyone got there, this horrible crime would have already been finished. So everyone needs to get off their politcal soapboxes and pray, send good vibes, or whatever it is you do, for Angel for a full recovery! My goodness, where is the heart and compassion for humankind!
mercy me wrote on November 06, 2008 03:46 PM:
Hey Pro lifers! How incompetent of you. When women have an Abortion it is their choice to do so. whether you disagree or not it is still a LEGAL procedure. When a psychopath shoots you and kills your baby against your will, that is called MURDER. Why don’t you go Protest in front of an abortion clinic where you could possibly change someones mind and do some good, as opposed to throwing your useless beliefs in a conversation that isn’t even about abortion
Both of these people, and their respective supporters on the thread, are flat-out idiots. This case IS an abortion issue because the only reason a pregnant woman has the right to abort is because the fetus is considered her property. Since, legally speaking, an 18 week old fetus is only considered property … how can this guy be charged with manslaughter? It flies in the face of our current legal code as it pertains to the legal standing of a fetus. Furthermore, the notion that a fetus ceases to be a woman’s property because another party killed it is extremely uneducated and juvenile. Either the fetus is someone’s property, or it is not … which is it?
The truth is … we don’t know. I’m, of course, only referring to the legal code. Not your personal beliefs. If a fetus is property, as it is in the law, then you can not charge anyone with the death of a fetus. Period … end of story. If you are going to charge someone with the death of a fetus, then it is not property and must be considered a living being. Period … end of story. If we go the route of a fetus being property then we can only charge this Keck guy with malicious destruction of property, and nothing else. If the fetus is considered a living being we must also charge the mother with ending a life. Our legal code is meant to be applied uniformly, but it currently isn’t meeting that requirement when it comes to a fetus. Nor is it meeting that requirement when it comes to animals as well.
If the fetus is property then the mother has the right to do as she wishes with her property. That same standard is not applied to her pets though. This is intriguing, and enraging to me at the same time. Your pet is considered your property under the law. That is, until you harm your pet. Then the pet ceases to be property, and becomes a living creature. What the hell is that about? Either the pet is property, and I can do as I wish to it. Or the pet is a living creature, and I must treat it as such. Pets actually have more protection under the law than a fetus. Did you know that?
In both of these examples of hypocrisy in our legal code we must decide whether or not a fetus, or pet, is alive. Or if the two are considered property. This latest case is serving as an additional example of how convoluted our laws have become as a result of activist judges passing legislation they constitutionally aren’t allowed to pass. That’s all Roe v. Wade was. An illegal ruling by the court that is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution … regardless of your stance on life.
Legally speaking, this guy is being over charged for his crime. Howver, I applaud David Roger for his ingenuity in finding a life-based charge in the Nevada legal code. Non of this takes away from the fact that we have to make a final decision, at some point, on what is property and what is life.
So what do you think? Is a fetus life, or property?
4 Responses to “More Legal Hypocrisy In Death Of Fetus”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.